The Gender Debate

[coprolite]

18 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Actually, I'm coming to the position of falling on the side of science on this one. It's no more than an interesting scientific question for me rather than something I have a particular issue with. I'm sorry if that is inconvenient for you. You seem desperate to paint me as transphobic. There's no hatred or fear coming from this side of the table.

Other than ridiculous dog's abuse from people like you, I'm hearing no compelling argument whatsoever that gender and sex are different things. Quite the opposite. I haven't seen a good answer to the question of what makes a man an man and a woman a woman. That's because when you remove the link with sex chromosomes you have no words to describe either. That makes absolutely no sense. It's like trying to describe a tree but banning the words "wood", "leaf", "root", "twig", "branch" and green. I haven't seen a single plausible explanation for what "feeling like a man" feels like either. There's no such thing outside of chromosomes. That's why people, including trans people, are struggling to answer the question.

I'm leaning towards the view that sex and gender are probably the same thing, are linked to chromosomes and that trans people can't change their sex chromosomes and therefore can't change their sex.

I'm open to persuasion but only on the basis of science.

As for why trans people feel the way they do? Who knows. And frankly it doesn't really matter.

Having said all of that, these people are humans and deserve to be treated as equals in that regard. Couldn't care less about which toilets they use, which clothes they want to wear, which surgery they do or don't want to have and honestly I'm not too fussed about within reason which pronouns they want to use either. But is a trans man a real man? Or a trans woman a real woman? I'm not persuaded at all for the time being.

Embrace your own life path folks. We'll all be dead soon enough.

The question of what is a man and what is a woman is as much in the realm of linguistics and philosophy as it is in the realm of science. 

I heard a biology professor on the radio stating unequivocally that genetics don't determine maleness or femaleness. It's determined by whether you produce the mobile or static gamete. 

Whether that biological definition can be extrapolated to define the term man/woman is subjective. Personally i do have difficulty accepting that someone born biologically male can be fully a woman. 

But my understanding of the definition doesn't matter. If someone wants to live as a woman, my understanding simply isn't a consideration. Neither is yours. 

I can see why people who understand the man/woman dichotomy in cultural terms can conceive of a biological male as being fully a woman. 

I can also understand the much maligned Terf view that says that trans women can't say that they feel like women, because they can't know how women feel. 

I don't think you're being a transphobe. I do think that you're trying to apply science inappropriately to find the answer, when in fact it's not a science question and there isn't an objective answer. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

33 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The question of what is a man and what is a woman is as much in the realm of linguistics and philosophy as it is in the realm of science. 

I heard a biology professor on the radio stating unequivocally that genetics don't determine maleness or femaleness. It's determined by whether you produce the mobile or static gamete. 

Whether that biological definition can be extrapolated to define the term man/woman is subjective. Personally i do have difficulty accepting that someone born biologically male can be fully a woman. 

But my understanding of the definition doesn't matter. If someone wants to live as a woman, my understanding simply isn't a consideration. Neither is yours. 

I can see why people who understand the man/woman dichotomy in cultural terms can conceive of a biological male as being fully a woman. 

I can also understand the much maligned Terf view that says that trans women can't say that they feel like women, because they can't know how women feel. 

 

I don't think you're being a transphobe. I do think that you're trying to apply science inappropriately to find the answer, when in fact it's not a science question and there isn't an objective answer. 

Very well put answer.

Actually, I’ve not fully made up my mind but I’ll give some thought to your points made.

[welshbairn]

With the trans squabble overtaking tax cuts as the hot topic in the Tory leadership battle..

 

[coprolite]

36 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

That first paragraph? Says who? Who gave them the authority to make that a factual axiomatic statement?

The biology professor is stating an opinion (as is the way with much of science), not a fact. That position needs to be hardened through evidence and fact gathering. It isn't enough to simply declare that the definition of a woman has changed and that we all somehow just need to get with the program. That isn't how scientific discourse works.

I'm not sure why you've posted the bit in red. I'm not arguing that at all.

The bit in blue - I'm ignoring the transphobe bit because it's not appropriate to this discussion given the ;lengths I went to to explain my views on equality of all humans. But you're again making axiomatic statements (underlined) for some reason best known to yourself with no basis in fact.

The question was simply about the fact that we've had a working definition of what makes a man and a woman for millenia. Now virtually overnight, a handful of people are wandering around preaching to us that we're wrong but without feeling compelled to tell us what the "real" definition actually is. I've heard ridiculous circular arguments of "we should just accept it without questioning it" and variations on "a woman is a woman". I've heard the question being described as transphobic, passive aggressive and a distraction. That tells me that the people demanding this change of word usage have no idea what they are asking of folk.

You want equality? Absolutely. Have it in spades. But the difference between a man and a woman lies in biological fact as far as I'm concerned until someone can provide proof that it isn't. That is a very different position from either transphobia or wanting to inspect genitalia at toilet doors and it would be great if people had the intelligence to distinguish between the two (not necessarily talking about you here BTW).

Your opinion is that the man/woman dichotomy is a biological question. 

Biology deals in one type of knowledge, empirical knowledge. 

There is a whole body of philosophy about the nature of knowledge. Empirical knowledge is only one type. 

The question of what words mean is obviously a linguistic matter. Does "woman" mean biologically female? Is a linguistic question, with the empirical science defining the latter but not the former term. 

[Thorongil]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

That first paragraph? Says who? Who gave them the authority to make that a factual axiomatic statement?

The biology professor is stating an opinion (as is the way with much of science), not a fact. That position needs to be hardened through evidence and fact gathering. It isn't enough to simply declare that the definition of a woman has changed and that we all somehow just need to get with the program. That isn't how scientific discourse works.

I'm not sure why you've posted the bit in red. I'm not arguing that at all.

The bit in blue - I'm ignoring the transphobe bit because it's not appropriate to this discussion given the ;lengths I went to to explain my views on equality of all humans. But you're again making axiomatic statements (underlined) for some reason best known to yourself with no basis in fact.

The question was simply about the fact that we've had a working definition of what makes a man and a woman for millenia. Now virtually overnight, a handful of people are wandering around preaching to us that we're wrong but without feeling compelled to tell us what the "real" definition actually is. I've heard ridiculous circular arguments of "we should just accept it without questioning it" and variations on "a woman is a woman". I've heard the question being described as transphobic, passive aggressive and a distraction. That tells me that the people demanding this change of word usage have no idea what they are asking of folk.

You want equality? Absolutely. Have it in spades. But the difference between a man and a woman lies in biological fact as far as I'm concerned until someone can provide proof that it isn't. That is a very different position from either transphobia or wanting to inspect genitalia at toilet doors and it would be great if people had the intelligence to distinguish between the two (not necessarily talking about you here BTW).

You have no change of breaking through with reason on this not on many other subjects. Morons gonna moron.

[Thorongil]

27 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Your opinion is that the man/woman dichotomy is a biological question. 

Biology deals in one type of knowledge, empirical knowledge. 

There is a whole body of philosophy about the nature of knowledge. Empirical knowledge is only one type. 

The question of what words mean is obviously a linguistic matter. Does "woman" mean biologically female? Is a linguistic question, with the empirical science defining the latter but not the former term. 

Yes, it does mean that. People can pretend it means something else if they like, by all means, but they don’t get to force others to change their interpretation. Seeking to do so by smear, threat or any other form of aggression will not work. 

[coprolite]

46 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Yes, it does mean that. People can pretend it means something else if they like, by all means, but they don’t get to force others to change their interpretation. Seeking to do so by smear, threat or any other form of aggression will not work. 

Again, your opinion. 

Your opinion, like @oaksoft's happens to be similar to mine.

The difference is that you are both insisting that your opinion is the only valid one. 

I don't think i've smeared or threatened anyone. Not yet anyway, but the night is young. 

[Thorongil]

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

Again, your opinion. 

Your opinion, like @oaksoft's happens to be similar to mine.

The difference is that you are both insisting that your opinion is the only valid one. 

I don't think i've smeared or threatened anyone. Not yet anyway, but the night is young. 

I am not insisting anything. I am giving my view. 
 

I’ve certainly been smeared and threatened on this issue before. Speaking of which, I see a post from Carpetmonster has been deleted; who knows what that was.

His behaviour when this subject is discussed is pretty off the charts and I don’t see anyone challenging it. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Thorongil

[carpetmonster]

38 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

I am not insisting anything. I am giving my view. 
 

I’ve certainly been smeared and threatened on this issue before. Speaking of which, I see a post from Carpetmonster has been deleted; who knows what that was.

His behaviour when this subject is discussed is pretty off the charts and I don’t see anyone challenging it. 

I was going to flag you for misspelling 'chance' and saying 'morons gonna moron' in the same breath, as I was wondering what sort of moron might do that, but you're really not worth my time. I had already chosen to overlook the statement itself being grossly offensive. Besides, as you've said many times, you don't want to discuss anything with me, so I was respecting that up until now. 

If that's an insinuation that I've threatened you, I'd ask you to quote it please. If it's not and you're going to flub and say 'other people have', then I'd like an apology, as that's very much how it reads. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by carpetmonster

[Thorongil]

23 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I was going to flag you for misspelling 'chance' and saying 'morons gonna moron' in the same breath, as I was wondering what sort of moron might do that, but you're really not worth my time. I had already chosen to overlook the statement itself being grossly offensive. Besides, as you've said many times, you don't want to discuss anything with me, so I was respecting that up until now. 

If that's an insinuation that I've threatened you, I'd ask you to quote it please. If it's not and you're going to flub and say 'other people have', then I'd like an apology, as that's very much how it reads. 

No insinuation that you’ve threatened me, only that you have smeared me. 
I can see now how it might read that way and I sincerely apologise. 

[Cosmic Joe]

What is it about Sundays and P&B? 

[Moomintroll]

1 hour ago, Cosmic Joe said:

What is it about Sundays and P&B? 

Not enough mayhem recently.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

With the trans squabble overtaking tax cuts as the hot topic in the Tory leadership battle..

 

I think everyone is tired of the Culture wars. Vulnerable people are unfortunately in the middle.

[carpetmonster]

19 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

I think everyone is tired of the Culture wars. Vulnerable people are unfortunately in the middle.

The problem is its very lucrative for a lot of the 'gender-criticals' - see Marion Millar, Maya Forstater, Julie Bindel, Kellie-Jay Keen etc - and this being a Scottish football forum, we're well aware that if there's a crust in bigotry, then it'll be pandered to. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:

The problem is its very lucrative for a lot of the 'gender-criticals' - see Marion Millar, Maya Forstater, Julie Bindel, Kellie-Jay Keen etc - and this being a Scottish football forum, we're well aware that if there's a crust in bigotry, then it'll be pandered to. 

Yeah. There’s a lot of them at that trough. 

Matt Walsh and his “what is a woman?” documentary where he asks people to define what a woman is and then doesn’t accept their legitimate answer. 
8.6/10 on IMDB.

Tim Pool is particularly vile. 

[carpetmonster]

27 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Oh I very much did a few pages back.

Carpetmonster's behaviour on this thread indicates they just just can't engage as an adult on the topic so I leave that poster to it.

If you refer back to pages 14 and 15, you'll see me commenting on a Daily Mail article, which you then issued a coloured circle to. I asked you what your thoughts were and you consistently refused to give me them. I'm not sure who's not engaging, or what the point of lying about something so easily disprovable is. 

[Boo Khaki]

That's the Tavistock a goner.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/28/tavistock-gender-identity-clinic-is-closing-what-happens-next

The cynic in me thinks these 'regional centres' will fail to materialise, for one reason or another.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Tavistock sounds like something out a nightmare.
 

Whistleblowers and campaigners have spent years raising the alarm about the Tavistock. Dr David Bell, a former staff governor at the clinic who in 2019 wrote an internal report that said it was “not fit for purpose” and which was suppressed, said the decision should have come sooner.

He said: “I feel sorry for the children who have been, at least, neglected and, at worst, given the wrong treatment, and I’m sorry it has taken so long. I raised these issues in 2018 as have a lot of other people. The trust tried to subject me to disciplinary action. What has happened to all these children in the meantime?”

 

[Boo Khaki]

6 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Tavistock sounds like something out a nightmare.
 

Whistleblowers and campaigners have spent years raising the alarm about the Tavistock. Dr David Bell, a former staff governor at the clinic who in 2019 wrote an internal report that said it was “not fit for purpose” and which was suppressed, said the decision should have come sooner.

He said: “I feel sorry for the children who have been, at least, neglected and, at worst, given the wrong treatment, and I’m sorry it has taken so long. I raised these issues in 2018 as have a lot of other people. The trust tried to subject me to disciplinary action. What has happened to all these children in the meantime?”

 

I think there are absolutely legitimate problems with the way Tavistock was operating, but my real concern is what is going to happen with regard to treatment for genuinely dysphoric children. Supposedly five regional centres to open eventually, yet only two are 'in the pipeline' in any meaningful way. It's obvious just from the numbers that there's an element of social contagion at play here, but I worry that the current government's disdain for the NHS and increasing willingness to play culture wars for political capital is just going to lead to a paucity of treatment and therapy options for children and adolescents with a genuine need. After all, if you take the line that it's all a load of 'woke' lefty bollocks, sex is all that matters etc, why the hell would you bother spending the money on clinics to treat something you are denying exists?

[carpetmonster]

4 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I think there are absolutely legitimate problems with the way Tavistock was operating, but my real concern is what is going to happen with regard to treatment for genuinely dysphoric children. Supposedly five regional centres to open eventually, yet only two are 'in the pipeline' in any meaningful way. It's obvious just from the numbers that there's an element of social contagion at play here, but I worry that the current government's disdain for the NHS and increasing willingness to play culture wars for political capital is just going to lead to a paucity of treatment and therapy options for children and adolescents with a genuine need. After all, if you take the line that it's all a load of 'woke' lefty bollocks, sex is all that matters etc, why the hell would you bother spending the money on clinics to treat something you are denying exists?

On a base Tory level, I'm sure whoever becomes the new Health Secretary will have plenty dodgy mates to give the building contracts to, which could be a motivator.