[News] A woman is a woman.

[DJ NOBO]

Firstly, there are always people who over stretch the mark in regards to protests. Wider agendas are always interested in the linking a whole movement to a single placard.

Secondly, the label 'hate filled' is appropriate for someone holding a placard like that (not a movement in general), but to be precise, I would only label someone 'violent' if there is evidence they commit violence not advocate for it. To clarify, I think those placards are outrageous but I'm not going to fall for the right wing media narrative that they represent the aims of protest and not the idiotic individuals holding them.

You’re reading quite a lot into the comment jc Denton made, which you objected to .
It was entirely fair given what those placards said.
Out of interest, do you condemn the messages on those placards? A yes or no will do it

 

[Hugo Rune]

Police records will not give you any data on this as crimes, including rape, are only recorded as being committed by a women.

I'm not sure this is still true but this is the major troupe used by trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Essentially, they imply that all women in prison for sexual offences are trans-women because there is not data to counter that view because it's not recorded (historically).

In regards to rape, their niche view that women can not commit this crime is the opposite of the majority of the country.

What is considered ‘rape’? The public’s definition differs greatly from the law | YouGov

Britons say the definition should be expanded to include crimes by women, and not restricted purely to penetration with the penis

yougov.co.uk

Finally, and once again, male rapists seem to be claiming trans status in order to lessen their crime, sentence or punishment. This is ignored by trans-exclusionary radical feminists academics because is does not play into their narrative.

 

[Hugo Rune]

You’re reading quite a lot into the comment jc Denton made, which you objected to .
It was entirely fair given what those placards said.
Out of interest, do you condemn the messages on those placards? A yes or no will do it

FFS. Read my previous response to you on this. Jesus!

 

[DJ NOBO]

FFS. Read my previous response to you on this. Jesus!

I did read your previous response .
The question stands.
To help I’ll make it clearer.
Do you completely condemn the messages on those placards, no ifs, no buts, no maybes, no excuses ?

Friendly Tip: try and make your posts a little more to the point while still being respectful

 

[Hugo Rune]

I did read your previous response .
The question stands.
To help I’ll make it clearer.
Do you completely condemn the messages on those placards, no ifs, no buts, no maybes, no excuses ?

Friendly Tip: try and make your posts a little more to the point while still being respectful

 

[chip]

.

 

[DJ NOBO]

View attachment 200596

Ah, ok. I got confused when you started blaming right wing agendas.
I’m taking the answer to my question to be a yes. Unacceptable under any circumstances and not the fault of anyone else bar the placard users

 

[Hugo Rune]

Ah, ok. I got confused when you started blaming right wing agendas.
I’m taking the answer to my question to be a yes. Unacceptable under any circumstances and not the fault of anyone else bar the placard users

More than that. I think those carrying these death threat placards should be interviewed by the Police as a minimum.

 

[DJ NOBO]

More than that. I think those carrying these death threat placards should be interviewed by the Police as a minimum.

To not handle it robustly will only add to the perception of a two tier legal system, whether it’s a justified perception or not

 

[chip]

There is so much in that paper to debunk. Thanks so much for providing this link as it demonstrates the absolute lack of credibility for the sort of assumptions that Stock and her cohort make.

To clarify a few things for you.

1. Kathleen Stock was enlisted by the Tory government to support their culture war against trans people. She gave evidence after she resigned at Sussex (due to what she says was pressure from colleagues and her Union, UCU coming out against her).

2. Do you consider Kathleen Stock the best academic to present evidence to Parliament when she is clearly bias against trans-women and rejects the science around gender dysphoria, instead believing that gender is entirely a social construct?

3. She only has one study to quote. From one country, that is Sweden. If you look at sample size

4. She picks and chooses which areas to include or mention data on GRCs. For example, with the Swedish study, the implies that crime rates of trans -women could be much higher because non-GRC trans people are not included. Then in the crime figures she quotes, she uses no context (such as they include non-GRCs) which could weaken her bias laden conclusion. This is important because you'd want to see how many criminals claim that they are trans AFTER conviction in order to try and get a more favourable sentence or conditions in prison. Kathleen Stock is the last person on the planet who would look at including those sorts of caveats because she is a philosopher and activist arguing for an overall viewpoint not a scientist or statistician interested in impartiality or truth.

True, there isn't much quantative evidence and we all have our own perspectives on what is significant. But, I completely disagree with your assessment of Kathleen Stock OBE. You are trying to discredit a highly respected philosophy professor awarded the OBE for their services to education.

1. She resigned from Sussex in 2021 after her employer failed to adequately protect her from continual abuse. Sussex were fined £585000 for their failure to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom public interest governance principles - you can't allow people to be silenced just because you don'y like what they say (within the law).

2. Yes, she is not biased against, she has a different interpretation of the qualitative arguments. There were three women authors of that submission.

3. You wouldn't want to change the status quo without strong supporting evidence.

4. Again, I think this is completely normal. There are not many studies or data, there are no meta-reviews.

I didn't reply to your comments on a previous post, but you seem to think science deals in truth. It's only our best current approximation and it can change dramatically when people have ouragous ideas that challenge our strongly held beliefs, e.g. Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Mendel, Leibnitz, etc. Philosophy is central to our understanding of science, after all science is just natural philosophy - trying to understand the universe we exist in within the constraints of human thought. Rather than trying to discredit the messenger, why not discredit the argument(s)?

It's not that I particularly disagree with you, except that as an academic scientist who does to much statistal analysis I don't think there is a "right" answer to this, it doesn't have an analytical or statistical solution. If you are really interested in impartiality and truth (whatever that is) you have to accept that others will have different understandings of the same evidence. Bias in academic journals does exist and is a real threat to academic freedom and science:

‘This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research

Cass review found professionals in the field are scared to discuss views amid risk of reputational damage and online abuse

www.theguardian.com

 

[BadFish]

Not finished this one yet but it's nice to get a different view.

 

[rippleman]

As evidenced by contributions to this thread, it is an extremely difficult topic with so many nuances.

I like to use the amazing Grayson Perry as an example. If I were to encounter them when dressed and presenting as his female alter-ego Claire, I would always use she/her and refer to her as "Claire". If not, it would be he / him and would call him Grayson.

So that, for me is the easy bit, Where I struggle would be which public toilet they should use as "Claire". I can fully understand why women wouldn't want a biological male using womens toilets. At the same time I recognise the inherent dangers of a trans woman using a male toilet. (For toilets also read changing rooms and similar). There is no simple answer.

When it comes to those who don't identify as male or female, and were "he" this morning and "she" by bedtime, or are they / them / it, I really can't be bothered to put much effort in.

As a veteran of over 50 Rocky Horror Shows, more than once I have been in the gents along with trans and non trans women Was I offended? Did I protest? Of course not.

 

[BadFish]

As evidenced by contributions to this thread, it is an extremely difficult topic with so many nuances.

I like to use the amazing Grayson Perry as an example. If I were to encounter them when dressed and presenting as his female alter-ego Claire, I would always use she/her and refer to her as "Claire". If not, it would be he / him and would call him Grayson.

So that, for me is the easy bit, Where I struggle would be which public toilet they should use as "Claire". I can fully understand why women wouldn't want a biological male using womens toilets. At the same time I recognise the inherent dangers of a trans woman using a male toilet. (For toilets also read changing rooms and similar). There is no simple answer.

When it comes to those who don't identify as male or female, and were "he" this morning and "she" by bedtime, or are they / them / it, I really can't be bothered to put much effort in.

As a veteran of over 50 Rocky Horror Shows, more than once I have been in the gents along with trans and non trans women Was I offended? Did I protest? Of course not.

I think this post is more about drag than trans.

As you say it's complex and nuanced but we need to make sure we are talking about the right things. Something I think is possibly happening a lot of this thread.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think this post is more about drag than trans.

As you say it's complex and nuanced but we need to make sure we are talking about the right things. Something I think is possibly happening a lot of this thread.

I suspect there are many who still don't recognize the difference between gender and biological sex.
It is what it is

 

[BadFish]

I suspect there are many who still don't recognize the difference between gender and biological sex.
It is what it is

On no account should we let this lack of understanding impinge on a person's right to their opinion.

Btw not directed at you rippleman.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I suspect there are many who still don't recognize the difference between gender and biological sex.
It is what it is

The bigger problem isn't down to recognition of the difference between gender and biological sex. It's down to what the laws and customs should be in respect to both.

As I see it, there are two logical possibilities to this conundrum - I make no comment as to which is right.

1. That there is no difference between gender and biological sex and therefore the law should be the same for both.
2. That there is a big difference between gender and sex and therefore the law should take that into account in applying different rules for both.

The third option appears to be the preferred solution of the trans lobby, which is

3. That there is a big difference between gender and sex and the law should be the same for both.

Option 3 is surely the one that many people will not and cannot agree with.

 

[BadFish]

The bigger problem isn't down to recognition of the difference between gender and biological sex. It's down to what the laws and customs should be in respect to both.

As I see it, there are two logical possibilities to this conundrum - I make no comment as to which is right.

1. That there is no difference between gender and biological sex and therefore the law should be the same for both.
2. That there is a big difference between gender and sex and therefore the law should take that into account in applying different rules for both.

The third option appears to be the preferred solution of the trans lobby, which is

3. That there is a big difference between gender and sex and the law should be the same for both.

Option 3 is surely the one that many people will not and cannot agree with.

The last option is that we accept that a small number of people experience a dysphoria around the lining up of their sex and gender. We also accept that they need to take some steps to accommodate that dysphoria in order to be comfortable in their bodies.

From what i can see this decision has set us back a few steps.it has been mentioned that it provides clarity, however it doesn't seem to provide clarity for those affected. Which is a shame.

 

[BadFish]

So, after this clarifying ruling from the Supreme Court and pages of discussion, where do we stand?

If someone has transitions from male to female, what do you classify them as?

- Still a man
- a woman
- other (a trans woman?)

 

[Curious Orange]

The last option is that we accept that a small number of people experience a dysphoria around the lining up of their sex and gender. We also accept that they need to take some steps to accommodate that dysphoria in order to be comfortable in their bodies.

From what i can see this decision has set us back a few steps.it has been mentioned that it provides clarity, however it doesn't seem to provide clarity for those affected. Which is a shame.

I agree with most of that, though I think it is more a resetting of expectations rather than taking steps back as such.

 

[Curious Orange]

So, after this clarifying ruling from the Supreme Court and pages of discussion, where do we stand?

If someone has transitions from male to female, what do you classify them as?

- Still a man
- a woman
- other (a trans woman?)

Interesting question, and I suspect that the context in which a given term is being used would be important. But generally speaking I think trans woman and trans man are broadly understood.

So to answer your question, a male to female transitioner is a trans woman, they are still male and could be treated as a man in respect to some aspects of the law (there are actually circumstances where they could invoke sex discrimination as a woman btw), but may be referred to as a woman in polite company.