The Gender Debate

[Trogdor]

50 minutes ago, virginton said:

^^^ Nicola Sturgeon found

You've caught me! I've had a traumatic week and came onto P&B for some light relief.

[f_c_dundee]

4 minutes ago, Iain said:

If we're excluding trans women from female spaces are we allowing trans men who present as male in? If not how does that not undermine the entire argument? If we're worried that legislative changes will allow predatory men to pose as trans women are we not overlooking the fact they can already pose as trans men far more easily?

It doesn't undermine the whole argument, it's a separate problem. 

Women don't generally mind any females being present however they identify, but if they look like men as you say, that presents a different problem. 

It doesn't mean we give up and allow males in female spaces because it's what they prefer. 

A lot of men don't want to share with women and quite enjoy their own privacy as well. 

That's where this falls apart, if there's no compromise for each set of people's feelings.

[parsforlife]

19 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

It's absolutely not demonising men or pejorative to simply state the facts, which are partly behind the reasons for sex segregated facilities. 

Segregated facilities between men and women are absolutely nothing to do with a modern statistical analysis between likely crime stats.

[Thorongil]

23 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

It's absolutely not demonising men or pejorative to simply state the facts, which are partly behind the reasons for sex segregated facilities (it's not just toilets, hospital wards etc). I literally said what you just said - men are likely to be the victims of violent crime as well. But not so much the sexual offences, which despite the publicity for any unusual case are almost all carried out by men.

 

I fail to see why we should pretend this isn't the case.

Another reason for the sex segregation being simple privacy and dignity for women.

If you don't happen to believe that people can change sex, you're not going to want to be in a vulnerable state around the opposite sex. 

I agree with you. My issue is that if this statistical approach is applied to any other protected characteristic everyone will call foul. When it’s applied to men as a sex class, it’s not a foul. Exclusively.

[f_c_dundee]

30 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Segregated facilities between men and women are absolutely nothing to do with a modern statistical analysis between likely crime stats.

Well not precisely, but men being the perpetrators of almost all sexual crimes isn't new. 

And yes the fact that women were historically not as welcome to be full members of society and were not provided with facilities did limit them. Hence the push for their own facilities.

But it's written into current regulations for a reason. There's no way it's just fine to undermine it by allowing self identification. 

Risk assessment on a case by case basis is also not a valid mitigation for prisons as an example - those risk assessments are almost completely considering the safety and preference of the trans prisoner, not those of the women inmates. 

It's a much more wide ranging and complex set of topics than a bunch of uppity women bigots being unkind.

 

[f_c_dundee]

43 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

I agree with you. My issue is that if this statistical approach is applied to any other protected characteristic everyone will call foul. When it’s applied to men as a sex class, it’s not a foul. Exclusively.

I'd agree that some people might like to say all "whoever" always do all of this crime and that might be inaccurate. 

But this is not one of those times, I'd say.

As a class men pose more of a risk in these types of crime. That's all that's being said, not a value judgement on all men.

 

 

[Thorongil]

17 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

I'd agree that some people might like to say all "whoever" always do all of this crime and that might be inaccurate. 

But this is not one of those times, I'd say.

As a class men pose more of a risk in these types of crime. That's all that's being said, not a value judgement on all men.

 

 

Yet it’s not acceptable to make such comments on any other protected characteristics. That’s verboten.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, f_c_dundee said:

Well not precisely, but men being the perpetrators of almost all sexual crimes isn't new. 

And yes the fact that women were historically not as welcome to be full members of society and were not provided with facilities did limit them. Hence the push for their own facilities.

But it's written into current regulations for a reason. There's no way it's just fine to undermine it by allowing self identification. 

Risk assessment on a case by case basis is also not a valid mitigation for prisons as an example - those risk assessments are almost completely considering the safety and preference of the trans prisoner, not those of the women inmates. 

It's a much more wide ranging and complex set of topics than a bunch of uppity women bigots being unkind.

 

Risk assessments are about the safety of the prisoners and the safety of other prisoners - that's been the case for some time - and long before GRR.

As soon as ScotGov interfered in the Bryson case they completely undermined the key safeguard that underpinned their argument.

[f_c_dundee]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Risk assessments are about the safety of the prisoners and the safety of other prisoners - that's been the case for some time - and long before GRR.

As soon as ScotGov interfered in the Bryson case they completely undermined the key safeguard that underpinned their argument.

I think you mean the same as me - and they should absolutely be about the risk to all.

But just in case -  some actual prisoner RA have been shared online and the absolute priority was the prisoner being able to live as a woman and be away from the male estate. Any risk to the safety, privacy or dignity of the female inmates was barely touched on.

A woman who is a former prisoner has talked about her experience and about the fear she and others felt. Plus the fact of having to share facilities in a locked in environment and refer to this big guy as a woman or face sanctions themselves. 

I'll try and find the link.

It's overall not been thought through in a balanced way - it should be a separate wing if they don't want to be in the male estate. The ability to "live as a woman" (whatever that even means) can't be prioritised in this way. 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

3 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

I've spoken to loads of people in the "GC movement" and not one has been a homophobe, funny that.  It's not a correct assumption that it's all uninformed bigots. 

No-one is saying that critics of GRR are all bigots - there has been opposition that was not opposed to the principle of GR but had practical concerns over the implementation of GR.

However, it's disingenuous to think that there isn’t homophobia and transphobia behind some of the opposition. For these people the issue of self-ID is a big red herring  to distract from the fact they don't believe in any form of transgender rights or trangenderism full stop.

[f_c_dundee]

I get what you mean. It's a little more of a US thing, maybe e.g. Matt Walsh et al? The pool of people in Scotland or the UK who align with that aren't anything like as huge. 

And it's a bit of a stopped clock is right once a day thing - we will all probably agree with the odd thing a numpty says, even if we think they're the worst person in the world. 

Interestingly the opposite can also be true, some parents would prefer to have a trans child than accept them as being gay. Again primarily a US thing, but it was observed at the Tavistock as well that some of the parents were keen to push it. (Quotes from the staff involved, some who left and/or tried to whistleblow about the problems at the gender clinic service).

 

A total minefield, because as per previous posts anyone who turns up in the same place as you makes you a far right bigot by association...

 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by f_c_dundee
Typo

[Theroadlesstravelled]

I’m think about Buzzfeed News and their hard hitting journalism rn.

[f_c_dundee]

Whut?

 

Impulse spending is actually a big problem for people with ADHD Some people get in loads of debt.

 

I'd imagine the article is full of shite tips like 'try not to impulse buy' though.

[welshbairn]

7 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

<Backs slowly out of thread>

Hmmm.

[f_c_dundee]

Yeah I over estimated my ability to do that

 

Clearly.

[Thorongil]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

No-one is saying that critics of GRR are all bigots - there has been opposition that was not opposed to the principle of GR but had practical concerns over the implementation of GR.

However, it's disingenuous to think that there isn’t homophobia and transphobia behind some of the opposition. For these people the issue of self-ID is a big red herring  to distract from the fact they don't believe in any form of transgender rights or trangenderism full stop.

This is unbelievable. Nobody gave two fucks about transgenderism prior to the rise of violent and militant transactivism of the last 5 years. This is as because transgender people were actually transgender and not just fetishistic cross-dressers claiming they were the opposite sex and everyone had to play along and say “yes of course you are”.

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

This is unbelievable. Nobody gave two fucks about transgenderism prior to the rise of violent and militant transactivism of the last 5 years. This is as because transgender people were actually transgender and not just fetishistic cross-dressers claiming they were the opposite sex and everyone had to play along and say “yes of course you are”.

Nobody gave two fucks about transgenderism until the right wing press found a target that it was OK to defame, lie about and hate because they’re such a tiny fragment of the population that most folks don’t have trans friends the way they’d have friends of other minorities by way of ready personal refutation. They’re just the latest in a series of boogeymen and you’re just the latest hateful fucking mark to have swallowed it hook line and sinker. 
 

Notice how they’re *always* coming for your women and kids? Black people are coming for your women! Gay people are coming for your kids!  Trans people are coming for both! Whatever the f**k came for your brain is thriving on a paucity of resource, so fair play to it. 

[TxRover]

On 23/03/2023 at 13:53, Leith Green said:

Interesting building behind her, wonder if it is sandstone or Limestone? Either way its really nicely done, probably modern but in a nice Georgian style.

Posie Parker? Absolute minter

Golden honey sandstone, started in 1835 as the Customs House, now the Parliament House in Hobart.

[TxRover]

8 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Sigh. I may regret wading in, but that's a massive straw man.

Gender dysphoria quite obviously exists.

Being able to change sex doesn't.

You have made an elementary error, you are starting from a presumption of there being just two sexes. If we proceed with your theory, how do you address intersex individuals who were assigned a gender at birth that is later found to be at odds with their chromosomes?

There are at least 6 sexes:

X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )

XX – Most common form of female

XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)

XY – Most common form of male

XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people

XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

 

[f_c_dundee]

4 hours ago, TxRover said:

You have made an elementary error, you are starting from a presumption of there being just two sexes. If we proceed with your theory, how do you address intersex individuals who were assigned a gender at birth that is later found to be at odds with their chromosomes?

There are at least 6 sexes:

X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )

XX – Most common form of female

XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)

XY – Most common form of male

XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people

XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

 

People with a DSD (difference in sexual development, some also use variation i.e VSD) have repeatedly asked to have their medical conditions left out of this. They are bloody offended at being used to invent a 3rd sex.

 

There are only 2 sexes and all of those conditions which affect the chromosomes are in fact specific to either males or females. They are variations within normal development of the 2 sexes, not a separate sex.

 

The sex of the vast, vast majority (approximately 99.98%) of humans can be observed at birth (or before) and if there is noticeable ambiguity (in countries where it's available) karyotype testing can be carried out. Others may find out at puberty or even as an adult when they are trying to conceive. They are still male or female though. 

 

They are medical conditions which may affect the development of internal and/or external organs to different degrees. Some people even have a variation on XX and XY which doesn't actually produce changes. 

 

The practice of assigning a sex belongs to the past, historically some horrendous things were done to children. Google John Money if you've not heard some of the worst examples.

 

So although I'm not an expert, it's not me with the elementary error in this case. 

 

It's people with these differences in development being used as a political argument, about which many of them aren't happy. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by f_c_dundee
Typo