Gender again. Sorry!

[Deleted member 159]

Sarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR19 February 2024 • 8:43pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/19/men-women-brains-work-differently-scientists-discover/

Looks like it took you long enough, you thick cûnt

 

[multitool]

Sarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR19 February 2024 • 8:43pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/19/men-women-brains-work-differently-scientists-discover/

And to prove my point, you've done it again. You couldn't even manage to post the correct link.

Besides, you haven't read it, have you...

"‌Dr Gina Rippon, emeritus professor of cognitive neuroimaging at the Aston Brain Centre, and author of The Gendered Brain, has argued that society is to blame for brain differences in men and women.

‌Commenting on the study, she said: “The really intriguing issue is that those areas of the brain which are most reliably distinguishing the sexes are key parts of the social brain.

‌“The key issue is whether these differences are a product of sex-specific, biological influences, or of brain-changing gendered experiences. Or both. Are we really looking at sex differences? Or gender differences?"

 

[Deleted member 121]

Erm.. she's not a Doctor. Just a vile bigot. She claims to have an 'Honorary Doctorship' but fails to mention where (a dodgy internet Uni probably) and, on her webpage, there's no mention of any 'Doctor.' You really must check this stuff out. It only took me 5 mins to find out that she was a fraud, as all these people are.

View attachment 5502

She's a pretty awful person frankly and is precisely why she is liked by the likes of Andy, because it is by design.

She is anti-social justice, anti-feminism, anti-multiculturism, anti-trans, and pro-gun. She seems to just hate people. But that's OK because she is unsurprisingly, pro-gun. I wonder why?

The reality of what she is doing is quite simple to me. Grabbing the attention of the conservative crowd, in particular the Men for financial gain, playing the algorithm on the likes of Youtube and raking it in. Negative attention and being outrageous is still attention and for youtube its all about engagement and your channel will get lifted in the rankings which equates to more money. There have been a number of controversies over the years featuring genuine Nazi's, who feature the SS Totenkopf and the Swastika and they get the views, eventually youtube remove them, but up until recently with the advertiser backlashes, they were pretty slow at doing so...

 

[AuroraSaab]

I thought a key tenet of this whole thing was that some people were born with a differently sexed brain that didn't match their body?
But now you're quoting Gina Ripon, who I've mentioned several times on here, who has debunked that theory and says that the very minor differences between male and female brains can be the result of social behaviour.

..... which means that transwomen are just the same as other men, and transmen are just the same as other women.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Erm.. she's not a Doctor. Just a vile bigot. She claims to have an 'Honorary Doctorship' but fails to mention where (a dodgy internet Uni probably) and, on her webpage, there's no mention of any 'Doctor.' You really must check this stuff out. It only took me 5 mins to find out that she was a fraud, as all these people are.

Have you looked at the academic papers that this policy is based on? It would take 5 minutes to see that it's a handful of cases of transwomen producing small amounts of secretion using a widely banned drug.

I don't think you need a medical degree to see that inducing lactation in males is a bad idea, or that an NHS trust abandoning the science and promoting it on an ideological basis is unacceptable.

Perhaps if you have another child you could give it a go. It would allow your wife to get some rest while you do the night feeds. I'm sure your newborn will be fine.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Old but still funny, another Darwin award


View: https://twitter.com/JeremyCordite/status/1330864657184198668?t=OJCGEwjdxLI4JOlqwhYE0Q&s=19

 

[Deleted member 159]

'Academics have previously argued that it is society rather than biology that influences divergence' That would be Gina Ripon, referred in the piece

And to prove my point, you've done it again. You couldn't even manage to post the correct link.

Besides, you haven't read it, have you...

"‌Dr Gina Rippon, emeritus professor of cognitive neuroimaging at the Aston Brain Centre, and author of The Gendered Brain, has argued that society is to blame for brain differences in men and women.

‌Commenting on the study, she said: “The really intriguing issue is that those areas of the brain which are most reliably distinguishing the sexes are key parts of the social brain.

‌“The key issue is whether these differences are a product of sex-specific, biological influences, or of brain-changing gendered experiences. Or both. Are we really looking at sex differences? Or gender differences?"

Later research has found sex based neurological differences.

Well fancy that…! Most people with a bit of common sense have always known this !

Hope this helps

 

[cookiemonster]

Have you looked at the academic papers that this policy is based on? It would take 5 minutes to see that it's a handful of cases of transwomen producing small amounts of secretion using a widely banned drug.

I don't think you need a medical degree to see that inducing lactation in males is a bad idea, or that an NHS trust abandoning the science and promoting it on an ideological basis is unacceptable.

Perhaps if you have another child you could give it a go. It would allow your wife to get some rest while you do the night feeds. I'm sure your newborn will be fine.

I was commenting on the fake doctor, not anything else.

You really must pay attention to other people’s posts before replying. Maybe wiping the froth off your computer screen may help.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And you could have taken 5 minutes to look at the source material and comment on the actual issue, which is whether an NHS trust should be promoting ideology over science, rather than dismissing it because you didn't like the person quoted.

 

[cookiemonster]

And you could have taken 5 minutes to look at the source material and comment on the actual issue, which is whether an NHS trust should be promoting ideology over science, rather than dismissing it because you didn't like the person quoted.

I

wasn't

commenting

on

any

material,

just

the

fake

doctor.

Are

you

thick?

No wonder people react the way they do to you on this forum.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You were undermining the issue raised by dismissing the source that Andy used as unreliable. What was the purpose otherwise? Instead you could have spent 5 minutes googling it and made a comment on the actual matter in hand.

 

[classic33]

You were undermining the issue raised by dismissing the source that Andy used as unreliable. What was the purpose otherwise? Instead you could have spent 5 minutes googling it and made a comment on the actual matter in hand.

The "source"* is/was about as reliable as you saying that a drug, used for something other than what it was licensed for was banned.

It went to prescription only, from available over the counter due its misuse. Along with revised prescribing guidelines(In the UK at least). The US banned it for the same reason, but you can buy it from Canada, or even online.

*The "very important doctor" whose doctorate is in either criminology or journalism. Seems to depend on what she's pushing at the time. Both doctorates "gained" at the University of Melbourne, Australia. If she's to be believed, as she's only done one there.
She also campaigned against the petition to to get the "Hottie's of Melbourne University" facebook page closed.

 

[cookiemonster]

You were undermining the issue raised by dismissing the source that Andy used as unreliable. What was the purpose otherwise? Instead you could have spent 5 minutes googling it and made a comment on the actual matter in hand.

They are unreliable as they came from a fake doctor.

That's enough for me not to bother looking at it as it'll be a case of confirmation bias.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You took the time to check out their qualifications but didn't have the time to do 5 mins research on the actual issue, instead dismissing it because you didn't like the source. If you've got kids you probably know that women are told by the NHS not to eat soft cheese whilst pregnant or drink any coffee or alcohol whilst breastfeeding, so I'm surprised you even need a qualified expert to tell you that a drug induced secretion from a man probably isn't a great idea for newborns.

 

[cookiemonster]

You took the time to check out their qualifications but didn't have the time to do 5 mins research on the actual issue, instead dismissing it because you didn't like the source. If you've got kids you probably know that women are told by the NHS not to eat soft cheese whilst pregnant or drink any coffee or alcohol whilst breastfeeding, so I'm surprised you even need a qualified expert to tell you that a drug induced secretion from a man probably isn't a great idea for newborns.

I completed 2 science degrees at University, including a Masters, and one thing we were told by our lecturers is to always check the background of the authors of academic papers before reading them.

I checked.

She's a fake.

She's not a doctor.

So, I will not read her 'research.'

Not interested in your hate.

End of discussion.