Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Quantum human superposition

Loved that show. No idea where he would end up. Sam Beckett could become Samantha. Ziggy had no morals.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Because as anyone who has done a degree in Physics will know you do not learn about the different interpretations in the course of your undergraduate studies.

I guess all physics undergraduate courses are not created equally -

Physics and Philosophy at the University of Oxford

But you’re right, it’s off topic, carry on...

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

so, it's both male and female until we check?

Quantum human superposition

2u2me wrote: »

Or Schrödinger

That was the name of Pandora’s box prior. I’m offended you brought that up.

2u2me

joeguevara wrote: »

Pandora will be happy.

Or Schrödinger

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

so, it's both male and female until we check?

Pandora will be happy.

Quantum Erasure

so, it's both male and female until we check?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it was these claims I was referring to -

If you did know full well about the history of physics, it would be highly unusual for you to claim that most physicists have a disdain for philosophy, or that most physicists are of the Copenhagen school of thought (as that specifically relates to QM, which is only one area of physics).

That’s why your opinion struck me as highly unusual given you claim to be aware of the history of physics and that you have a degree in the subject. I’m not doubting that you do, but I’m wondering were you actually present during lectures or were you just there but not actually paying attention, or were you miles away in another universe entirely and managed to scrape a degree qualification by cramming before exams!

I don’t need you to answer those questions btw, I’m not the least bit surprised that someone can claim to have a degree in a particular subject and yet still display such a poor knowledge or understanding of the subject. Such behaviour is quite common among people who imagine their qualifications lend their opinions any weight on any given topic.

Because as anyone who has done a degree in Physics will know you do not learn about the different interpretations in the course of your undergraduate studies. You do calculations and carry out experiments. You learn the history in the sense of what discoveries were made when, the maths involved, how to solve problems using the equations and briefly what that discovery meant.
Most physicists do have a disdain for the area. That is widely known. Many a physicist in the past who wanted to study the Foundations of Quantum Physics were warned of from doing it. As it wasn't considered physics. Hugh Everitt left academia due to ridicule his many worlds theory got (or so the story goes).

But regardless, this is off topic, and removed from the poster proclaiming that those in the hard sciences care about the 'sociological philosophical cultural and political aspects of science' and integrate them into their work. Broadly speaking, they aren't and don't.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes it only relates to QM, I never suggested otherwise.

'The Copenhagen school of thought still reigns supreme'. Woops out by 9% for the majority, my apologies. The point is most physicists do not engage in Quantum interpretation debates, they 'shut up and calculate' as I said.

This is widely acknowledged within the community. Nice copy and paste job all the same.

No, it was these claims I was referring to -

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I know fully well about the history of physics. I've a degree in the subject. Most physicist have a disdain for philosophy, because its.. Wait for it... Not science. Most physicists are of the 'shut up and calculate' Copenhagen school of thought.

If you did know full well about the history of physics, it would be highly unusual for you to claim that most physicists have a disdain for philosophy, or that most physicists are of the Copenhagen school of thought (as that specifically relates to QM, which is only one area of physics).

That’s why your opinion struck me as highly unusual given you claim to be aware of the history of physics and that you have a degree in the subject. I’m not doubting that you do, but I’m wondering were you actually present during lectures or were you just there but not actually paying attention, or were you miles away in another universe entirely and managed to scrape a degree qualification by cramming before exams!

I don’t need you to answer those questions btw, I’m not the least bit surprised that someone can claim to have a degree in a particular subject and yet still display such a poor knowledge or understanding of the subject. Such behaviour is quite common among people who imagine their qualifications lend their opinions any weight on any given topic.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So you are still going with the nothing can be defined line of argument. I mean, if you must. One wonders how you engage in conversation with someone and ever know what they are talking about.
But anyway, an exclusive definition can be given and has been. You just don't want to accept it, as I've said on numerous occasions, it doesn't fit with your world view. The definition absolutely defines what a woman is not (this is your problem with the definition, remember!)

For example: a trans woman is not a woman. A new born baby is not a woman. A man is not a woman, a tree is not a woman. A table is not a woman. A phone is not a woman. A penis is not a woman. An electron is not a woman. A planet is not a woman. Go back to the definition I've given you of a women, then go and look up the definition of each of those other things I've mentioned. And it'll be very clear that those things are not a woman.

Is not male and female rather than woman and man. I haven’t read the last few pages so don’t know why woman is the definition that is being looked for. Apologies if I’ve come in late

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So you are still going with the nothing can be defined line of argument. I mean, if you must. One wonders how you engage in conversation with someone and ever know what they are talking about.
But anyway, an exclusive definition can be given and has been. You just don't want to accept it, as I've said on numerous occasions, it doesn't fit with your world view. The definition absolutely defines what a woman is not (this is your problem with the definition, remember!)

For example: a trans woman is not a woman. A new born baby is not a woman. A man is not a woman, a tree is not a woman. A table is not a woman. A phone is not a woman. A penis is not a woman. An electron is not a woman. A planet is not a woman. Go back to the definition I've given you of a women, then go and look up the definition of each of those other things I've mentioned. And it'll be very clear that those things are not a woman.

It's not exclusive at all. When does a girl become a woman?

And again I never said nothing can be defined. I've said exclusive definitions are not possible for natural and even some artificial categories.

As you well know table has a dictionary definition. The reason nobody wanted to provide it in this thread is because it's not an exclusive definition and they knew I would pull it apart in seconds.

The "gamete" definition of female/woman is an exclusive definiton but doesn't match how the term is used by the average person.

Nor does the made up distinction between woman as non scientific and female as purely scientific. Most people just use female as the adjectival form of woman.

2u2me

Re deadnaming, watch all the posters that liked these posts.

No-one complains about deadnaming, except when it suits.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Can we change the thread title to “Stephen Yaxley - Lennon arrested (again)” please?

alastair wrote: »

SYL’s history of flexible names.

Stephen Yaxley
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
Wayne King
Mickey King
Tommy Robinson
Andrew McMaster - this one resulting in a fraud conviction
Paul Harris - the name in his passport

Seems like a credible narrator.

Tony EH wrote: »

I see the Stephen Yaxley Lennon Propaganda Company are out tonight.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

People are dismissing Yaxley-Lennon, not the child. Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous.

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

But we're not discussing grooming gangs here, we're discussing yaxley Lennon being the filthy scummer that he is.

Tony EH wrote: »

Nothing to do with being "tetchy". Just realising it for what it is. A bit of shameless self promotion on behalf of Yaxley Lennon so his disciples can tell everyone how "great" he is.

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

No no you don't understand yaxley Lennon was the only person who cared. He was arrested for telling the truff. According to the mouth breathers on here that's the case anyway

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is this supposed to be clever, edgy or something?

Yaxley-Lennon should have informed the Police if this happened. The fact that he didn't and decided to film himself smacking someone suggests that he's just after some publicity.

Billy Mays wrote: »

What is it with Irish people white knighting pieces of human sh!t like Yaxley Lennon and his mouth breathing ilk?

Are they too young (or ignorant) to know how Irish people in the UK in the 70s and 80s were treated by that generation's equivalent of Lennon and his knuckle dragging followers?

str8talkingguy wrote: »

I would say you would fight with yourself in an empty room lol,its clearly relevant to the discussion where Yaxley-Lennons daughter has just accused an Asian man of sexual assault.

It really just go on and on and on, he says he chose an alternate name to protect his family. People obviously don't give a sh1te, eh?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because you want an exclusive definition which can't be given.

By exclusive I mean one that not only defines what is a woman but also defines what is not.

Nobody has even been able to define table in this manner. An incredibly simple object. Yet they want an exclusive definition of woman?

So you are still going with the nothing can be defined line of argument. I mean, if you must. One wonders how you engage in conversation with someone and ever know what they are talking about.
But anyway, an exclusive definition can be given and has been. You just don't want to accept it, as I've said on numerous occasions, it doesn't fit with your world view. The definition absolutely defines what a woman is not (this is your problem with the definition, remember!)

For example: a trans woman is not a woman. A new born baby is not a woman. A man is not a woman, a tree is not a woman. A table is not a woman. A phone is not a woman. A penis is not a woman. An electron is not a woman. A planet is not a woman. Go back to the definition I've given you of a women, then go and look up the definition of each of those other things I've mentioned. And it'll be very clear that those things are not a woman.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am sorry that you have terminal cancer and I truly wish you did not, and I genuinely understand and appreciate that your body has betrayed you but with respect you know that is not what we are talking about.

You said you did not know what it 'feels' like to be a woman.
I asked were you comfortable in your body - you are not now because a part of it, that is, I gather, not a part that would be found in a biologically male body and you are rightfully feeling all the many emotions that deserves.

There must have been a time when you did feel comfortable in that body because if you didn't you would know - it would always have been a betraying body. It would have been wrong long before things went wrong.

The awkward thing is, no matter how uncomfortable somebody feels in their body, there are things that cannot be changed. Male strength stays nearly completely intact unless puberty is blocked. Which I consider deeply unethical. There is also no reason to not group transgender women with men when it comes to criminality, unless we subscribe to magical thinking which I refuse to do. So those inconvenient points remain.

A woman in the UK was instructed in court to refer to her attacker (this person was convicted) as ‘she‘. Somebody with male strength attacked her and she believed this person to be a male and the woman was instructed to say ‘she’ by the judge. That is perverse. Firstly, it amounts to her being asked to lie under oath if she did not believe her attacker was a woman. Secondly, why are the feelings of her attacker taking precedence here? People have simply not thought this through. It’s all “Awww, be nice” or “That’s not kind”. Was it kind to ask that woman to check her language when describing being assaulted?

I can say one thing about my pre-cancer body. I started menstruating and wearing a bra at 11. That was also the age I started to receive lewd comments from men. I was deeply uncomfortable with my body for probably two years. How many girls go though the same, hear that they can escape that discomfort and think “that might not be so bad?”.

People can call me a bigot and a transphobe all they want. It rolls off me for the most part. But I have thought about this topic long and hard. I don’t jerk my knee. I am liberal. This topic just greatly troubles me. The logic is too woolly.

2u2me

Stark wrote: »

"Deadnaming" is more akin to an adult calling a gay person a ****** than it is to schoolyard teasing. It's something done deliberately to cause hurt/offence by people who are old enough to know what they're doing.

I believe I've seen this here on boards before. Everytime Tommy Robinon's name is mentioned people are quick to say his real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon. Could this be considered dead-naming?

You could draw a venn diagram of all the people that will engage in dead-naming against Robinson which overlap will be the loudest to cry about dead-naming others.

Bannasidhe

Sir Oxman wrote: »

That is untrue.
She did not say that.
This does not surprise me one bit - the disingenuity is rife on 'the right side'(TM)

Your factious metre is broken. Or you didn't bother reading where you would have seen a discussion.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And still no definition of your own forthcoming. Shock! I wonder why that could be.

Because you want an exclusive definition which can't be given.

By exclusive I mean one that not only defines what is a woman but also defines what is not.

Nobody has even been able to define table in this manner. An incredibly simple object. Yet they want an exclusive definition of woman?

Sir Oxman

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?

That is untrue.
She did not say that.
This does not surprise me one bit - the disingenuity is rife on 'the right side'(TM)

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Seriously? My answer to your question was 100% genuine. I have terminal cancer that struck at the heart of my womanhood, my husband’s favourite part of my body, after 2.5 years of being fobbed off and being treated like a hysterical woman (wonder if those men who are uncomfortable in their bodies would be dismissed as summarily as I was with as obvious a sign of cancer as I had). You asked if I was comfortable in my adult human female body. My answer was a very honest and genuine no. I can’t remember how I felt about it before then as that’s a distant, different life and a different person.

You didn’t like the answer but that’s not my problem. Asked and answered.

I am sorry that you have terminal cancer and I truly wish you did not, and I genuinely understand and appreciate that your body has betrayed you but with respect you know that is not what we are talking about.

You said you did not know what it 'feels' like to be a woman.
I asked were you comfortable in your body - you are not now because a part of it, that is, I gather, not a part that would be found in a biologically male body and you are rightfully feeling all the many emotions that deserves.

There must have been a time when you did feel comfortable in that body because if you didn't you would know - it would always have been a betraying body. It would have been wrong long before things went wrong.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Again never said nothing can be defined. Just that nobody has to accept your definition.

What I actually said is that the "gamete" definition defines a group of people. A scientist or group of scientists is free to call that group whatever he/she/they want to. Female, women, plupplups If it helps them to communicate with each other.

But nobody else has to accept that scientist or group of scientist has exclusive rights to define that word. Especially if that word was around looooooong before the scientists.

And especially if the scientist or some groupies are trying to use that definiton to deprive people of access to facilities.

That does not even come close to nihilism. Such a faulty interpretation of my opinions.

And still no definition of your own forthcoming. Shock! I wonder why that could be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh jesus christ Cteven this is getting genuinely fcuking depressing

You’re aware of the history of physics, you have a degree in the subject, yet you claim that most physicists have a disdain for philosophy (upon which science is founded), but you argue that most physicists are of the Copenhagen ‘school of thought’. Schools of thought relate directly to philosophy, and the school of thought you refer to relates only to quantum physics -

The views of several early pioneers of quantum mechanics, such as Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, are often grouped together as the "Copenhagen interpretation", though physicists and historians of physics have argued that this terminology obscures differences between the views so designated. Copenhagen-type ideas were never universally embraced, and challenges to a perceived Copenhagen orthodoxy gained increasing attention in the 1950s with the pilot-wave interpretation of David Bohm and the many-worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett III.

Moreover, the strictly formalist position, shunning interpretation, has been challenged by proposals for experiments that might one day distinguish among interpretations, as by measuring an AI consciousness or via quantum computing.

The physicist N. David Mermin once quipped, "New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear." As a rough guide to development of the mainstream view during the 1990s and 2000s, a "snapshot" of opinions was collected in a poll by Schlosshauer et al. at the "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" conference of July 2011. The authors reference a similarly informal poll carried out by Max Tegmark at the "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory" conference in August 1997. The main conclusion of the authors is that "the Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme", receiving the most votes in their poll (42%), besides the rise to mainstream notability of the many-worlds interpretations:

"The Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme here, especially if we lump it together with intellectual offsprings such as information-based interpretations and the Quantum Bayesian interpretation. In Tegmark's poll, the Everett interpretation received 17% of the vote, which is similar to the number of votes (18%) in our poll."

Interpretations of quantum mechanics

Yes it only relates to QM, I never suggested otherwise.

'The Copenhagen school of thought still reigns supreme'. Woops out by 9% for the majority, my apologies. The point is most physicists do not engage in Quantum interpretation debates, they 'shut up and calculate' as I said.

This is widely acknowledged within the community. Nice copy and paste job all the same.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Er, define avoidance.

No need to. Your post perfectly demonstrates it

Pity it fails to define woman.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Were you comfortable in it before it betrayed you?

My own body is attacking itself and it takes several medical interventions every morning for me to not die that day but that has nothing to do with whether or not I am content with my gender being the same as my birth biology and you know that is what I meant.

Seriously? My answer to your question was 100% genuine. I have terminal cancer that struck at the heart of my womanhood, my husband’s favourite part of my body, after 2.5 years of being fobbed off and being treated like a hysterical woman (wonder if those men who are uncomfortable in their bodies would be dismissed as summarily as I was with as obvious a sign of cancer as I had). You asked if I was comfortable in my adult human female body. My answer was a very honest and genuine no. I can’t remember how I felt about it before then as that’s a distant, different life and a different person.

You didn’t like the answer but that’s not my problem. Asked and answered.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I already have. Its you who has repeatedly failed to give a definition. Now we both know you won't this time either because are a nihilist who doesn't believe that things can be defined. There is no truth, there is no objective reality. Nothing exists. As such, no definition will be forthcoming.

Again never said nothing can be defined. Just that nobody has to accept your definition.

What I actually said is that the "gamete" definition defines a group of people. A scientist or group of scientists is free to call that group whatever he/she/they want to. Female, women, plupplups If it helps them to communicate with each other.

But nobody else has to accept that scientist or group of scientist has exclusive rights to define that word. Especially if that word was around looooooong before the scientists.

And especially if the scientist or some groupies are trying to use that definiton to deprive people of access to facilities.

That does not even come close to nihilism. Such a faulty interpretation of my opinions.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I know fully well about the history of physics. I've a degree in the subject. Most physicist have a disdain for philosophy, because its.. Wait for it... Not science. Most physicists are of the 'shut up and calculate' Copenhagen school of thought.

Ahh jesus christ Cteven this is getting genuinely fcuking depressing

You’re aware of the history of physics, you have a degree in the subject, yet you claim that most physicists have a disdain for philosophy (upon which science is founded), but you argue that most physicists are of the Copenhagen ‘school of thought’. Schools of thought relate directly to philosophy, and the school of thought you refer to relates only to quantum physics -

The views of several early pioneers of quantum mechanics, such as Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, are often grouped together as the "Copenhagen interpretation", though physicists and historians of physics have argued that this terminology obscures differences between the views so designated. Copenhagen-type ideas were never universally embraced, and challenges to a perceived Copenhagen orthodoxy gained increasing attention in the 1950s with the pilot-wave interpretation of David Bohm and the many-worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett III.

Moreover, the strictly formalist position, shunning interpretation, has been challenged by proposals for experiments that might one day distinguish among interpretations, as by measuring an AI consciousness or via quantum computing.

The physicist N. David Mermin once quipped, "New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear." As a rough guide to development of the mainstream view during the 1990s and 2000s, a "snapshot" of opinions was collected in a poll by Schlosshauer et al. at the "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" conference of July 2011. The authors reference a similarly informal poll carried out by Max Tegmark at the "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory" conference in August 1997. The main conclusion of the authors is that "the Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme", receiving the most votes in their poll (42%), besides the rise to mainstream notability of the many-worlds interpretations:

"The Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme here, especially if we lump it together with intellectual offsprings such as information-based interpretations and the Quantum Bayesian interpretation. In Tegmark's poll, the Everett interpretation received 17% of the vote, which is similar to the number of votes (18%) in our poll."

Interpretations of quantum mechanics

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nope, I’m not because my biologically female body betrayed me and will soon kill me. I’m not comfortable with it at all. I’m still a woman. Next question.

Were you comfortable in it before it betrayed you?

My own body is attacking itself and it takes several medical interventions every morning for me to not die that day but that has nothing to do with whether or not I am content with my gender being the same as my birth biology and you know that is what I meant.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Then please enlighten me with the definiton of woman.

I already have. Its you who has repeatedly failed to give a definition. Now we both know you won't this time either because are a nihilist who doesn't believe that things can be defined. There is no truth, there is no objective reality. Nothing exists. As such, no definition will be forthcoming.

In Tawu Sabah a baby was born with just a head. The astonishing baby birth went viral after photos of the head of the baby, which had eyes, mouth, and hair. It had none of the biological elements that have been described in countless pages. Could you define the sex?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that.

Then please enlighten me with the definiton of woman.