Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Options
1…910121415…40

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Probably for the best. We're not really on the same level anyway.

    No, they’re talking about sex, and you’re still conflating it with gender.


  • Options
    #333
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Nope you've just chosen the definition to suit yourself, ignoring a little understood biological organ that exhibits sex differences

    I don't think you're a science denier, you just don't understand it.

    I haven't chosen the definition, that Is the definition. You want to try muddy the waters and redefine concepts to suit your political agenda.

    No different to how there is an attempt to redefine rascism as relying on 'power structures' as opposed to merely descriminating against a person because of their race.

    It's not the definition


  • Options
    #334
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Not what I said or meant at all but nice attempt.

    It’s exactly what you said.
    You don’t care.


  • Options
    #335
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It's not the definition

    What is it then?


  • Options
    #336
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Probably for the best. We're not really on the same level anyway.

    No, they’re talking about sex, and you’re still conflating it with gender.

    Not true. I talked about the brain. A biological organism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Not true. I talked about the brain. A biological organism.

    Organ you mean. The brain does not determine your sex, it might (probably does) determine your gender.


  • Options
    #338
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It's not the definition

    What is it then?

    Biological differences yes. Exclusive to sex organs and genetics no.


  • Options
    #339
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Not true. I talked about the brain. A biological organism.

    Each brain cell has either XX or XY chromosomes (apart from in some intersex conditions I mentioned). You can tell if it’s a biologically male or female brain. More difficult to tell it’s gender identity alright.


  • Options
    #340
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Not true. I talked about the brain. A biological organism.

    Organ you mean. The brain does not determine your sex, it might (probably does) determine your gender.

    Until the brain is understood it can't be ruled out that differences between male and female brains could determine sex.


  • Options
    #341
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Until the brain is understood it can't be ruled out that differences between male and female brains could determine sex.

    You mean gender. Or you should mean gender. Your brain doesn’t determine your sex.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Biological differences yes. Exclusive to sex organs and genetics no.

    Source for that definition?

    Heres another way of putting it "either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures"
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex


  • Options
    #343
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Until the brain is understood it can't be ruled out that differences between male and female brains could determine sex.

    You mean gender. Or you should mean gender. Your brain doesn’t determine your sex.

    I'm saying biological differences could be found that change our understanding of sex, not just gender.


  • Options
    #344
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Candamir wrote: »
    You mean gender. Or you should mean gender. Your brain doesn’t determine your sex.

    It's incredible that in the 21st century that this person thinks biological sex is still a debatable concept. Truly staggering.


  • Options
    #345
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Biological differences yes. Exclusive to sex organs and genetics no.

    Source for that definition?

    Heres another way of putting it "either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures"
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

    From your definition "especially", not "exclusively".


  • Options
    #346
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I'm saying biological differences could be found that change our understanding of sex, not just gender.

    No you are wrong. The 'male' brain or 'female' brain if found to actually exist will not alter our understanding of biological sex, as biological sex is not dependent on the brain.


  • Options
    #347
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    From your definition "especially", not "exclusively".

    Where's your sourced definition?


  • Options
    #348
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Candamir wrote: »
    You mean gender. Or you should mean gender. Your brain doesn’t determine your sex.

    It's incredible that in the 21st century that this person thinks biological sex is still a debatable concept. Truly staggering.

    Staggering that someone thinks manipulating dictionary definitions to suit themselves makes them an irrefutable expert.


  • Options
    #349
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I'm saying biological differences could be found that change our understanding of sex, not just gender.

    No you are wrong. The 'male' brain or 'female' brain if found to actually exist will not alter our understanding of biological sex, as biological sex is not dependent on the brain.

    It most definitely would alter our understanding of biological sex.


  • Options
    #350
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Staggering that someone thinks manipulating dictionary definitions to suit themselves makes them an irrefutable expert.

    It is irrefutable. I havmt manipulated anything. We're is your sourced definition?

    It doesn't say exclusively as sex can be determined chromosomally aswell. It's got nothing to do with the brain.

    This is really down there with flat earthers, anti-vaccers and climate change deniers.


  • Options
    #351
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It most definitely would alter our understanding of biological sex.

    Still no sourced definition of biological sex that in anyway claims the brain has anything to with it.

    It wouldn't, it might alter our knowledge as to why, in general, men and women behave in certain ways. It wouldn't say anything about biological sex.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,146 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    The reason they don't check a trans man's prostate is because they know they don't have one. Not because they "know" (think) he is not a man.

    They wouldn't check the prostate of a cis man who had his removed either.

    I didn't say they don't think he isn't a man. They know he is not a biological male despite being recognised as a man legally, socially etc. Gender can be changed, biological sex cant. Sometimes allowing for biological sex is relevant, particularly when it comes to women's rights, sports etc. That's all this woman was saying, and she lost her job because of it. Doesn't seem fair to me


  • Options
    #353
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    I didn't say they don't think he isn't a man. They know he is not a biological male despite being recognised as a man legally, socially etc. Gender can be changed, biological sex cant. Sometimes allowing for biological sex is relevant, particularly when it comes to women's rights, sports etc.

    LLMMLL doesn't care about women's rights unfortunately though.


  • Options
    #354
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    I didn't say they don't think he isn't a man. They know he is not a biological male despite being recognised as a man legally, socially etc. Gender can be changed, biological sex cant. Sometimes allowing for biological sex is relevant, particularly when it comes to women's rights, sports etc.

    LLMMLL doesn't care about women's rights unfortunately though.

    I care deeply about women's rights. Take a look at my posting history if you don't believe me.

    I said I don't care about sports scholarships. As applying to BOTH men and women.

    You like to manipulate my words as much as definitions.


  • Options
    #355
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    The reason they don't check a trans man's prostate is because they know they don't have one. Not because they "know" (think) he is not a man.

    They wouldn't check the prostate of a cis man who had his removed either.

    I didn't say they don't think he isn't a man. They know he is not a biological male despite being recognised as a man legally, socially etc. Gender can be changed, biological sex cant. Sometimes allowing for biological sex is relevant, particularly when it comes to women's rights, sports etc. That's all this woman was saying, and she lost her job because of it. Doesn't seem fair to me

    I agree that allowing for biological sex can be relevant in some situations. Medical mostly. But its relevance in certain scenarios is not an excuse to extend it to every scenario. I disagree that it affects womens rights.


  • Options
    #356
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I agree that allowing for biological sex can be relevant in some situations. Medical mostly. But its relevance in certain scenarios is not an excuse to extend it to every scenario. I disagree that it affects womens rights.

    .......except it does affect women’s rights. I’ve given you the example in sports.

    And it’s pretty much only women that will lose out on scholarships and the educational and other opportunity that comes with them. So if you truely care about woman’s rights, you should care about that.


  • Options
    #357
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I agree that allowing for biological sex can be relevant in some situations. Medical mostly. But its relevance in certain scenarios is not an excuse to extend it to every scenario. I disagree that it affects womens rights.

    .......except it does affect women’s rights. I’ve given you the example in sports.

    Missing out on sports scholarships is not a women's rights issue. It's a miniscule subgroup of women. Truly miniscule.


  • Options
    #358
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Missing out on sports scholarships is not a women's rights issue. It's a miniscule subgroup of women. Truly miniscule.

    A small number - like the number of trans women maybe?

    What’s the critical mass required to make a right matter?

    And of course competing fairly in sports and competing fairly for scholarships given for sports is a rights issue.


  • Options
    #359
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Missing out on sports scholarships is not a women's rights issue. It's a miniscule subgroup of women. Truly miniscule.

    A small number - like the number of trans women maybe?

    What’s the critical mass required to make a right matter?

    And of course competing fairly in sports and competing fairly for scholarships given for sports is a rights issue.

    It's really not. I haven't heard anyone accuse the celebrities who defrauded the American college system and caused students to lose out on places of being human rights abusers. Anyone who did would rightly be viewed as being a little hysterical.


  • Options
    #360
    khaldrogo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭khaldrogo


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:
    Society is already forcing you to use pronouns.


    No it's not.

    I eyes are telling us what to say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,146 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I agree that allowing for biological sex can be relevant in some situations. Medical mostly. But its relevance in certain scenarios is not an excuse to extend it to every scenario. I disagree that it affects womens rights.

    How can it not when those rights are on the basis of biological sex? I mean, why are there even legal protections for women in the first place if not because of biology?

    So for example, according to the UN, females have the right to single sex accomodation in prisons. Housing a biological male with them is therefore a violation of that right isn't it, regardless of how they identify?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement