[News] Gender and biological sex

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I find if you just use the persons name or the pronoun “they”, you can’t go far wrong. I’ve slipped up before, nobody has seemed to take offence to honest mistakes.

RuPaul is amusing on this: "You can call me he. You can call me she. You can call me Regis and Kathie Lee; I don't care! Just as long as you call me."

Sadly the notion of asking the question "How can I make you feel comfortable today?" is anathema to some. I have had to work particularly hard to avoid (getting sacked by) offending people through my lack of conventional empathy, but that's one of the downsides of being 'on the spectrum'. There is certainly no excuse for actively pursuing the prejudiced dick head's agenda.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No chance

That said, when I first discovered the unusual effects of eating a whole fresh beetroot, I did capture the outcome on camera. Jackson Pollock could have made even more of his career had he discovered that monochromatic expression can be immensely dramatic, if the texture is right

Well, you did provoke me

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

No chance

That said, when I first discovered the unusual effects of eating a whole fresh beetroot, I did capture the outcome on camera. Jackson Pollock could have made even more of his career had he discovered that monochromatic expression can be immensely dramatic, if the texture is right

Well, you did provoke me

Good taste is the last refuge of the scoundrel

 

[wellquickwoody]

I was surprised to hear on the radio today that someone had to appeal a dismissal from work (it was actually 'contract not renewed' - I have since looked up the case of Maya Forstater) for claiming that biological sex cannot be changed. Forstater won the appeal. However there are expressions of disappointment from some spokespeople for transgender organisations. This is baffling and disappointing. Here is a recent statement from the British Medical Journal:

"Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.

Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.

It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ"

In case there is any misunderstanding, I fully support those who classify their gender as something other than the two main (there are others including XYY but they are relatively rare) biological sexes. But their biological sex and gender may not be the same. It's simple, really

The judgement today states "“Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society."

The other viewpoint is this "Louise Rea, a solicitor at the law firm Bates Wells, which advised the CGD, called the decision “concerning” and “a much narrower interpretation of the previously understood position that a belief which conflicts with the fundamental rights of others will not be protected.

“The EAT’s decision sets the threshold for exclusion so high that it will leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment and place employers in an impossible position. Our clients are considering their next steps.”"

I am not sure what Maya Forstater's axe is here or why she wants to grind it, but she describes herself as holding "gender-critical views". I suspect the law will have to be changed so that if someone wants to insist that, for example, Jayne County is 'really a man' they can only do so in a biological sex-specific context, for example, they are a GP and Jayne is seeking HRT.

Attention seeking.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Seems there is now a call for gender neutral toilets in schools.

I just wonder if anyone can inform me what the difference is between gender neutral and unisex toilets.

Why should toilets be described by gender rather than by sex?

 

[Papak]

Just because my friend would like me to....suggest you read this....

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/30/by-using-the-disabled-toilet-youre-putting-me-at-risk-9327740/

13.9 million people of which (less than according to the article) 8% (1.1 million) are wheelchair users?

There is no way on earth that many people in the UK are users, unless they are nearly all existing elsewhere from everywhere I have been for the last few decades.

I have seen 1 guy who lives near me in a wheelchair but otherwise I genuinely could not remember the last time I saw one except in a hospital for transporting patients.

 

[Razzoo]

This guy is a clown. Self ID is a horrendous idea.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-keir-starmer-doubles-down-144024115.html

 

[sydney]

meh...

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

If I need a cubicle and it is occupied and there is no alternative, I have to wait. Having spent 20 years with misdiagnosed lactose intolerance (I was told I had diverticulosis - I don't), I have had to go back home from Fav station some mornings when trains with 'no working toilet' were my only option (increasingly common in the last 4 years). The lavs on our trains are mostly accessible and without any 'accessible only' rule, but when they were all out of order, I couldn't go to work. Now I have resolved that problem perhaps my attitude may be different. Perhaps it should be

If there were an 'accessible' and a 'non-accessible' toilet available, nobody waiting, nobody around, I admit it would be selfish of me to opt for the cleaner bog. That said I have never heard a tap on the door and never found anyone waiting outside after I've left. I think my judgement has been good, even if I were taking a risk with someone else's 'comfort'.

The way I saw it was, if there were ten non-accessible bogs, with five people queuing for each, and one accessible bog with no queue, but me using it, anyone who could only use the accessible bog would still be four places up the queue. Moreover, before I got my diagnosis sorted, if I were the one bod queuing outside the accessible bog, while five queued outside each non accessible bog, there is still a fair chance I'd shit myself, no matter who was blocking my passage, so to speak.

Now my sudden stabbing pains and spasmic projectile shitting is apparently no longer an issue, perhaps I should start to behave myself. I'm not sure if I've really done bad but I admit it would now be taking the piss, so thanks for the advice and admonishment.

The last refuge argument, of course, is that sometimes we are all desperate for a shit, whether we have an entitlement to an available trap, or not. I say that as someone who did actually do an impression of a bear in some woods recently (so all is still not quite ticketyboo in the large intestinal department, sadly).

Apologies if that's too much information.

Think you've written your constitution(al) there HWT

 

[BadFish]

I am watching a very interesting and informative video on the science of this by Professor Dave.

 

[AstroSloth]

I am watching a very interesting and informative video on the science of this by Professor Dave.

Professor Dave is great at debunking conspiracy nuts whilst also being a progressive person.

 

[Greenbag50]

The science is men are men and woman are woman.
You can feel you are a man or a woman and can have surgery to change if you want ( as long as you are an adult) and can dress as the sex you think you are.

 

[BadFish]

The science is men are men and woman are woman.
You can feel you are a man or a woman and can have surgery to change if you want ( as long as you are an adult) and can dress as the sex you think you are.

You should watch the video.

 

[n1 gull]

You should watch the video.

Idiot man watches video and now says men can be women ffs

 

[nickjhs]

In response to the OP biological sex is determined in utero, gender is a social construct. That there are a tiny percentage of people where biological sex is indeterminate makes absolutely no difference on a macro scale and is certainly not an argument for biological males competing in female sports. Gender dysphoria is a real thing, and I am in full support of helping people in this position until the rights of biological females become impeded. I am quite happy to use standard he/her she/him pronouns, but I am not going to learn the supposed 70+ others, if a person gets offended because I don't use the correct pronoun, tell me your name and I will use that instead, no doubt some twat will get offended at that as well.

 

[BadFish]

Idiot man watches video and now says men can be women ffs

No need to be rude.

I found the information interesting and clearly explained.

At no time did I say men can be women

 

[BadFish]

In response to the OP biological sex is determined in utero, gender is a social construct. That there are a tiny percentage of people where biological sex is indeterminate makes absolutely no difference on a macro scale and is certainly not an argument for biological males competing in female sports. Gender dysphoria is a real thing, and I am in full support of helping people in this position until the rights of biological females become impeded. I am quite happy to use standard he/her she/him pronouns, but I am not going to learn the supposed 70+ others, if a person gets offended because I don't use the correct pronoun, tell me your name and I will use that instead, no doubt some twat will get offended at that as well.

The idea that gender is a social construct was my understanding until watching Professor Dave's video. He talks at length about Gender Identity and how this being different to the biological sex causes gender dysphoria, also known as transsexual.

What I found most interesting is that he suggests that this gender identity is biological rather than social. In other words, this is something innate in a person rather than a social construct or 'choice' as we often suggest. 'They are choosing to identify as . . . " etc.

I am digging into this further as if true, I believe this is a huge misconception we have been working under. Similar to those people who used to suggest that people choose to be gay, rather than it being innate.

I found this study online https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/#S3 that suggests that the science is inconclusive, although this is over 5 years old so I suspect that Professor Dave is sharing more up-to-date scientific information.

Edit - this still seems to be undecided but I have read the suggestion that the characteristics of a gender identity are innate but the way they fit into gender is socially constructed and can be different in different cultures. Similar to how race or culture is a social construct but people are born with different characteristics like skin colour that the social construct decides how they fit into race.

 

[nickjhs]

The idea that gender is a social construct was my understanding until watching Professor Dave's video. He talks at length about Gender Identity and how this being different to the biological sex causes gender dysphoria, also known as transsexual.

What I found most interesting is that he suggests that this gender identity is biological rather than social. In other words, this is something innate in a person rather than a social construct or 'choice' as we often suggest. 'They are choosing to identify as . . . " etc.

I am digging into this further as if true, I believe this is a huge misconception we have been working under. Similar to those people who used to suggest that people choose to be gay, rather than it being innate.

I found this study online htttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/#S3 that suggests that the science is inconclusive, although this is over 5 years old so I suspect that Professor Dave is sharing more up-to-date scientific information.

Edit - this still seems to be undecided but I have read the suggestion that the characteristics of a gender identity are innate but the way they fit into gender is socially constructed and can be different in different cultures. Similar to how race or culture is a social construct but people are born with different characteristics like skin colour that the social construct decides how they fit into race.

As you say it is still very undecided, what I mean by social construct, is that there are two sexes and each has been assigned normative innate characteristics that correspond to Male or Female (this is clearly untrue). As to whether gender (characteristic traits of various types) is fluid or innate I have no bloody idea.

 

[BadFish]

As you say it is still very undecided, what I mean by social construct, is that there are two sexes and each has been assigned normative innate characteristics that correspond to Male or Female (this is clearly untrue). As to whether gender (characteristic traits of various types) is fluid or innate I have no bloody idea.

What'd interesting is that it appears to have become less undecided.

Which would be interesting to learn more about.

I'll post if I find anything else.

 

[Han Solo]

The idea that gender is a social construct was my understanding until watching Professor Dave's video. He talks at length about Gender Identity and how this being different to the biological sex causes gender dysphoria, also known as transsexual.

What I found most interesting is that he suggests that this gender identity is biological rather than social. In other words, this is something innate in a person rather than a social construct or 'choice' as we often suggest. 'They are choosing to identify as . . . " etc.

I am digging into this further as if true, I believe this is a huge misconception we have been working under. Similar to those people who used to suggest that people choose to be gay, rather than it being innate.

I found this study online https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/#S3 that suggests that the science is inconclusive, although this is over 5 years old so I suspect that Professor Dave is sharing more up-to-date scientific information.

Edit - this still seems to be undecided but I have read the suggestion that the characteristics of a gender identity are innate but the way they fit into gender is socially constructed and can be different in different cultures. Similar to how race or culture is a social construct but people are born with different characteristics like skin colour that the social construct decides how they fit into race.

Warning... essay incoming.

The idea that gender is "constructed" comes from the same philosophical background as "humans have a free will" and "you can become anything you want". Tropes from the 1900s, before modern data science proved that hard determinism is the truth. Give people similar genetics, environments and experiences and they will be very similar people making very similar choices.

Early social engineering showed women and men are different by nature. Naturally, genetical differences make people different even within genders etc, but there's natural gender differences that usually will be there and can only be altered through confusing information. As an example, early sources of nature-altering misinformation - such as religious texts - claims that sexual promiscuity among women is rare, immoral, sinful and unhealthy.

This may not be the average womans true, determined nature - if anything, the desire to program and control her suggests the opposite - but will alter her life, mainly through the cognitive confusion between her nature and the misinformation programmed into her brain.

Today information - which, as far as humans true nature is concerned, equals "misinformation" - is everywhere all the time, and same goes for confusion.

Gender dysphoria, transvestism, hermaphroditism etc isn't some blessed way towards emancipation. If some environmental agency makes a test in a river and finds that the fish have turned two-gendered or that the biggest females are trying to breed other females... there's no "fantastic, they're on they're way to liberty". Nah, we say "environmental pollution" and we resolve the problem.

That people feel/think that they were born in the wrong body just isn't a great sign. The rapid decay of sperm quality among men isn't some sort of feminist victory. Kids looking at men and women and thinking "I don't identify with any of these monsters; I'll invent something of my own" is, on the wider scale, not a natural behaviour in any species similar to man.

Obviously its hard to tell how much comes down to environmental pollution, such as estrogen from sludge used in agriculture and how much of it is psychological pollution.

After all, today we learn early that:
- there is a persistent war between men and women
- there are strong, confusing views on what women and men are
- there are lots of kids and teen shows where the introverted outcast are the way they are due to gender confusion
- trans people etc. get a lot of attention, praise and support from various groups in society

As such, it has become desirable - not least for the confused - to have some sort of gender confusion. In reality, depression, substance abuse and suicide rates are much higher in these groups, and little suggests that for example a sex change makes a difference in most cases. In my personal view, gender confusion is a problem that needs to be solved, not promoted as some journey to freedom, identity and attention.

A problem that is difficult to resolve is that the gender confused are being coupled with people with non-straight sexualities in general. This is somewhat logical due to some shared culture-political issues and movements, but a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman is a very different thing from someone thinking "my brain is in the wrong body".

Gender is highly determinist, biologically rooted, Its not desirable that more and more people get confused or disgusted about it. It is a social construction in so far that you can modify and confuse it with information, bringing it closer (often too close) or further (too far) from "true nature". Problem is that it is difficult to bring up these things without looking like some Putin-voting alt right-Aussie. As long as gender confusion is promoted as "the new gay" its really hard touching it with a bargepole without stepping on someones feet.