Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Zorya · 07-05-2019 3:49pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Therein lies the problem - you're not being asked to accept it, just use a chosen form of address.

I mean, it's a workplace - very few if us are going to adopt the policies of our employers - but we're on their time to an extent and it comes with duties and repsonsibilities.

Outside of the workplace, that's your cal totally, or should be.

I think you have got the story a bit wrong and I am not saying that in a mean way, but genuinely. I don't think anyone would have a problem with addressing people by the names or pronouns they wish for, well maybe a few odd people might laugh, but so what.

What got Forstater in trouble was stating publicly on her twitter account and in a Medium post that a ''Transwoman is not a woman.'' That has nothing to do with forms of address. It has only to do with the truth of biological sex.

Forstater said in addition that she is in favour of trans rights but not where they might impinge upon the sex-protected rights of biological females such as in sports or prisons or in sex-protected circumstances.

If one is compelled to publicly avow that a trans identifying person actually BECOMES the sex they identify with, then this is totalitarian ideological indoctrination.
She also did all this on her own time, as her own private person, not as a company representative, or under their banner.

07-05-2019 4:04pm

Zorya said what I was trying to get across albeit far more eloquently.

jimgoose · 07-05-2019 4:09pm

Zorya wrote: »

...one is compelled to publicly avow that a trans identifying person actually BECOMES the sex they identify with, then this is totalitarian ideological indoctrination...

Goodthink. :cool:

p1akuw47h5r3it · 07-05-2019 4:17pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

While guilty on the derailing thing (sorry!) I find a lot of the problems - generally speaking - is simply people not knowing the difference between debate and attack/defend/win/lose.

I thought the business/individual/emplyee/employer rights discussion was quite interesting all the same.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:18pm

Zorya wrote: »

If one is compelled to publicly avow that a trans identifying person actually BECOMES the sex they identify with, then this is totalitarian ideological indoctrination.

No one has been compelled to do any such thing.

Her company didn't say "Post a tweet that says trans women are women or you're fired".

I finally went back to read some of her stuff, and generally I think it's well written and the tone is fine. I only skimmed it, but this stood out to me as potentially very controversial:

I honestly don’t see the difference between Rachel Dolezal’s internal feeling that she is black and a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman (ie adult human female). Neither has basis in material reality.

I googled "What does science say about trans people?" to see if that statement has any merit, and this is the first article that comes up, signed by hundreds of biologists, geneticists and 9 Nobel prize winners. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46067559

Those of you who think science is unmistakably on your side are incorrect.

The letter, signed by over 700 biologists, over 100 geneticists, and nine Nobel Prize winners dispute the US government's proposal, saying it "is in no way 'grounded in science' as the administration claims".

"The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood," they write.

"Though scientists are just beginning to understand the biological basis of gender identity, it is clear that many factors, known and unknown, mediate the complex links between identity, genes, and anatomy," the authors write in the letter, which links to 10 different scientific studies.

Feisar · 07-05-2019 4:22pm

Augme wrote: »

Employers can never control what an employee says outside work. However an employer should have the right to decide if they want to no longer employ someone based on opinions they have expressed outside of work.

I don't know about that unless one is some sort of brand ambassador or a sports person for example that represents a team/sponsors.

Sounds like discrimination to me, bit like being fired for skin colour, no bearing on the job.

klaaaz · 07-05-2019 4:22pm

A small bunch of posters got offended that they cannot offend their work colleagues anymore, bet they're quickly reading up their contract of employment!

p1akuw47h5r3it · 07-05-2019 4:23pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No one has been compelled to do any such thing.

Her company didn't say "Post a tweet that says trans women are women or you're fired".

I finally went back to read some of her stuff, and generally I think it's well written and the tone is fine. I only skimmed it, but this stood out to me as potentially very controversial:

I googled "What does science say about trans people?" to see if that statement has any merit, and this is the first article that comes up, signed by hundreds of biologists, geneticists and 9 Nobel prize winners. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46067559

Those of you who think science is unmistakably on your side are incorrect.

Gender and biological sex are different things though. They may be interchangeable for the vast majority, but gender is essentially what gender you "feel" you are. So you can be born a biological male but "feel" female. The science, as you, stated is unclear. Both are innate imo, and I think the idea that some people are "gender fluid" is nonsense.

It is clear about biological sex however.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:24pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Gender and biological sex are different things though. They may be interchangeable for the vast majority, but gender is essentially what gender you feel you are. So you can be born a biological male but "feel" female. The science, as you, stated is unclear.

It is clear about biological sex however.

Well 1,600 scientists disagree with you on that, and I trust them more than I trust you.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 07-05-2019 4:26pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Well 1,600 scientists disagree with you on that, and I trust them more than I trust you.

No they don't. They are saying gender is not well under stood. Not biological sex. They are different things.

Danzy · 07-05-2019 4:27pm

klaaaz wrote: »

A small bunch of posters got offended that they cannot offend their work colleagues anymore, bet they're quickly reading up their contract of employment!

Wrong thread.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:29pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No they don't. They are saying gender is not well under stood. Not biological sex. They are different things.

Go and read the full article. Like seriously, if you have time to post here contradicting me, you could at least read it.

The letter goes on to explain that no scientific test can "unambiguously determine gender, or even sex".

Feisar · 07-05-2019 4:30pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Therein lies the problem - you're not being asked to accept it, just use a chosen form of address.

I mean, it's a workplace - very few if us are going to adopt the policies of our employers - but we're on their time to an extent and it comes with duties and repsonsibilities.

Outside of the workplace, that's your cal totally, or should be.

In reality if a lad/girl wants to play make belief and be called a girl/lad I'll play along so as not to hurt their feelings. If they are gender fluid it'll be a lot a gender neutral stuff, I'll grumble to myself at the silliness of it but I'll get on with it. This falls under "being nice to my fellow man" rule.

In the interest of debate though why should someone be coerced into referring to someone as a woman/man when they clearly are not?

Zorya · 07-05-2019 4:32pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No one has been compelled to do any such thing.

Her company didn't say "Post a tweet that says trans women are women or you're fired".

I finally went back to read some of her stuff, and generally I think it's well written and the tone is fine. I only skimmed it, but this stood out to me as potentially very controversial:

I googled "What does science say about trans people?" to see if that statement has any merit, and this is the first article that comes up, signed by hundreds of biologists, geneticists and 9 Nobel prize winners. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46067559

Those of you who think science is unmistakably on your side are incorrect.

There is no compelling proof that biological sex is other than chromosomal. There are fragmentary pieces of research from small studies that claim possible longer androgen receptors or such like, though these do not account for epigenetics. There is in fact extremely limited research as of yet in the whole area,which is problematic if only because there are wider indications of harms being definitely caused to other organisms from endogenous xeno-chemicals. EG fish and reptiles with confused sex genotypes.
It would be brilliant f there was concentrated research that is unbiased and empirical in this whole area - and most especially in the realm of childhood treatment of dysphoria and long term follow up on the harms being caused by hormonal and surgical treatment.
For example one surgeon I read about recently states that he is seeing a surge in metastasising tumours among young people which he is speculating could be attributed to excessive hormone treatment in youth. Surgeons say people have terrible problems with neo-vaginas because there is almost universally bad smells and bacterial infections. Reports from Tavistock recently say that treatment increases dysphoria and concommitant mental issues such as anger, anbxiety and depression.
This whole area is vastly under-researched. It should be otherwise. It is important given the dreadful harm that is being casually done under the auspices of being ''nice''.
I already suggested that in the meantime it is best to go with the Occam's Razor approach of chromosomal sex until proven otherwise.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:33pm

Feisar wrote: »

In the interest of debate though why should someone be coerced into referring to someone as a woman/man when they clearly are not?

Because the science is in no way settled on this, who are you to say "they clearly are not".

Babies only have one head, that would seem to be settled science, but occasionally conjoined twins come along and somehow we are able to accept that new reality.

People have 10 fingers and 10 toes but sometimes someone is born with 11 fingers instead.

How hard is it to believe that sometimes nature f*cks up and puts a man's brain into a woman's body or vice versa?

Candamir · 07-05-2019 4:34pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Go and read the full article. Like seriously, if you have time to post here contradicting me, you could at least read it.

You’ve linked a news site report. Not a scientific journal. It’s paraphrased by a non expert journalist. So I’d suggest that you read the original letter, and then read the citations given (I do hope there’s citations), and then you’ll know what’s actually been said.

You’ll also have no problem finding plenty of evidence that sex can be determined using a simple scientific test, except for some cases of intersex when it gets a bit more complicated.
But we’re not talking about intersex here, so that’s largely irrelevant to the discussion.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:37pm

Candamir wrote: »

You’ve linked a news site report. Not a scientific journal. It’s paraphrased by a non expert journalist. So I’d suggest that you read the original letter, and then read the citations given (I do hope there’s citations), and then you’ll know what’s actually been said.

You’ll also have no problem finding plenty of evidence that sex can be determined using a simple scientific test, except for some cases of intersex when it gets a bit more complicated.
But we’re not talking about intersex here, so that’s largely irrelevant to the discussion.

It's linked to in the BBC article, but if you need to be spoonfed, here it is, and yes, it links to 10 studies https://not-binary.org/statement/

Candamir · 07-05-2019 4:38pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Because the science is in no way settled on this, who are you to say "they clearly are not".

Babies only have one head, that would seem to be settled science, but occasionally conjoined twins come along and somehow we are able to accept that new reality.

People have 10 fingers and 10 toes but sometimes someone is born with 11 fingers instead.

How hard is it to believe that sometimes nature f*cks up and puts a man's brain into a woman's body or vice versa?

Where do you get the idea that one headed babies are ‘settled science’.
They’re not.

Science is very clear on how conjoined twins happens. There’s no conflict there.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 4:39pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's linked to in the BBC article, but if you need to be spoonfed, here it is, and yes, it links to 10 studies https://not-binary.org/statement/

And I thought you were all about being nice to people.

Zorya · 07-05-2019 4:39pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Because the science is in no way settled on this, who are you to say "they clearly are not".

Babies only have one head, that would seem to be settled science, but occasionally conjoined twins come along and somehow we are able to accept that new reality.

People have 10 fingers and 10 toes but sometimes someone is born with 11 fingers instead.

How hard is it to believe that sometimes nature f*cks up and puts a man's brain into a woman's body or vice versa?

Because if nature is fncking up to the extent that it appears to be at the moment with some high schools in the US claiming 4 and 5% of their students are trans or a school in Brighton claiming 46 or 47 trans students then something has gone seriously awry with the species and there should be urgent investigation in it.
Thankfully this is beginning to happen. The UK has launched public enquiries and as of last week Sweden has halted treatment of gender dysphoric children with hormones until the state of things can be properly investigated as there have been so many complaints from medical professionals about fast tracking inappropriate treatment and being bullied by trans activism to affirm transgenderism.

Feisar · 07-05-2019 4:40pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Because the science is in no way settled on this, who are you to say "they clearly are not".

Babies only have one head, that would seem to be settled science, but occasionally conjoined twins come along and somehow we are able to accept that new reality.

People have 10 fingers and 10 toes but sometimes someone is born with 11 fingers instead.

How hard is it to believe that sometimes nature f*cks up and puts a man's brain into a woman's body or vice versa?

Well if science isn't settled on this clearly it's up in the air, either of us could be right.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 4:41pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's linked to in the BBC article, but if you need to be spoonfed, here it is, and yes, it links to 10 studies https://not-binary.org/statement/

Ok. Well that was easy. You don’t have to read past the title to see they’re also talking about intersex conditions.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:42pm

Feisar wrote: »

Well if science isn't settled on this clearly it's up in the air, either of us could be right.

That's been my position the whole way through.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:43pm

Candamir wrote: »

Ok. Well that was easy. You don’t have to read past the title to see they’re also talking about intersex conditions.

Yes, they are very clearly talking about both trans people and intersex people.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 4:45pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Yes, they are very clearly talking about both trans people and intersex people.

And very clearly, this discussion is about trans persons, not intersex. So your evidence that sex can’t be determined iisn’t relevant to it.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:49pm

Candamir wrote: »

And very clearly, this discussion is about trans persons, not intersex. So your evidence that sex can’t be determined iisn’t relevant to it.

So you're claiming you can ignore the points they make about trans people because they also talk about intersex people?

The proposed policy seeks to erase the identities of millions of Americans who identify as transgender... In transgender individuals, the existence and validity of a distinct gender identity is supported by a number of neuroanatomical studies.3 Though scientists are just beginning to understand the biological basis of gender identity, it is clear that many factors, known and unknown, mediate the complex links between identity, genes, and anatomy.4

Candamir · 07-05-2019 4:54pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So you're claiming you can ignore the points they make about trans people because they also talk about intersex people?

No, that’s not what I’m claiming.

You should realise that google does not make you a scientist.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 5:01pm

Candamir wrote: »

No, that’s not what I’m claiming.

You should realise that google does not make you a scientist.

And you telling me to be nice a few posts back?

No, I don't claim to be a scientist. But that letter is signed by a lot of people who are, neuroscientists, biologists, geneticists and psychiatrists.

I like how when you can't dispute my points you just get bitchy, it really highlights the lack of substance in your posts.

One eyed Jack · 07-05-2019 5:01pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's linked to in the BBC article, but if you need to be spoonfed, here it is, and yes, it links to 10 studies https://not-binary.org/statement/

In that letter though, they make a distinction themselves between physical intersex conditions, and transgender mental conditions, ie - the people who signed that letter are themselves quite clear on the distinction between sex and gender, and yet still nowhere in the letter do they state that individuals have the capacity to change sex. They have the capacity to identify themselves as whatever gender they may choose, and there are an infinite number of genders to choose from as it’s a construct of linguistics. If you’re looking to present evidence to validate Western concepts of sex and gender, you’re not going to find it in Western science and medicine. You’re far more likely to find evidence in culture.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

How hard is it to believe that sometimes nature f*cks up and puts a man's brain into a woman's body or vice versa?

It’s not just hard, it’s impossible, because the implication of that statement is that nature is imbued with some sort of intelligence or intent. Nature doesn’t fcuk up, it evolves. It’s cultural expectations that make people feel as though they are a man’s brain trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa. That’s caused by the limitations of their own understanding of science, not the fact that there are no limitations on nature.

klaaaz · 07-05-2019 5:02pm

2617 scientists from a wide selection of fields in their study are correct on the transgender issue, the science denier posters here who have been proven to be wrong still think they know better than thousands of scientists. That's another level of ignorance!

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 5:07pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In that letter though, they make a distinction themselves between physical intersex conditions, and transgender mental conditions, ie - the people who signed that letter are themselves quite clear on the distinction between sex and gender, and yet still nowhere in the letter do they state that individuals have the capacity to change sex. They have the capacity to identify themselves as whatever gender they may choose, and there are an infinite number of genders to choose from as it’s a construct of linguistics. If you’re looking to present evidence to validate Western concepts of sex and gender, you’re not going to find it in Western science and medicine. You’re far more likely to find evidence in culture.

I think what they've said more than anything is "this isn't settled" as people here are trying to state.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not just hard, it’s impossible, because the implication of that statement is that nature is imbued with some sort of intelligence or intent. Nature doesn’t fcuk up, it evolves. It’s cultural expectations that make people feel as though they are a man’s brain trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa. That’s caused by the limitations of their own understanding of science, not the fact that there are no limitations on nature.

I may have phrased that poorly but I think you understood what I meant. To give another example, for evolutionary purposes men need to be attracted to women and women to men to propagate the species. But in a small percentage of cases, men are attracted to men and women are attracted to women.

In previous times, similar arguments to the ones being made here were used to suggest homosexuality was unnatural, as opposed to just (relatively) rare.

One eyed Jack · 07-05-2019 5:08pm

klaaaz wrote: »

2617 scientists from a wide selection of fields in their study are correct on the transgender issue, the science denier posters here who have been proven to be wrong still think they know better than thousands of scientists. That's another level of ignorance!

Could you be any more vague there klaaaz in an attempt to contort illusion and present it as reality? :pac:

Candamir · 07-05-2019 5:11pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

And you telling me to be nice a few posts back?

No, I don't claim to be a scientist. But that letter is signed by a lot of people who are, neuroscientists, biologists, geneticists and psychiatrists.

I like how when you can't dispute my points you just get bitchy, it really highlights the lack of substance in your posts.

There nothing wrong with the letter - it just doesn’t say what you think it says!
And I’m not being bitchy. It’s a common enough thing that people think they can look something up on google - get a link to an article that wasn’t specific to their google search, and think that it’s a valid answer. Just like you did.

You typed ‘what does science say about transgender people’
, got an article that referred to transgender and other issues, including intersex, and then tried to imply that what was said (about intersex) is referring to transgender.

It’s a common mistake.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 5:19pm

Candamir wrote: »

There nothing wrong with the letter - it just doesn’t say what you think it says!
And I’m not being bitchy. It’s a common enough thing that people think they can look something up on google - get a link to an article that wasn’t specific to their google search, and think that it’s a valid answer. Just like you did.

You typed ‘what does science say about transgender people’
, got an article that referred to transgender and other issues, including intersex, and then tried to imply that what was said (about intersex) is referring to transgender.

It’s a common mistake.

It’s a mistake I didn’t make. I have highlighted the portion that relates specifically to trans people in a previous post.

I can see you need a bit of time to take the info contained in the letter onboard. I’m going to go watch GoT and get outside for a couple of hours, and I’ll check in to see if you can admit the science on this isn’t settled when I get back.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 5:26pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s a mistake I didn’t make. I have highlighted the portion that relates specifically to trans people in a previous post.

I can see you need a bit of time to take the info contained in the letter onboard. I’m going to go watch GoT and get outside for a couple of hours, and I’ll check in to see if you can admit the science on this isn’t settled when I get back.

No, really it is a mistake you made.

Look. You’re not a scientist, so it’s an understandable mistake to make. It’s not so understandable to have the mistake pointed out to you and still not quite get it.

You didn’t highlight the point relating specifically to trans people. The point relates to the title of the article, which includes intersex people.

I tell you what. Pull out the citation from that article that shows that biological sex can not be determined in trans people (not intersex people) and I’ll believe you.

suicide_circus · 07-05-2019 5:27pm

is there a difference between male and female brains?

One eyed Jack · 07-05-2019 5:30pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I think what they've said more than anything is "this isn't settled" as people here are trying to state.

Yep, that’s exactly what they’re saying, all 2,167 of them who know exactly where their funding is coming from, who want to keep their jobs and continue their careers, as opposed to the greater number of scientists who know to steer well clear of any suggestions to the contrary for fear that they will lose everything as they are witnesses to what happens to people who go against the current trends in politics, not science.

I may have phrased that poorly but I think you understood what I meant. To give another example, for evolutionary purposes men need to be attracted to women and women to men to propagate the species. But in a small percentage of cases, men are attracted to men and women are attracted to women.

In previous times, similar arguments to the ones being made here were used to suggest homosexuality was unnatural, as opposed to just (relatively) rare.

It’s not a great example as there is no necessity for people to be attracted to each other to propagate the species, but I do get where you’re coming from in that similar arguments based upon political beliefs, cultural norms, and counter-cultural norms have been put forward to argue that what was natural is inherently good, and what was regarded as unnatural is inherently bad, an appeal to nature it’s called. Equally fallacious however, and just as dangerous for society, is the appeal to pity which demands that society suspend it’s perception of the natural world in order to appease the beliefs of a minority within that society. That minority however, is quite adept at ignoring and downplaying the minority within that minority who exist, and whose existence is contrary to their beliefs -

Red Flags and Radicals: A Detransitioner’s Response to the Unhappiness of Andrea Long Chu

In short, it’s all about politics, which is a product of culture.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-05-2019 5:40pm

Zorya wrote: »

I think you have got the story a bit wrong and I am not saying that in a mean way, but genuinely. I don't think anyone would have a problem with addressing people by the names or pronouns they wish for, well maybe a few odd people might laugh, but so what.

What got Forstater in trouble was stating publicly on her twitter account and in a Medium post that a ''Transwoman is not a woman.'' That has nothing to do with forms of address. It has only to do with the truth of biological sex.

Forstater said in addition that she is in favour of trans rights but not where they might impinge upon the sex-protected rights of biological females such as in sports or prisons or in sex-protected circumstances.

If one is compelled to publicly avow that a trans identifying person actually BECOMES the sex they identify with, then this is totalitarian ideological indoctrination.
She also did all this on her own time, as her own private person, not as a company representative, or under their banner.

One or two people said they would, and I have read the story (but went off topic, so sorry again...

)

Candamir · 07-05-2019 5:43pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, that’s exactly what they’re saying, all 2,167 of them who know exactly where their funding is coming from, who want to keep their jobs and continue their careers, as opposed to the greater number of scientists who know to steer well clear of any suggestions to the contrary for fear that they will lose everything as they are witnesses to what happens to people who go against the current trends in politics, not science.

It’s not a great example as there is no necessity for people to be attracted to each other to propagate the species, but I do get where you’re coming from in that similar arguments based upon political beliefs, cultural norms, and counter-cultural norms have been put forward to argue that what was natural is inherently good, and what was regarded as unnatural is inherently bad, an appeal to nature it’s called. Equally fallacious however, and just as dangerous for society, is the appeal to pity which demands that society suspend it’s perception of the natural world in order to appease the beliefs of a minority within that society. That minority however, is quite adept at ignoring and downplaying the minority within that minority who exist, and whose existence is contrary to their beliefs -

Red Flags and Radicals: A Detransitioner’s Response to the Unhappiness of Andrea Long Chu

In short, it’s all about politics, which is a product of culture.

I agree with you, a lot of this stuff is political. But they’re not even saying ‘it’s all up in the air’ regarding sex determination - they’re talking primarily about gender identity.
They’re pretty clear about that. It’s in the opening sentence of the letter. But as usual people are conflating one thing with another.

As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia, and with plans to clarify disputes using “genetic testing”.

It’s like saying grass is green, grass is a plant, therefore all plants are green.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 5:46pm

Candamir wrote: »

No, really it is a mistake you made.

Look. You’re not a scientist, so it’s an understandable mistake to make. It’s not so understandable to have the mistake pointed out to you and still not quite get it.

You didn’t highlight the point relating specifically to trans people. The point relates to the title of the article, which includes intersex people.

I tell you what. Pull out the citation from that article that shows that biological sex can not be determined in trans people (not intersex people) and I’ll believe you.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

In the post where I introduced the article, this was the only comment I made on it

Those of you who think science is unmistakably on your side are incorrect.

That point stands.

If you want to keep saying "you did make a mistake, you did make a mistake" like a petulant child, quote the mistake I made in my posts and then refute it. That's how adults have a discussion.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 5:55pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's like talking to a brick wall.

In the post where I introduced the article, this was the only comment I made on it

That point stands.

If you want to keep saying "you did make a mistake, you did make a mistake" like a petulant child, quote the mistake I made in my posts and then refute it. That's how adults have a discussion.

Maybe I’ve taken you up wrong then.

So you’re not saying that the letter claims that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test in transgender, not intersex people? Is that right?

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 6:03pm

Candamir wrote: »

Maybe I’ve taken you up wrong then.

So you’re not saying that the letter claims that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test in transgender, not intersex people? Is that right?

Here's what the letter says:

As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia, and with plans to clarify disputes using “genetic testing”.1 This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity.2

The proposal is in no way “grounded in science” as the administration claims. The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex. Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

These are the opening two paragraphs of the letter. In subsequent paragraphs, they get more specific about which of their studies apply to trans people, and which to intersex. The above are general statements intended to apply to both.

Here's the link to the letter once again: https://not-binary.org/statement/

It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 6:08pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Here's what the letter says:

These are the opening two paragraphs of the letter. In subsequent paragraphs, they get more specific about which of their studies apply to trans people, and which to intersex. The above are general statements intended to apply to both.

Here's the link to the letter once again: https://not-binary.org/statement/

It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

I don’t disagree with it.

I disagree that it says that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test,( out side of intersex conditions) in transgender people.

Is that what you’re saying?

Edit: where you say ‘the above are intended to apply to both’ they’re not. They’re intended to apply to either. It’s a pretty significant difference and may be the source of the confusion.

07-05-2019 6:09pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

How hard is it to believe that sometimes nature f*cks up and puts a man's brain into a woman's body or vice versa?

What is a "man's brain"?

It's always interesting how people who jump through endless nit-picking hoops to argue that biological sex is some sort of spectrum (it isn't) are happy to announce that apparently there are man brains and lady brains and never the twain shall meet.

I would love to know what possible test there could be to assign or observe 'gender' by looking at a brain.

Even if there WERE evidence that men's and women's brains may function differently in some ways, that is most definitely a spectrum in the sense that many women are (what is traditionally perceived as) masculine in nature and vice versa.

A huge amount of this nonsense is people who don't understand the difference between sex (biological fact) and gender (societal roles, pressures, expectations).

eagle eye · 07-05-2019 6:12pm

suicide_circus wrote:

is there a difference between male and female brains?

Mean are from Mars, Women are from Venus!!!

Wibbs · 07-05-2019 6:16pm

I find it interesting that most of the conspiracy minded types out there are far more afraid that some regime or a rogue element in government will be the agency to impact their rights(whatever they consider them to be), yet it's far more likely to be an employer, particularly a large multinational that wants to blow with the winds most favourable to their profits that have far more power.

And history also shows that such enterprises will be held far less accountable even if their influence is considered "wrong" when change comes, as it surely does. QV the second world war when the industries and industrialists that directly supported and encouraged the rise of the various Axis powers largely walked away scot free in the aftermath.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 6:16pm

Candamir wrote: »

I don’t disagree with it.

I disagree that it says that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test,( out side of intersex conditions) in transgender people.

Is that what you’re saying?

The statement you’re disputing is clearly intended to include both trans and intersex people.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 6:21pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The statement you’re disputing is clearly intended to include both trans and intersex people.

It’s clearly not.

You can’t make that inference from what’s written there.

And that would make zero scientific sense.

One eyed Jack · 07-05-2019 6:22pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Here's what the letter says:

These are the opening two paragraphs of the letter. In subsequent paragraphs, they get more specific about which of their studies apply to trans people, and which to intersex. The above are general statements intended to apply to both.

Here's the link to the letter once again: https://not-binary.org/statement/

It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

I don’t mean to be funny, but the language used in the letter is intentionally vague, that’s why it appears that they’re saying a whole lot without actually saying anything at all.

They aren’t arguing science, they’re arguing politics, and using ambiguous language to do it. The letter just isn’t a good example to demonstrate anything one way or the other only that it’s easy to find people who will agree with a political point of view and present bad science to argue their beliefs which are intended to influence legislation.

Zorya · 07-05-2019 6:22pm

The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood.

This sentence is about gender identity not sex.

There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender

This word refers to gender identity not sex

, or even sex.

If scientists are seriously stating there are no tests to determine sex then they are in the wrong job. There are. Unambiguously. Chromosones and DNA. Blood. Skeletons. People can tell what sex thousands of years old bodies were.

Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

This is Gender Theory 101. It is not science. It is post structuralist pseudo (social) science.

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Comments