Is a man a man and a woman a woman?

[Naturalcynic 677]

20 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

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.

Not at all.  It’s just that in a few cases, gender reassignment surgery is the least worst option of helping them to live with their condition.

[king canary 7,680]

14 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.

I'll be honest and say I don't 'get it' either.

You mentioned in an earlier post about effeminate men or butch women. That is irrelevant though to the issue of biological sex. A butch woman is still as much of a woman as the most feminine and an effeminate man is no less than a man than the butchest lumberjack. That is where idea of gender get mixed up with sex.

I'm also not sure what you mean about 'not knowing the full picture about sexuality.' Sexuality and sex are completely different things.

 

[dylanisabaddog 5,015]

1 hour 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.

Actually it's between 0.018% and 1.78%. I read the same article as you but you seem to have overlooked the second figure. Just an oversight I'm sure. 

What you should really be asking yourself is why has Sunak brought this up in his keyline conference speech? The answer is deflection and that is why he has effectively banned cigarettes and keeps talking about stopping boats.

What he's trying to do is deflect you away from thinking about what affects millions of people and make you look at things that aren't really important because they affect only a small number of people, but at the same time makes some among us feel really angry. 

He doesn't want you to think about the absolute shambles that we are currently experiencing in this country and he definitely doesn't want you to think about who caused it. What he has done is go to the lowest common denominator and appeal to intellectualy challenged people by frightening them with those who are different to them. 

As Gary Lineker said, this is the politics of Germany in the 1930's. I'm a bit shocked that it still works. Some people need to read a history book and take a long hard look at themselves. 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

When you've had 13 years to succeed in something and have generally screwed up across the board, you kick down. This is just one example. Chuck in the rhetoric against the unemployed (even though pensions have always been a far bigger proportion of the welfare budget, and most other benefits are paid as top-ups, not unemployment benefit), and flat-out lies about millions of migrants when the majority go to Turkey, Syria, etc. and it's obvious to me that they want us to kick down instead of up.

I couldn't give a rat's ar*e about this topic. I'd rather hold our politicians' feet to the fire.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

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.

 

These are tiny proportions of fringe cases with genuine genetic aberrations.

Tolerance and open-mindedness on gender questions have gone backwards. That's a direct consequence of aggressive and vocal pushing of ideologies about gender and sex that are simply deranged- and most people regard as such - and the aggressive way many people, including those like JK Rowling, have been aggressively bullied over challenging heavily disputed notions that somehow have been allowed to be pushed as 'normal' to ever-younger age ranges.

Tolerance and open-mindedness are good things, but that shouldn't have to require that everyone is forced to pretend that genetic aberrations are 'normal' or more common than they are.

I tend to agree with the OP that the Conservatives are flagging this, even though it's hardly a priority, because this particular part of the 'culture war' works for them, but it should be remembered that the reason that it works for them is that the popular view in society is that sex is primarily a binary thing and any odd crossover type things like transgenderism and genetic oddities are simply fringe things that you accept rather than things that young children should be invited to think might apply to them when, in all likelihood, they won't. Ultimately the 'culture war' wouldn't exist but for the deranged idealists that want to suppress that point of view.

That said, whatever you think of it, it's hard to fathom why they'd really want to raise it when all of this nonsense has infiltrated schools and state institutions on their watch.

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[king canary 7,680]

12 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Actually it's between 0.018% and 1.78%. I read the same article as you but you seem to have overlooked the second figure. Just an oversight I'm sure. 

What you should really be asking yourself is why has Sunak brought this up in his keyline conference speech? The answer is deflection and that is why he has effectively banned cigarettes and keeps talking about stopping boats.

What he's trying to do is deflect you away from thinking about what affects millions of people and make you look at things that aren't really important because they affect only a small number of people, but at the same time makes some among us feel really angry. 

He doesn't want you to think about the absolute shambles that we are currently experiencing in this country and he definitely doesn't want you to think about who caused it. What he has done is go to the lowest common denominator and appeal to intellectualy challenged people by frightening them with those who are different to them. 

As Gary Lineker said, this is the politics of Germany in the 1930's. I'm a bit shocked that it still works. Some people need to read a history book and take a long hard look at themselves. 

The Tories would clearly desperately like to make the next election on culture war issues, that much has been clear since Johnson was in charge. Their comfort zone was previously economics but that isn't a fertile ground for them right now. It was a bit ridiculous to have a keynote speech from the PM that didn't touch at all one the biggest issues of the day (inflation, interest rates etc etc) but it just shows how weak their position is.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

2 hours 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?  

Valid questions and ones that Herman is obviously struggling to answer...

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

44 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'll be honest and say I don't 'get it' either.

You mentioned in an earlier post about effeminate men or butch women. That is irrelevant though to the issue of biological sex. A butch woman is still as much of a woman as the most feminine and an effeminate man is no less than a man than the butchest lumberjack. That is where idea of gender get mixed up with sex.

I'm also not sure what you mean about 'not knowing the full picture about sexuality.' Sexuality and sex are completely different things.

 

Hi KC.

Back to basics.

The OP argues a binary male or female.

We have shown already that that is false. Only a single so called intersex person destroys utterly the binary argument. Its like finding a flaw in relativity. A single example will do.

So now we're in the world of mixed sexuality or indeed orientation. People might not like it but it's a fact.

The size and variation of people on what now must be thought of as spectrum is open to debate but not judgement if they don't quite fit in with binary definitions. 

I note you're into athletics and we can see the rabbit hole that athletics is falling into (and continues to fall)  trying to define sex and now its not now genetic but male puberty if I understand. Should 6 foot 6 basket ball players be banished as unfair? Kenyan runners and so on. Genetic?

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

20 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Valid questions and ones that Herman is obviously struggling to answer...

Pub?

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

5 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Pub?

Guinness...

[king canary 7,680]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Hi KC.

Back to basics.

 

Sounds good.

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

The OP argues a binary male or female.

We have shown already that that is false. Only a single so called intersex person destroys utterly the binary argument. Its like finding a flaw in relativity. A single example will do.

Not true

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

So now we're in the world of mixed sexuality or indeed orientation. People might not like it but it's a fact.

Sexuality and orientation are entirely unrelated things to sex.

 

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The size and variation of people on what now must be thought of as spectrum is open to debate but not judgement if they don't quite fit in with binary definitions. 

As above, they do fit into binary definitions

 

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I note you're into athletics and we can see the rabbit hole that athletics is falling into (and continues to fall)  trying to define sex and now its not now genetic but male puberty if I understand. Should 6 foot 6 basket ball players be banished as unfair? Kenyan runners and so on. Genetic?

This sort of very simplistic argument has been taken apart again and again by people far more intelligent than me. Ross Tucker (@scienceofsport on twitter) is excellent at this.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/thats-ideology-not-science-renowned-sports-scientist-steps-in-on-transwomen-in-rugby-debate/

 

 

[Naturalcynic 677]

16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Hi KC.

Back to basics.

The OP argues a binary male or female.

We have shown already that that is false. Only a single so called intersex person destroys utterly the binary argument. Its like finding a flaw in relativity. A single example will do.

So now we're in the world of mixed sexuality or indeed orientation. People might not like it but it's a fact.

The size and variation of people on what now must be thought of as spectrum is open to debate but not judgement if they don't quite fit in with binary definitions. 

I note you're into athletics and we can see the rabbit hole that athletics is falling into (and continues to fall)  trying to define sex and now its not now genetic but male puberty if I understand. Should 6 foot 6 basket ball players be banished as unfair? Kenyan runners and so on. Genetic?

You have not shown that that is false in any way whatsoever.  Rather than proving your point,  intersex individuals are the exceedingly rare exceptions that prove the rule that male and female are binary.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Not at all.  It’s just that in a few cases, gender reassignment surgery is the least worst option of helping them to live with their condition.

Really? That is based on what just your opinion or the psychiatrists you mix with? Do you meet with the people themselves?

[king canary 7,680]

18 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I note you're into athletics and we can see the rabbit hole that athletics is falling into (and continues to fall)  trying to define sex and now its not now genetic but male puberty if I understand. Should 6 foot 6 basket ball players be banished as unfair? Kenyan runners and so on. Genetic?

Just to be clear too- that rabbit hole you're going down here is that we should get rid of the female & male categories in sports, which is actually massively regressive.

Sex is actually really, really easy to define in all but the most extreme of cases. We've been successfully doing it for years. This idea it is in fact, difficult to define who is a woman and who is a man is the kind of nonsense that leads to the more reasonable ends of these causes losing support.

[Naturalcynic 677]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Really? That is based on what just your opinion or the psychiatrists you mix with? Do you meet with the people themselves?

Not regularly, but those few that I have met and spoken with at length have all regretted their decisions to have surgery which ended up destroying what was left of their family lives.

[Naturalcynic 677]

4 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Not regularly, but those few that I have met and spoken with at length have all regretted their decisions to have surgery which ended up destroying what was left of their family lives.

Just to add that these were not young individuals who might have had a peer group of similar people to provide mutual support and validation.  They were middle-aged men with wives and families from whom they subsequently found themselves estranged.  All very sad.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Just to be clear too- that rabbit hole you're going down here is that we should get rid of the female & male categories in sports, which is actually massively regressive.

Sex is actually really, really easy to define in all but the most extreme of cases. We've been successfully doing it for years. This idea it is in fact, difficult to define who is a woman and who is a man is the kind of nonsense that leads to the more reasonable ends of these causes losing support.

I see all sort of problems for athletics ahead with genetics, training, drugs etc. Male/Female is just the tip of the iceberg.

However - The 'Fair play for women'  paper you reference is trying define biological sex on a narrow 'cell' level (and I guess it's chromosomes)  as opposed to secondary sexual characteristics as expressed in the individual and which we in general judge by. Indeed its clearly written trying to argue against other scientific papers which take a more loose view of spectrum.

However, so we are clear - athletics will now ONLY accept a definition of sex via DNA testing. Think not.

[Naturalcynic 677]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I see all sort of problems for athletics ahead with genetics, training, drugs etc. Male/Female is just the tip of the iceberg.

However - The 'Fair play for women'  paper you reference is trying define biological sex on a narrow 'cell' level (and I guess it's chromosomes)  as opposed to secondary sexual characteristics as expressed in the individual and which we in general judge by. Indeed its clearly written trying to argue against other scientific papers which take a more loose view of spectrum.

However, so we are clear - athletics will now ONLY accept a definition of sex via DNA testing. Think not.

The sex chromosomes are the primary marker for male and female.  Secondary sexual characteristics are, as you correctly say, the outward signs from which we usually assess whether an individual is a man or a woman, and generally that is a pretty good indicator, but as we’re finding more and more those characteristics can be simulated surgically (together with the aid of hormone treatment).  But that doesn’t change the fact that they are simulations and that the person’s chromosomes define their real sex.

[Herman 9,838]

1 hour ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Valid questions and ones that Herman is obviously struggling to answer...

To be honest it doesn't seem to be the "left" shutting people down but trans activists and their close associates getting into big slanging matches with people like Linehan and Rowling and trying to shut them down. That's why I struggle to follow it all because it has got so nasty.

People like Sunak, Bravermann and the GB news crew have little to no skin in the game but are using this as a wedge issue.

[Naturalcynic 677]

30 minutes ago, Herman said:

To be honest it doesn't seem to be the "left" shutting people down but trans activists and their close associates getting into big slanging matches with people like Linehan and Rowling and trying to shut them down. That's why I struggle to follow it all because it has got so nasty.

People like Sunak, Bravermann and the GB news crew have little to no skin in the game but are using this as a wedge issue.

Well I’m glad some in positions of influence are trying to stand up to the intolerant activists, because the left seems remarkably quiet on the matter. Just imagine how many people would be charged with hate crimes if the belief that men are men and women are women was a protected characteristic.

[Herman 9,838]

6 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Well I’m glad some in positions of influence are trying to stand up to the intolerant activists, because the left seems remarkably quiet on the matter. Just imagine how many people would be charged with hate crimes if the belief that men are men and women are women was a protected characteristic.

If the "left" are anything like me then a tiny, niche issue is not a main priority at the moment.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

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.

 

I'm interested in what kind of school experiment you did to prove that 1/6th of fruit flies were gay?

And if a person was genetically male why would they have been considered to have periods?

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

7 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I'm interested in what kind of school experiment you did to prove that 1/6th of fruit flies were gay?

And if a person was genetically male why would they have been considered to have periods?

1. they tried to mate with others of the same sex.

2. Re read comment.

[Fen Canary 874]

4 hours 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. 

See the abuse dished out to JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstata, Graham Lineham etc for stating they believe biological reality should trump gender identity and single sex spaces for females should be protected. It wasn’t right wingers that got irate at Scotland wanting to house Adam Graham/Isla Bryson in a women’s prison, it was a majority of the Scottish public. Trying to dismiss it all as some right wing plot is nonsense, as most of the abuse has come from those who proclaim to be of the left.

As you say, most people have always just let transsexuals go about their lives, however that tolerance disappears when you have full bodied men wanting to access women’s spaces as it impacts and clashes with the rights of women, and this is before we begin to talk about the damage caused to young (most likely gay) people encouraged down the road of surgery and hormone replacement such as Keira Bell

[Fen Canary 874]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Hi KC.

Back to basics.

The OP argues a binary male or female.

We have shown already that that is false. Only a single so called intersex person destroys utterly the binary argument. Its like finding a flaw in relativity. A single example will do.

So now we're in the world of mixed sexuality or indeed orientation. People might not like it but it's a fact.

The size and variation of people on what now must be thought of as spectrum is open to debate but not judgement if they don't quite fit in with binary definitions. 

I note you're into athletics and we can see the rabbit hole that athletics is falling into (and continues to fall)  trying to define sex and now its not now genetic but male puberty if I understand. Should 6 foot 6 basket ball players be banished as unfair? Kenyan runners and so on. Genetic?

Sorry but I don’t buy this argument. Just because a fraction of people can be born with both male and female characteristics (and most of those wouldn’t be aware of the fact as they’re predominantly one sex over the other) doesn’t mean that sex is on a spectrum. Some people are born with 6 fingers, webbed toes, being blind, cleft palate etc, so do we say that these things are also on a spectrum?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

1. they tried to mate with others of the same sex.

2. Re read comment.

It's a pretty cool school to let you do genetic manipulation

[Fen Canary 874]

To me the entire debate can be whittled down to one simple question.

Would you want your teenage daughter to have to share a changing room with Eddie Izzard? 

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

The sex chromosomes are the primary marker for male and female.  Secondary sexual characteristics are, as you correctly say, the outward signs from which we usually assess whether an individual is a man or a woman, and generally that is a pretty good indicator, but as we’re finding more and more those characteristics can be simulated surgically (together with the aid of hormone treatment).  But that doesn’t change the fact that they are simulations and that the person’s chromosomes define their real sex.

You are aware that some people can even have BOTH XX and XY cells (as well as other combinations)  ? What sex are they?

People can be either XX or XY (plus others) and have quite naturally opposite secondary sexual characteristics (no simulations required).It's these people that may only find out later in life with infertility when they are married etc! Shock to all.

All I'm pointing out is that sex determination - even genetically is actually not a simple black / white and far more more nuanced - as the athletic boards are discovering. A little humility is required by those who expect simple answers to complex issues.

[NFN FC 1,123]

You are all falling for it! 

It's all a distraction from the really important topics of today.

Shelve these discussions for when the country isn't being run by incompetents!

[Naturalcynic 677]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

You are aware that some people can even have BOTH XX and XY cells (as well as other combinations)  ? What sex are they?

People can be either XX or XY (plus others) and have quite naturally opposite secondary sexual characteristics (no simulations required).It's these people that may only find out later in life with infertility when they are married etc! Shock to all.

All I'm pointing out is that sex determination - even genetically is actually not a simple black / white and far more more nuanced - as the athletic boards are discovering. A little humility is required by those who expect simple answers to complex issues.

Yes, I’m very aware that an extremely small proportion of people can be xxy, xyy, xxyy and perhaps a few other even rarer combinations (see one of my earlier posts).  These are the exceptions that prove the rule, and frankly have little if anything to do with those who consider themselves transgender/transsexual.