One eyed Jack wrote: » 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:
OscarMIlde wrote: » I'm not ignorant of the cultural ramifications of science. We held regular ethics classes in undergraduate where we hashed out real world implications of scientific advances. However really none of the arguments brought forward by either you or Jack have anything to do with science. When you're pressed on biological realities the issue is either avoided by not replying directly or clouded in paragraphs of irrelevant waffle. The closest either of you get to defining why transwomen are women is stereotypical guff about wearing feminine clothes and womanly feelings, whatever the hell they are.
OscarMIlde wrote: » Attempting to alter these signalling pathways in pre-teens/teens to 'treat' transgenderism has untold effects on all these areas. The signalling pathways of cells are incredibly complex and difficult to elucidate. No one can state with any certainty that these hormonal interventions are safe. Children being given these treatments are guinea pigs. They will certainly suffer from it if a few years down the line they decide they actually want to 'revert' to their real biological sex, as it is not possible to reverse the effects of these hormone treatments. I don't see how children are psychologically, emotionally or mentally well equipped to make life changing decisions such as these. In addition they most likely will be at increased risk of hormonally driven cancers in later life.
OscarMIlde wrote: » Yet you blithely advocate for 'treatments' such as these, despite the medical and psychological risks attached, and claim that I am the one lacking scientific, sociological and philosophical acuity. It would be laughable if it didn't have such serious real world implications.
OscarMIlde wrote: » I'm not ignorant of the cultural ramifications of science. We held regular ethics classes in undergraduate where we hashed out real world implications of scientific advances. However really none of the arguments brought forward by either you or Jack have anything to do with science. When you're pressed on biological realities the issue is either avoided by not replying directly or clouded in paragraphs of irrelevant waffle. The closest either of you get to defining why transwomen are women is stereotypical guff about wearing feminine clothes and womanly feelings, whatever the hell they are. The reality is we are not hermaphrodites, it is not possible to change biological sex. There are some people who due to developmental defects will not have fully developed as a distinct biological sex, we class these people as intersex. Development is a highly complex process, and the full biological development of a human occurs not just in utero but continues throughout life, with the full adult expression of the biological sex of a person manifesting during puberty. The hormonal cascades of puberty are not just linked to development of functional adult gonads and secondary sexual characteristics like breast development, deepening voice and facial hair. They also effect the developing brain and growth of a person. Attempting to alter these signalling pathways in pre-teens/teens to 'treat' transgenderism has untold effects on all these areas. The signalling pathways of cells are incredibly complex and difficult to elucidate. No one can state with any certainty that these hormonal interventions are safe. Children being given these treatments are guinea pigs. They will certainly suffer from it if a few years down the line they decide they actually want to 'revert' to their real biological sex, as it is not possible to reverse the effects of these hormone treatments. I don't see how children are psychologically, emotionally or mentally well equipped to make life changing decisions such as these. In addition they most likely will be at increased risk of hormonally driven cancers in later life. Yet you blithely advocate for 'treatments' such as these, despite the medical and psychological risks attached, and claim that I am the one lacking scientific, sociological and philosophical acuity. It would be laughable if it didn't have such serious real world implications.
OscarMIlde wrote: » So firstly you claim that the biology is too complex for me to understand
OscarMIlde wrote: » Then when I mention that I am, and I really am, a molecular biologist, with a degree, PhD, years of postdoctoral basic research experience and clinical experience, you decide I am 'appealing to authority'. This from the person who claimed on the J.K Rowling thread that people were using scientific arguments and words to sound clever.
OscarMIlde wrote: » You can't argue with the actual points people make about biology, so you resort to whataboutery of 'future knowledge' and class them as close minded.
OscarMIlde wrote: » When called on the regressive nature of the stereotypes transwomen adopt when claiming to 'know' they are really a woman you claim to disagree with such stereotypical views. Your positions are logically inconsistent and I don't understand why someone would be so intent on defending the ideology behind such views when they also claim to not agree with labelling and putting people into boxes based on their sex.
OscarMIlde wrote: » All of the people listed are biologically women apart from trans women, who are biological males who feel like they are or want to be women. They are however not women, no matter how much this fact hurts their feelings.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » My issue is self Id, at least in its current format.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have any particular difficulties arisen for you in the five years of self id in Ireland?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Claiming to be a molecular biologist is clearly not the same thing as being a molecular biologist
suicide_circus wrote: » Beautiful. Sublime. Can anyone else see where I might be going with this quote?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Oh we're back to this old chestnut. Been answered already.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You are appealing to authority, and again - I don’t care for your credentials. I’m only interested in your opinions.thing scientific about that though, it’s entirely your own political hobby horse.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Well it’s ok too for anyone to claim they are a molecular biologist, it’s still different than being a molecular biologist? That’s not what I had an issue with, my issue was with the idea that simply claiming to be a molecular biologist should lend weight to a person’s opinions. It doesn’t, any more than claiming to be any gender lends any weight to the idea that they are that gender? You left out the bit where I said I was prepared to take the poster at face value, I’d do the same for anyone claiming to be of a particular gender. That in and of itself makes no odds to me whatsoever. However, if they were to claim that as a molecular biologist they recommend that an infant be subjected to unnecessary surgical procedures, then we might have an issue (for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being that a molecular biologist wouldn’t have the authority to make such a recommendation!), but if someone were simply claiming to be of a particular gender? Fcuk it, you do you and all that. I couldn’t care less, no impediment upon my life whatsoever. I’ll still treat both the molecular biologist and the person who claims a particular gender the same as I would anyone else, and if they’re one and the same person - a molecular biologist who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes, it’s still all the one to me tbh.
BattleCorp wrote: » I would have thought credentials as a molecular biologist would be important in a discussion about what is essentially a topic that biology plays an important part of the discussion?
Sudden Valley wrote: » Where exactly do all these commentators go when they kickedoff twitter(e.g. Katei Hopkins, Milo etc.) and do you make any money being on Twitter?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you REALLY want to prevent women being sexually assaulted or raped, you have lots of actual targets available to you, such as the men who assault, sexually assault and rape women every day here. But instead, you focus on one very narrow theoretical niche scenario. I'm not too convinced about your objective here.
seamus wrote: » They usually end up getting kicked off all their platforms in time. I don't think anyone makes money from Twitter, but it's a lead generator for other platforms like YouTube or Twitch where they do make money. When they're left with nowhere else to go, they typically end up on the scrap heap, going bankrupt and starting back at zero. They'll have made a few friends in wealthy circles who'll give them a quiet job with a steady income, but they'll be kept well out of the spotlight. Linehan should have enough of his own money that it's not an issue for him. This is an entirely personal crusade.
Gruffalox wrote: » Funny though that the MAPS and NOMAPS dont get kicked off Twitter. The anime accounts allowed to discuss minor attraction. And elsewhere the subreddits like deadeyes, rapekink, abusedsluts, slaveauction, and strugglefcuking remain but not gender critical. Where exactly is this other scrapheap that could possibly be more vile I ask meself.
seamus wrote: » You know, you're basically going to have to explain your post to me. I gather you're talking about some dark corners of reddit that have yet to be banned, but outside of that I'm lost. It's pretty universal that the more high-profile you make your hate speech, the more likely you are to be kicked off a platform in a blaze of glory. Reddit has a poor record on ousting toxic groups across a wide spectrum. They generally seem to take the approach of ignoring it until someone is doxxed, killed or injured or until there's a possibility the site staff could get in legal trouble.
Gruffalox wrote: » "Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime."https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Gruffalox wrote: » Hibo Wardere lives in the UK. You can see parts of it across the sea from places here on clear days! She is from Somalia. It is in the UK that she is accosted by UK bullies who attack her for speaking out on UK soil about female genital mutilation. FGM that happens in the UK. Because using the word female is transphobic. Did the women who call other women in this thread hear that - Hibo Wardere is a transphobe too. Good company for me. Fantastic woman.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Oh Gruffalox, did you not get the memo that informed boards.ie users that they may only discuss things that happen in Ireland? We’re not allowed to care about or discuss things that happen anywhere else. Got it? :pac:
AndrewJRenko wrote: » FGM happens here too, but we don't get quite so much tweeting and posting about the dangers to women from FGM, strangely enough.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Ah yes, FGM. Another bastion of 'Diversity' and 'multiculturalism' that we all have to pretend is so fantastic, cheered on by the likes of you know doubt. So FGM and male rapists in women's prisons. What else have you got up your sleeve to **** women over with?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » And the answer is still 'none' - no issues arising.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I think you've missed the point just a little bit.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
