Is a man a man and a woman a woman?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,833]

Or is just Rishi in a "oh god we are about to lose an election oh god.. Uh.. CULTURE WAR!" mode?

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[Naturalcynic 678]

To answer your original question, yes, of course.  Anything else is sacrificing hundreds of years of scientific discovery and plain common sense on the altar of woke.

[NFN FC 1,123]

No idea why this is anything to do with the PM. Who really cares!?

[Herman 9,838]

Culture war nonsense.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I am pretty liberal about most things but I do believe things are getting silly. Gender adjustment is and always has been a serious topic. To demean it with stupid and trite claims about being Unicorns is unfair on the genuine.

But we don't need the knuckle draggers continually deriding it or the PM making conference comments about it.

[Naturalcynic 678]

11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I am pretty liberal about most things but I do believe things are getting silly. Gender adjustment is and always has been a serious topic. To demean it with stupid and trite claims about being Unicorns is unfair on the genuine.

But we don't need the knuckle draggers continually deriding it or the PM making conference comments about it.

So despite it being a serious topic you advocate not discussing it at all.

[Aggy 766]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

 Anything else is sacrificing hundreds of years of scientific discovery and plain common sense on the altar of woke.

You’re going to have to explain this one to me.

It took hundreds of years of scientific enquiry to figure out men are men and women are women? Were they all woke and lacking in common sense before and during those investigations? 

[Naturalcynic 678]

29 minutes ago, Aggy said:

You’re going to have to explain this one to me.

It took hundreds of years of scientific enquiry to figure out men are men and women are women? Were they all woke and lacking in common sense before and during those investigations? 

Chromosomes, hormone production, the understanding of anatomy and physiology, embryology etc.

[dylanisabaddog 5,021]

Anyone questioning this problem needs to have a chat with someone who has worked long term in a maternity ward. Anything up to 1% of people are born with sexual organs common to both sexes. It must be a nightmare for all concerned and we should probably all be grateful it isn't us. 

I suspect Sunak is playing to the crowd, or at least to the moronic part of it. It's cheap and nasty politics from a cheap and nasty man. I'm sure he could establish the facts if he wanted but has instead elected to look for some easy votes from stupid people. 

The poor sods who have to cope with this have a difficult enough life as it is. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity#:~:text=longer considered valid.-,Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element,individuals to change gender identity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[A Load of Squit 5,224]

15 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Chromosomes, hormone production, the understanding of anatomy and physiology, embryology etc.

Hasn't the hundreds of years of science discovered that lots of people are different in terms of chromosomes, hormones, anatomy and physiology?

If what you say is correct how does that explain hermaphrodites? 

[Yellow Fever 3,842]

34 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Hasn't the hundreds of years of science discovered that lots of people are different in terms of chromosomes, hormones, anatomy and physiology?

If what you say is correct how does that explain hermaphrodites? 

I always recall 50 years ago a science experiment at school with fruit flies. About 1/6th if I recall were 'gay'. Seems like nature not nuture there.

Anybody who actually looks into it knows that things are not so simple as male/female. I seem to recall examples of girls or women visiting a GP / hospital - no periods etc only to discover that they are genetically male and mixed up and so on. It's easy for us that are comfortable in our binary sex to be judgmental but nature is quite capable of throwing people a curved ball.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

17 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

So despite it being a serious topic you advocate not discussing it at all.

I beg your pardon. I think there is plenty of discussion about it. I am not qualified to say. Apparently some who should be male are born female. And vice versa. That isn't a secret and its well documented. So the basic answer to the OP is no. We don't need to discuss that. It is the serious topic I mentioned.

What the PM didn't explain properly to the media by the sound of it is, he doesn't think some of the apparent silliness surrounding gender identity should be given creedence. And neither do I. As I said. It demeans the anguish of those who are genuine.

[Naturalcynic 678]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Hasn't the hundreds of years of science discovered that lots of people are different in terms of chromosomes, hormones, anatomy and physiology?

If what you say is correct how does that explain hermaphrodites? 

Science has shown extremely convincingly that men have xy sex chromosomes and women have xx.  A very tiny proportion have additional chromosomes (xxy, xyy, xxyy) but they really are the exceptions that prove the rule and hardly any transgender individuals fall into those categories.

[A Load of Squit 5,224]

3 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Science has shown extremely convincingly that men have xy sex chromosomes and women have xx.  A very tiny proportion have additional chromosomes (xxy, xyy, xxyy) but they really are the exceptions that prove the rule and hardly any transgender individuals fall into those categories.

Do you any evidence to back up any of that? Your use of numbers seems a bit vague.

[Yellow Fever 3,842]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

Science has shown extremely convincingly that men have xy sex chromosomes and women have xx.  A very tiny proportion have additional chromosomes (xxy, xyy, xxyy) but they really are the exceptions that prove the rule and hardly any transgender individuals fall into those categories.

Actually you need to look into embryonic development. We all start off as 'female' physically (even you) and transition to 'male' in the womb if everything works as it should. It doesn't always and that's without the need for an extra chromosome (which agreed is much rarer)

[Naturalcynic 678]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Actually you need to look into embryonic development. We all start off as 'female' physically (even you) and transition to 'male' in the womb if everything works as it should. It doesn't always and that's without the need for an extra chromosome (which agreed is much rarer)

So what? We all go through an embryonic phase where we’re effectively fish complete with gill slits, but I don’t see many people able to breathe underwater.

[Herman 9,838]

Why is this an issue that gets the right wingers so irate? Most sensible people are of the live and let live attitude, whether they get it or not. 

[Naturalcynic 678]

26 minutes ago, Herman said:

Why is this an issue that gets the right wingers so irate? Most sensible people are of the live and let live attitude, whether they get it or not. 

Why is this an issue that the left feel so strongly about?  Why do they think it’s ok for some people to be hounded and to have their careers ruined for daring to voice their opinion that men are men, women are women, and that one can’t become the other?  

Edited October 5, 2023 by Naturalcynic

[Yellow Fever 3,842]

14 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

So what? We all go through an embryonic phase where we’re effectively fish complete with gill slits, but I don’t see many people able to breathe underwater.

OK - Think of it this way. The genes are simply the recipe. However their instructions have to be read and followed correctly by the developing embryo. Billions of instructions not only blue brown eyes but sex too. If it makes too many mistakes the foetus will not be viable (the 'fish') and almost certainly aborted usually well before the woman even knows. Extremely extremely common. However given the complexity other errors will creep in which propagate  - instructions followed and some not - things are ignored or switched on/off by accident. People can end up part and part &  in the middle. Some physical signs are obvious at birth, some much deeper. We can all recognize the masculine woman or effete man. There is ongoing debate about the male  / female brain. All of these things are to do with how the recipe is followed and implemented correctly or otherwise no t with the recipe itself.

So yes you can be genetically male or female but present as the opposite or indeed anything inbetween.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

20 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Why is this an issue that the left feel so strongly about?  Why do they think it’s ok for some people to be hounded and to have their careers ruined for daring to voice their opinion that men are men, women are women, and that one can’t become the other?  

Because its not true in all cases. Or else gender reassignment surgery would not be available on the NHS.

[Naturalcynic 678]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

OK - Think of it this way. The genes are simply the recipe. However their instructions have to be read and followed correctly by the developing embryo. Billions of instructions not only blue brown eyes but sex too. If it makes too many mistakes the foetus will not be viable (the 'fish') and almost certainly aborted usually well before the woman even knows. Extremely extremely common. However given the complexity other errors will creep in which propagate  - instructions followed and some not - things are ignored or switched on/off by accident. People can end up part and part &  in the middle. Some physical signs are obvious at birth, some much deeper. We can all recognize the masculine woman or effete man. There is ongoing debate about the male  / female brain. All of these things are to do with how the recipe is followed and implemented correctly or otherwise no t with the recipe itself.

So yes you can be genetically male or female but present as the opposite or indeed anything inbetween.

 

The fish stage is something that all foetuses go through during embryonic development.  As for the rest of your argument, I’m not sure where you get your information but the incidence of babies born physically intersex is about 0.018%, or approximately 1:50,000, which means in the UK there’d be about 1,000 individuals who might have been born in that condition.  However, the overwhelming majority of them will have had either xx or xy chromosomes and will clearly exhibit the characteristics of that sex.   As for how people might feel about their own gender is totally subjective and really not based on any science at all.

[Naturalcynic 678]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Because its not true in all cases. Or else gender reassignment surgery would not be available on the NHS.

Having chatted informally with a number of consultant psychiatrists, their overwhelming opinion has been that there’s no such thing as being born in the wrong body and that gender reassignment surgery is really just a way of trying manage the patient’s psychiatric problems.

[A Load of Squit 5,224]

13 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Having chatted informally with a number of consultant psychiatrists, their overwhelming opinion has been that there’s no such thing as being born in the wrong body and that gender reassignment surgery is really just a way of trying manage the patient’s psychiatric problems.

This is as bonkers as LYB when he says he met a guy in the pub who confirmed his theory.

How many have you met?

Have they had their ovewhelming opinion published and peer reviewed?

Did you make this up?

[benchwarmer 625]

The 21st century transgender movement equates identity with biology, masculine/feminine with male/female.

But biological sex is binary, while gender identity isn't.  Nearly everyone is exclusively male or female, but no one is exclusively masculine or feminine because it's a spectrum.  Removing various inconvenient bits of our anatomy makes no difference. 

The underlying concept - that anyone can be whatever they think they are or want to be - is thoroughly bogus and does untold psychological damage. 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by benchwarmer

[cambridgeshire canary 6,833]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

So what? We all go through an embryonic phase where we’re effectively fish complete with gill slits, but I don’t see many people able to breathe underwater.

If you ask me it all went wrong about 300 million or so years ago when this cheeky ancestor of ours thought it would be fun to leave the water and to start walking on land..

Edited October 5, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[Nuff Said 5,182]

29 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Having chatted informally with a number of consultant psychiatrists, their overwhelming opinion has been that there’s no such thing as being born in the wrong body and that gender reassignment surgery is really just a way of trying manage the patient’s psychiatric problems.

Yeah, but you’ve probably had informal chats that concluded climate change is just the natural variation of the climate over time and nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions, the economy will do best if we lower taxes funded by extra borrowing and Finbar Saunders is a sure thing in the 3:30 at Exeter. The rest of us prefer something a little more rigorous.

[king canary 7,681]

35 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

The fish stage is something that all foetuses go through during embryonic development.  As for the rest of your argument, I’m not sure where you get your information but the incidence of babies born physically intersex is about 0.018%, or approximately 1:50,000, which means in the UK there’d be about 1,000 individuals who might have been born in that condition.  However, the overwhelming majority of them will have had either xx or xy chromosomes and will clearly exhibit the characteristics of that sex.   As for how people might feel about their own gender is totally subjective and really not based on any science at all.

Yes, intersex people are often hijacked by activists to show that sex is spectrum (and often they aren't very happy about being co-opted in this way). Intersex people aren't a 3rd sex and are also exceptionally rare. Some of the talking points used by activists are just laughable- for instance the idea that sex is social construct created by modern society as if our medieval ancestors were unaware of which people were and were not potentially capable of getting pregnant and it just happened by accident. 

It is really important, in order for a sensible conversation to be had, to separate notions of gender from the biological reality of sex. @Herman is right that Sunak is using this to propagate culture war nonsense but the idea this is solely done by the right is clearly untrue. There was an excellent twitter thread by Sonia Sodha talking about how the census organisation had (due to consultation with LGBTQ groups) stopped asking about biological sex and instead asked about gender. This is clearly silly, we need to know about biological sex for loads of reasons. So the Government orders a review, puts it back in but rather than it just being the common sense thing to do, they use it as culture war bait, making the whole debate worse.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

49 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Having chatted informally with a number of consultant psychiatrists, their overwhelming opinion has been that there’s no such thing as being born in the wrong body and that gender reassignment surgery is really just a way of trying manage the patient’s psychiatric problems.

Before any surgery, the patient has to undergo psychotherapy and psychiatry. Surely that in itself implies that there are others in the profession other than the ones you have informal chatsto, who disagree.

[Yellow Fever 3,842]

46 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

The fish stage is something that all foetuses go through during embryonic development.  As for the rest of your argument, I’m not sure where you get your information but the incidence of babies born physically intersex is about 0.018%, or approximately 1:50,000, which means in the UK there’d be about 1,000 individuals who might have been born in that condition.  However, the overwhelming majority of them will have had either xx or xy chromosomes and will clearly exhibit the characteristics of that sex.   As for how people might feel about their own gender is totally subjective and really not based on any science at all.

You really don't get it do you?

You assume everybody is binary (or when pressed that it is vanishingly small otherwise) and assume we can identify all those that are 'intersex' in some manner which is clearly a spectrum. We can't.

All I'm pointing out to you is that your assumptions are flawed by the existence of everyday people in the world (how many 'gay' people do you know - why are they gay - they've existed well before it was legalized and there were strong societal inhibitions against or perhaps not as an ancient times).

Clearly we don't have the whole picture as to sexuality and I'm honest enough to admit that so I don't 'judge.

[Naturalcynic 678]

17 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

You really don't get it do you?

You assume everybody is binary (or when pressed that it is vanishingly small otherwise) and assume we can identify all those that are 'intersex' in some manner which is clearly a spectrum. We can't.

All I'm pointing out to you is that your assumptions are flawed by the existence of everyday people in the world (how many 'gay' people do you know - why are they gay - they've existed well before it was legalized and there were strong societal inhibitions against or perhaps not as an ancient times).

Clearly we don't have the whole picture as to sexuality and I'm honest enough to admit that so I don't 'judge.

To answer simply, gay men are men, gay women are women.  Check the chromosomes if you want to make sure.