Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, because their are people here claiming that you can. You've yet to state whether you belief this nonsense aswell, do you?

Trans-people exist. You can legally change your gender yes. You cannot change your sex.

Me, I have been saying Transgender.
If a person can change their gender from female to male or male to female what is your issue?

Stark wrote: »

The fact that we have "male razors" and "female razors" in the first place is worthy of a whole thread of its own.

No don't go after my razors now too, I love my 'quantum' blades...

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I think they were being facetious to be fair.

Bannasidhe was probably being facetious but a lot of people made this point deadly seriously. Including in some mainstream newspaper articles. I mean, that’s Junior Cert English-level reading comprehension.

Stark

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My very existence has been one of not being the 'same' due to my being one of those butch lesbians who is apparently being erased by transgender men or is it women... it's unclear who is 'threatening' me exactly. But I am certain that I do not tick that box marked 'every woman' so I would never expect any other woman to conform to a ticked box interpretation of womanhood.

That's it, we're defining 'to be a woman" as you have to be Whitney Houston. End of thread

Stark wrote: »

The fact that we have "male razors" and "female razors" in the first place is worthy of a whole thread of its own.

Too true.

Off topic.....

I always buy the men’s version. Far superior shave I find

LLMMLL wrote: »

AGain completely missng the point. Anyone can give a definiton of male female man woman etc. Nobody else has to agree with that definition. If a certain branch of science tends to use the word female to describe individuals with XX chromosomes and that is helpful to communicate their research and is not just used to score political points against trans women then that's fine.

If a scientist tries to claim they have exclusive use of terms like male female man woman etc. Then they are mistaken and don't know much about the science they claim to practice.

The issue is not whether terms like male or female or male or woman can be defined or not (any word can be defined). It's whether anyone has to accept that another person has exclusive rights to define that word and enforce political situations based on nothing but their definition.

And the answer to that is no.

So no, you can't define the words. I didn't expect anything less.

Stark wrote: »

The fact that we have "male razors" and "female razors" in the first place is worthy of a whole thread of its own.

Too true.

Off topic.....

I always buy the men’s version. Far superior shave I find

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I think they were being facetious to be fair.

Yup.

The

was a clue.
Too subtle?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t think it’s a pity at all. You’ve been no angel yourself so you don’t get to be pious now. You are the same person who was perplexed as to what to call a poster when you couldn’t call her a TERF, for gawd’s sake.

I think that it should be acknowledged that transgender men and women have challenges that need to be addressed. Healthcare issues, their safety etc. But those rights must not come at the expense of women or men. Pretending that transgender women are exactly the same as women (and yes, it’s pretending) is helping nobody.

Anyone who takes seriously the safety concerns of transgender women and men whilst handwaving away the concerns of women and girls is a hypocrite. Nothing less.

I don't think anybody is saying that trans women are the only women. They are saying they are women. Just as cis women are not "equal to women". They are a subset of women. All Are women.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

As opposed to me, the actual molecular biologist?

Many scientists are good at the day to day work of science but completely ignorant about the sociological philosophical cultural and political aspects of science. The really good scientists are aware of all these things and can successfully integrate them into the overall practice of science. Others are just worker bees, good at following the methods of their individual specialty but not having much of a scientific mindset outside of that.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still with the digs - claiming I called someone a TERF - I merely asked them to decide what short hand label they felt was applicable as TERF did not apply. But it's nice of you to go to bat to protect them.

What SEX rights exactly did YOU lose due to the Gender Recognition Act?

I don't recall saying transgender women are exactly the same as anyone. It's not something I would ever say as I don't think all women are the same.

My very existence has been one of not being the 'same' due to my being one of those butch lesbians who is apparently being erased by transgender men or is it women... it's unclear who is 'threatening' me exactly. But I am certain that I do not tick that box marked 'every woman' so I would never expect any other woman to conform to a ticked box interpretation of womanhood.

I’ve already answered your question.

It’s funny you mention conforming - transgender ideology relies on regressive gender stereotypes. Give me a definition for woman that doesn’t mention either biology or gender stereotypes. With those stripped away (and the only one that really matters is biology), you tend to be left with feelings. “I feel like a women” and whatnot. What the fûck does that mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJvaEr59B7w

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Me, I have been saying Transgender.
If a person can change their gender from female to male or male to female what is your issue?

My issue is self Id, at least in its current format. My issue is with the idea that a trans-women is a woman, and that a trans-man is a man. They are not. My issue is with the idea that 'sex is a spectrum'. It's not. My issue is with the attempts at undermining science, and attempting to change biological definitions for ideological reasons.

Now I've answered your question, can you please answer mine. Do you believe that a person can change their sex?

One eyed Jack

Smith152 wrote: »

The phrase people who menstruate is stupid and unnecessary and clearly being used to appease a small minority of loony activists who get offended at everything.

It would be like Gillette advertising shaving foam and male razors as being for "people who have hairy faces".

Clearly the organisation which is advocating for people’s menstrual health considered it necessary to be as inclusive as possible by using a term which according to you is stupid, but means a lot to people who menstruate who do not identify themselves as female, or women, or girls. Absolutely it is used to appeal to a tiny, tiny minority, but the point of it’s use is that it is of great significance to that tiny, tiny minority, who might otherwise have felt as though they were again being overlooked.

As for your analogy of Gilette advertising razors to men, I’m just not sure it’s a great one considering the amount of women I know who purchase razors and lubricants aimed squarely at men, simply because they’re cheaper than exactly the same products aimed at women which function exactly the same and achieve the same result, but are just packaged differently. Their marketing certainly hasn’t put women I know off borrowing my razor whenever the mood takes them to shave their faces. That’s a thing now -

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So no, you can't define the words. I didn't expect anything less.

That's not what I said at all. You missed the point unfortunately.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't think anybody is saying that trans women are the only women. They are saying they are women. Just as cis women are not "equal to women". They are a subset of women. All Are women.

I’ve already asked this but no one is prepared to give me an answer. Maybe you’ll give it a go or maybe you won’t.

Tell me how a trans woman is a woman?

And also how can you actually type “women are not equal to women” and expect any modicum of credibility?

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ve already answered your question.

It’s funny you mention conforming - transgender ideology relies on regressive gender stereotypes. Give me a definition for woman that doesn’t mention either biology or gender stereotypes. With those stripped away (and the only one that really matters is biology), you tend to be left with feelings. “I feel like a women” and whatnot. What the fûck does that mean?

Would you be comfortable if tomorrow your breasts started shrinking, your shoulders started broadening, your voice started deepening and you started growing extra hair everywhere? Because if that sounds distressing to you, then you have some indication of what "to feel like a woman" means in the context of transgender women feelings.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't think anybody is saying that trans women are the only women. They are saying they are women. Just as cis women are not "equal to women". They are a subset of women. All Are women.

Cis women, straight women, trans women, gay women, butch women, femme women, black women, white women, Asian women, Latina women, fertile women, infertile women, hairy women, sporty women, lazy women, creative women, autistic women, maternal women, etc etc etc

All women.
Not all the same.

simples.

That is how I see it.

And as long as none of them tell me what kind of woman I should be I'm happy for them to be whatever kind of woman they want to be because it's none of my damn business.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ve already answered your question.

It’s funny you mention conforming - transgender ideology relies on regressive gender stereotypes. Give me a definition for woman that doesn’t mention either biology or gender stereotypes. With those stripped away (and the only one that really matters is biology), you tend to be left with feelings. “I feel like a women” and whatnot. What the fûck does that mean?

What do you believe happens when a cis male child with a penis injury is raised as a girl?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Many scientists are good at the day to day work of science but completely ignorant about the sociological philosophical cultural and political aspects of science. The really good scientists are aware of all these things and can successfully integrate them into the overall practice of science. Others are just worker bees, good at following the methods of their individual specialty but not having much of a scientific mindset outside of that.

Ye, broadly speaking the social sciences and the hard sciences are distinct. The standard of proof required for the hard sciences is superior. No physicist, chemist, mathematician or biologist worth their salt will go into a lab and take into account the 'political aspects' of their research or findings. Doing this would be doing exactly what you are NOT to do. You truly haven't a clue.

This response here in fact shows the dangers of this ideological nonsense.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ye, broadly speaking the social sciences and the hard sciences are distinct. The standard of proof required for the hard sciences is superior. No physicist, chemist, mathematician or biologist worth their salt will go into a lab and take into account the 'political aspects' of their research or findings. Doing this would be doing exactly what you are NOT to do. You truly haven't a clue.

You are completely incorrect and are just showing your ignorance of science.

All good scientists know that outside the scientific method, deductive reaosning, inductive reasoning, and to some extent statistical inference then their statements have no more validity than any others. You may have missed the constant disagreements between scientists on many aspects within their own disciplines. Treating "science" as one monolithic opinion is pure nonsense.

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's not what I said at all. You missed the point unfortunately.

I don't care for you said. I care about what you didn't say. You didn't say what the definition of a women and a female are. Stop obsfucating and just answer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ve already answered your question.

It’s funny you mention conforming - transgender ideology relies on regressive gender stereotypes. Give me a definition for woman that doesn’t mention either biology or gender stereotypes. With those stripped away (and the only one that really matters is biology), you tend to be left with feelings. “I feel like a women” and whatnot. What the fûck does that mean?

I have a serious issue with some of the binary some trans activists advocate. They are a small if vocal group.
That does not mean all transgender people believe in those narrow binary definitions so it is not an issue I would have with all transgender people.
And to be honest there are far more cis people who hold those same binary views that trans people.

You are a woman - do you feel like a woman? What does that feel like?

I'm no expert as I am cis myself but I reckon it feels like you fit your body and your body fits you. I am content in my female body so I am content with my gender being female.

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I’ve already asked this but no one is prepared to give me an answer. Maybe you’ll give it a go or maybe you won’t.

Tell me how a trans woman is a woman?

And also how can you actually type “women are not equal to women” and expect any modicum of credibility?

Can you please highlight in the quote where I said "women are not equal to women".

Please don't misquote me.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

My issue is self Id, at least in its current format. My issue is with the idea that a trans-women is a woman, and that a trans-man is a man. They are not. My issue is with the idea that 'sex is a spectrum'. It's not. My issue is with the attempts at undermining science, and attempting to change biological definitions for ideological reasons.

Now I've answered your question, can you please answer mine. Do you believe that a person can change their sex?

I believe that a person can change their gender.
And as we are talking about transgender why can you not accept that?

If a person tells me they are male or female than as far as I am concerned that is what they are. I don't concern myself with what genitalia people have in the same way as I don't concern myself with what consenting adults get up to.
To put it bluntly I don't obsess about whether or not a person has an outie or an inny in their underwear.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

My issue is self Id, at least in its current format. My issue is with the idea that a trans-women is a woman, and that a trans-man is a man. They are not. My issue is with the idea that 'sex is a spectrum'. It's not. My issue is with the attempts at undermining science, and attempting to change biological definitions for ideological reasons.

Now I've answered your question, can you please answer mine. Do you believe that a person can change their sex?

Biology was what got me interested too. I’m not particularly political so I ignored political arguments on the topic. What piqued my interest - and utterly horrified me - was the revelations that preteens were being prescribed a cancer drug as a puberty blocker. I’ve reluctantly taken manys the cancer drug and they are no joke. That and - also biology-related - seeing biological males competing in women’s sport. I’m very interested in bioethics and have been since my days in college doing my biology degree and I could not believe these things were happening.

And my knowledge of biology is really what sustains my interest. The political side is still head-wrecking to me. The pseudoscience that gets spouted is dismaying and alarming. By people who have a lot of reach too. On the sports issue, there seems to be reason for hope. Most people seem to acknowledge how ridiculous it is and the more coverage that gets, the better, frankly. But the biology of sex and the blocking of puberty are a bit more esoteric so I think it’s harder to get people’s attention in order to highlight the absurdities of those to them.

mohawk

Bannasidhe wrote: »

According to JK Rawlings a 'real' woman is one who menstruates and she, apparently, is some sort of icon to those who believe they get to decide on these things.

Shall we go with that definition?

If you remove biology from the equation. How do you truly define women or men. I don’t know the answer anymore then anyone else. I don’t mean to come across as picking on your post but your post did make me think. Do we revert to gender stereotypes or cultural norms if we take biology out of it.

What I personally do find unsettling is when the words ‘women and girls’ are substituted for ‘menstrators’ or ‘people that menstrate’ with reason given is not to offend transmen and yet in one way when you say people who menstrate you are putting transmen back into the biological female box which excludes transwomen. (Of course not all women menstrate). The word woman doesn’t reduce us down to one bodily function and includes all the woman who have hit menopause and those who for whatever reason don’t get a period.

Other thing I find interesting is how much of the debate is taken up by transwomen. They once made up the bulk of transgender population, but that appears to have shifted.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

As opposed to me, the actual molecular biologist?

Claiming to be a molecular biologist is clearly not the same thing as being a molecular biologist... or do you imagine that your claims should simply be taken at face value, or add any kind of authority to your opinions?

Even if you actually are a molecular biologist, the title alone doesn’t indicate anything as to your ability, and if I were going off your opinions alone, I would never imagine you actually are a molecular biologist. In short, I couldn’t care less for whether or not you’re a molecular biologist, it’s only your opinions I’m interested in, not your academic qualifications or work experience. I’d only be interested in those if I were considering you as a potential candidate for employment, and fortunately you’re not the only molecular biologist I could choose from.

I’m prepared to take you at face value though for the sake of discussion, though your fallacious appeals to authority mean nothing. It would be rather like JK arse kissing Stephen King when she thought he agreed with her, and then withdrawing her fawning praise when she realised he didn’t :pac:

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you please highlight in the quote where I said "women are not equal to women".

Please don't misquote me.

That’s a no then.

For all the walls of obfuscation, whataboutery, links, posturing, anecdotal evidence and circular arguing in this thread, I would have thought that amongst the afore mentioned, a clear answer to a simple question would be available.

From people who believe and espouse the theory that a transwoman/transman Is the same as a woman/man I find that to be a rather unfortunate shortcoming.

Stark wrote: »

Would you be comfortable if tomorrow your breasts started shrinking, your shoulders started broadening, your voice started deepening and you started growing extra hair everywhere? Because if that sounds distressing to you, then you have some indication of what "to feel like a woman" means in the context of transgender women feelings.

That still leaves me none of the wiser because none of those things would just start happening.

Wait, are you suggesting that those things (or the opposite, rather) just start happening to transgender women?