What is a woman?

[bobzmyunkle]

The BMA have given a statement - so the evidence of that is easy to find. Evidence of all doctors being polled for their medical opinions I don't have and never expressed it in those terms.

Statement on what?

 

[monkers]

Statement on what?

They have made a critique of the Supreme Court's reasoning.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The BMA have given a statement - so the evidence of that is easy to find. Evidence of all doctors being polled for their medical opinions I don't have and never expressed it in those terms.

To save my time, here is a co -pilot reply ...




Here is a link to a report in the Indi ...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...omen-as-scientifically-illiterate/ar-AA1DPciE

Hopefully we can agree that neither the BMA or 50,000 doctors have done any such thing.
But that's already been covered, so why are you repeating it?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, it is true that Stonewall recommended a review to reconsider access to women's spaces. That is well known, but it offers no evidence of wrongdoing.

You can hardly claim they were receiving confusing info when they themselves were so clear that the EA had exemptions based on sex that they decided to campaign for them to be removed.

It was exactly because Stonewall et al were sowing confusion that the EHRC issued clear guidance that all men could be excluded from women's spaces. Which of course you then had a melt down about on here, claimed the EHRC was biased and UN human rights something something...

 

[AuroraSaab]

However 50 000 doctors in the BMA disagree with you. That's a lot of doctors, especially compared with 5 Supreme Court judges without medical knowledge.

It wasn't 50k doctors at all though was it? It was a vote on a motion put forward fairly last minute. We don't even seem to know if it was a vote in the hall from attendees or a vote by the committee. It certainly wasn't supported by 50k doctors.

 

[monkers]

Hopefully we can agree that neither the BMA or 50,000 doctors have done any such thing.
But that's already been covered, so why are you repeating it?

Well I didn't ask the questions that you did beforehand, but I have now, so it was fair to question it.

The BMA held a conference on the 2nd May. After debating the matter, a motion was passed to publish their joint critique of the SC's decision.

BMA members could vote in person or vote on-line. Information came via co pilot.

 

[monkers]

It wasn't 50k doctors at all though was it? It was a vote on a motion put forward fairly last minute. We don't even seem to know if it was a vote in the hall from attendees or a vote by the committee. It certainly wasn't supported by 50k doctors.

The BMA represents about 50 000 doctors. All of these members had an opportunity to vote in person or on-line. I have a friend I can ask for more information - I'll get back to you if they can obtain the voting record.

Addendum.
Apparently the turn out for the vote was 71%, and though she can't remember the numbers of for and against with any certainty, she does say that support for the motion was ''overwhelming''. She says that the number of members supporting therefore was greater than two thirds.

Second text received, although it was an extra item to the original agenda, the motion was debated.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Regardless of who voted, the motion appears to be something along these lines

“This meeting condemns the Supreme Court ruling defining the term ‘woman’.”

“We recognise as doctors that sex and gender are complex and multifaceted aspects of the human condition and attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people.”

So the first bit appears to condemn something that didn't happen as the SC was making a judgement on the 2010 act only.
The second bit is just gobbledygook that (perhaps intentionally) conflates sex and gender. And is no doubt worded so that the nice to be nice folk will be drawn to agree.

 

[monkers]

Regardless of who voted, the motion appears to be something along these lines

“This meeting condemns the Supreme Court ruling defining the term ‘woman’.”

“We recognise as doctors that sex and gender are complex and multifaceted aspects of the human condition and attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people.”

So the first bit appears to condemn something that didn't happen as the SC was making a judgement on the 2010 act only.
The second bit is just gobbledygook that (perhaps intentionally) conflates sex and gender. And is no doubt worded so that the nice to be nice folk will be drawn to agree.

Sorry Bob. Often we are on common ground but not here. There is a criticism to be made, but you missed it - the SC did not define 'woman'.
It didn't even say that trans people should or should not be protected in the classification of sex, they say that it does not say that it does.

I think you'll find that doctors have a pretty good idea about the meaning of sex.

The problem is that those if you ask 100 different people what they understand about the interaction of sex as biology, the role of sex in society, gender roles in society, gender expression, and gender identity, you'll get 100 different answers with many sounding on the very weird - and we've read some of those here!

Aurora claims that she has no gender identity, yet I will bet if you we knew Aurora in life instead of this place, we'd quickly identify the gender roles that she performs.

One function in feminism was to change the way that women were historically seen, be treated, and expected to behave. They did not wish to carry on being tied to the gender roles of unpaid skivvies.

I say 'they' for women rather than 'me' because my situation of being a dyke meant submitting myself to husbandry, I was not domestically affected by it. No scrubbing of men's gussets for me!

 

[AuroraSaab]

Aurora claims that she has no gender identity, yet I will bet if you we knew Aurora in life instead of this place, we'd quickly identify the gender roles that she performs.

Gender roles like what? Child care? Doing the ironing? If doing those things mean your gender identity is 'woman' that is incredibly sexist and regressive. But of course, the whole trans thing is based on stereotypes. What is there to transition to other than stereotypes of how the other sex dresses or behaves?

Sexism = the women should do the dishes. Feminism = men or women can do the dishes. Gender ideology = whoever is doing the dishes is a woman.

'How do I know my gender identity is 'woman'?'

'Do you do woman-y things? You're a woman'.

 

[classic33]

Gender roles like what? Child care? Doing the ironing? If doing those things mean your gender identity is 'woman' that is incredibly sexist and regressive. But of course, the whole trans thing is based on stereotypes. What is there to transition to other than stereotypes of how the other sex dresses or behaves?

Sexism = the women should do the dishes. Feminism = men or women can do the dishes. Gender ideology = whoever is doing the dishes is a woman.

'How do I know my gender identity is 'woman'?'

'Do you do woman-y things? You're a woman'.

Blimey, I do the dishes, the washing, the ironing, even sewing. I bought my own sewing machines(one a medium industrial machine) for my own use. It's been used for tent repair and heavy materials. I've an "emergency repair kit" carried when going on holiday. Which has thrown some relatives. It's come in handy over the years, and is usually within reach. Not always for what you'd use a needle and thread in a home setting.
The sewing meant I could repair/patch clothing worn for work. The heavier machine bought meant repairs, that would usually mean taking them to a specialist, could be done at home saving money, time and trouble.

 

[monkers]

Gender roles like what? Child care? Doing the ironing? If doing those things mean your gender identity is 'woman' that is incredibly sexist and regressive.

That is almost my point. That is something that feminism sought to achieve, an end to the identity of women being only the sum of the domestic gender roles to which they were tied.

But I do cooking, washing and ironing, but not because it is tied to a gender role expectation of a man, but because I look after myself.

I effected my own escape from that early on in my life.

But of course, the whole trans thing is based on stereotypes. What is there to transition to other than stereotypes of how the other sex dresses or behave

No. The thread bears witness that it is you creating stereotypes and caricatures of trans women, and they are all harmful. Your stereotypes set out to make people believe that trans women are predators. When asked for evidence you can't bring it. When I say that trans women are not a group predators, I bring the evidence. I shouldn't have to go looking for evidence to bust the myths that you peddle, but you put people in the position of having to waste their lives wasting their time to prove that you have this nasty cruel streak.

How women dress is not consistent with women as one group or with time. Women wear a variety of styles which are often quite masculine. Fashion is a thing; trends change over time. Women rarely restrict themselves to a single look or style. The choice relates to the occasion as much as anything else.

Likewise for trans women, they just try to fit in wearing the clothes that other women wear. The people that Mickle, Magandy and you like to show pictures of are not trying to fit in, they are expressing something else, and whatever that is has nothing to do with you unless you have the evidence that these people are actually harming others. But you don't and neither did Mickle with his efforts to create his own little private freak show.

Perceptions are born of stereotypes, that how butch lesbians are now confronted by Karens in places like toilets. It's how Lucy was violently attacked on her doorstep by thugs chanting transphobia. It's how the police were not sympathetic. It's how she died days later in hospital.

It's you that is the dangerous one, not my niece who has helped put men and women behind bars for assaulting others.

You are motivated by hatred of a group of people that you haven't tried to understand. Shame on you.

 

[monkers]

You can hardly claim they were receiving confusing info when they themselves were so clear that the EA had exemptions based on sex that they decided to campaign for them to be removed.

It was exactly because Stonewall et al were sowing confusion that the EHRC issued clear guidance that all men could be excluded from women's spaces. Which of course you then had a melt down about on here, claimed the EHRC was biased and UN human rights something something...

It's futile to pretend that the commission were not the ones giving out the advice that trans women are protected under the protected characteristic of sex and gender reassignment. They weren't just saying it to Stonewall, it was in their guidelines to service providers. Citizens Advice were issuing the same advice. Previous governments were giving out the advice to schools.

When I last worked, I was an Assistant Principal of a large FE &HE college, this was the advice I was being sent by government. This was also a criteria being used by OFSTED to assess provision in schools and colleges. It wasn't Stonewall issuing advice to schools, it was government.

What Stonewall was offering was advice and materials on implementing the required curriculum stated by government.

I and others working in education, understood about the available exclusions, of course we did, but we also knew that we could not implement blanket bans, that policy needed demonstrate that exclusions were evidence-based according to risk factors.

If I have ''meltdowns'' it is because YOU are a persistent funking liar who is full of hate for a minority who have never harmed you.

When Stonewall made recommendations to the all party select committee, they were fulfilling a brief. They were answering the question, and to paraphrase it - ''how do we get out of this mess when we as a government have failed to provide appropriate levels of treatment and when service providers are confused, and when so many tribunals are called without consistent outcomes.'' There was a need for a fix. Stonewall's recommendations were the measures needed to provide that fix. The select committee agreed. They recommended these actions to the then Prime Minister who agreed them.

No person, no organisation, no parliament, no government, no court has been safe from your criticism, not even the women's institute of the women's groups of the United Nations. Everything had to be attacked and smeared with your lies.

 

[CXRAndy]

Any sport, competitive or social.

If it says female or women- trans will be excluded

More open categories should be implemented

View: https://youtu.be/sUIfoaduzYY?si=6VpiY0Wr6oFL31MT

 

[AuroraSaab]

You've said that if you observed me for a day you would know what my gender identity is. What would you need to observe to know it was 'woman' or 'man'?

I don't have a gender identity. My sex is female. The rest is personality.

List 5 observable things that tell you what a person's gender identity is. Just 5 will do.

Off you go ...