Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

I don't think I've seen anyone use the term 'real women' on here. I don't use Cis, so just use 'women' and 'transwomen', and I think most others do the same.

I don't think anyone has suggested that there is 'acceptable' terminology on GN either . These sweeping generalisations are unfounded in so many ways. People have their own posting styles and ways of expressing themselves.

Well there's anther parallel between pro-life and gender critical. Try being reasonable with them and they will throw it back at you. It just goes to show it simply isn't worth debating with them. They both have weird insupportable beliefs which don't stand up to scrutiny, so they pretend you are the problem and deny everything!

Straight back at you trisher.

Iam64

Straight back at you trisher.

There it is again. Funny isn't it. So that's reasonable debate! Who knew!!

It’s unusual fir me to be so irritated I respond as I did just now. I’m tired of seeing complex psychological needs responded to in such a simplistic way. Alongside that, anyone who doesnt accept the simplistic views bring dismissed as terms or not feminists

trisher are you going to tell us that as well as knowing numerous transpeople, gay people, transitioning children, young feminists and the rest of the huge and disparate group of friends that you use as justification for your pronouncements, that you also debate with Pro-lifers often enough to base a theory on it?

Heavens! What a busy life you must lead. It’s a miracle you have time to post on here at all.

In the interests of reasonable debate perhaps trisher would like to comment on the two questions I raised yesterday.

Or perhaps continue to ignore anything that does actually raise questions.

I expect now she’ll say something like “I don’t have to respond if I don’t want to’. A bit like the OP earlier.

Regardless of the moral debate there are a host of practicalities in changing the way we class people by sex and gender and very real consequences that the trans lobby just want to pretend won’t/don’t happen.

Doodledog

trisher are you going to tell us that as well as knowing numerous transpeople, gay people, transitioning children, young feminists and the rest of the huge and disparate group of friends that you use as justification for your pronouncements, that you also debate with Pro-lifers often enough to base a theory on it?

Heavens! What a busy life you must lead. It’s a miracle you have time to post on here at all.

Well once again a great debate. Attack the personal life of the other side. I believe that is used by pro-lifers as well. They attack workers in clinics and even shout at women entering clinics. The irony here of course is that the poster claims to be feminist, even the pro-lifers don't sink tht low.

Peasblossom

In the interests of reasonable debate perhaps trisher would like to comment on the two questions I raised yesterday.

Or perhaps continue to ignore anything that does actually raise questions.

I expect now she’ll say something like “I don’t have to respond if I don’t want to’. A bit like the OP earlier.

Regardless of the moral debate there are a host of practicalities in changing the way we class people by sex and gender and very real consequences that the trans lobby just want to pretend won’t/don’t happen.

Was that the question about medical records Peasblossom sorry I was looking at it. It is a complicated problem I am just looking at how it works some Scandinavian countries seem to be dealing with it. One (and I'd have to recheck which) issues numbers to the patient. So a transgender person has two numbers one the one they were given at birth and the second their transgender one. It seems to make accessing the data easier but I haven't actually read about it in any detail yet. So sorry it took so long to answer.

Some European countries have a lot more info abut transhealth and issues that we have

trisher is that your last word?
No, don’t spoil things. Send me a link to the information about some European countries that you mention.
Sorry, forgot you don’t reply to demands;
Please could you possibly send me a link to the information about some European countries that you mentioned in your last post?

trisher

Peasblossom

In the interests of reasonable debate perhaps trisher would like to comment on the two questions I raised yesterday.

Or perhaps continue to ignore anything that does actually raise questions.

I expect now she’ll say something like “I don’t have to respond if I don’t want to’. A bit like the OP earlier.

Regardless of the moral debate there are a host of practicalities in changing the way we class people by sex and gender and very real consequences that the trans lobby just want to pretend won’t/don’t happen.

Was that the question about medical records Peasblossom sorry I was looking at it. It is a complicated problem I am just looking at how it works some Scandinavian countries seem to be dealing with it. One (and I'd have to recheck which) issues numbers to the patient. So a transgender person has two numbers one the one they were given at birth and the second their transgender one. It seems to make accessing the data easier but I haven't actually read about it in any detail yet. So sorry it took so long to answer.

If your information is correct that would seem to indicate their biological sex is still recorded for areas where it would be relevant? Unlike our system which allows the sex marker to be changed completely with no record of biological sex, potentially leading to huge problems. Maybe their transgender people actually care about accurate data being kept?

Rosie51

trisher

Peasblossom

In the interests of reasonable debate perhaps trisher would like to comment on the two questions I raised yesterday.

Or perhaps continue to ignore anything that does actually raise questions.

I expect now she’ll say something like “I don’t have to respond if I don’t want to’. A bit like the OP earlier.

Regardless of the moral debate there are a host of practicalities in changing the way we class people by sex and gender and very real consequences that the trans lobby just want to pretend won’t/don’t happen.

Was that the question about medical records Peasblossom sorry I was looking at it. It is a complicated problem I am just looking at how it works some Scandinavian countries seem to be dealing with it. One (and I'd have to recheck which) issues numbers to the patient. So a transgender person has two numbers one the one they were given at birth and the second their transgender one. It seems to make accessing the data easier but I haven't actually read about it in any detail yet. So sorry it took so long to answer.

If your information is correct that would seem to indicate their biological sex is still recorded for areas where it would be relevant? Unlike our system which allows the sex marker to be changed completely with no record of biological sex, potentially leading to huge problems. Maybe their transgender people actually care about accurate data being kept?

I think it works Rosie51 because using the number removes the need to refer to the person's birth gender at all. Which I believe is what many transgender people object to. As I say it is something of interest but something I'm still looking at.

Yes, I’d be interested to see how the numbers system works. I really think the medical issue is a massive one. For everyone.

Actually my thoughts were prompted by a different post about women/female (?) pensioners living in poverty. It made me think that if a number of trans women who have lived most of their lives as working men are included in the figures in future, this would skew any meaningful analysis. Perhaps for a whole range of statistics.

I can see that in time, if people transition earlier, some of this will even out but this has to be, by it’s nature, some way in the future.

Then I thought about what else could be skewed and moved on to the medical. The ability to change genetic structure is not even in its infancy, its just an embryo.

I can’t see any way round it at the present time except to differentiate between gender and sex in some way.

So is it like being categorised x or y, but by number?

Peasblossom you're absolutely correct that is a major concern, how data will be skewed in this country, not just medical, but employment, offender numbers and type of offence, poverty statistics.......in fact every single area where stats are kept with a sex differential will be inaccurate to a larger or lesser degree. It's already happening. The tiny number of female sex offenders is impacted by the recording of some offences by males who self declare as a woman, and will only get worse going forward.

I admit to getting annoyed by the snide and unnecessary attacks on people who disagree with you, trisher.

The whole 'ner ner, you are not a feminist', along with the 'some people' thing - and the very premise of this thread being to compare us with a group that is described in terms of 'claiming' to think, 'wanting to deny' things to people BUT 'refusing to . . .' and describing us as 'claiming to follow the science' (ha!) 'refusing to accept', wanting to 'shut off' treatment, 'not accepting', 'denying the evidence' and so on is, frankly, not just biased, but also bigoted and offensive.

That neither you nor anyone on your 'side' of the 'debate' has answered very basic questions speaks for itself. You do not debate, you assert opinions with no evidence, and you become aggressive with those who show up your lack of argument for what it is.

I may have been short, but I don't accept that I have 'sunk low', and neither did I bring in your personal life - I mentioned the people who you refer to all the time, and who you cite as evidence of your ideas. You drew a parallel between Pro-lifers and GCFs based on the notion that you have tried being reasonable with both (which is more than you do on here) and implyed that this is an experience you have had often. How is it unreasonable to question that?

And as for the 'claim to be feminist' attack, is a feminist someone who agrees with you, just as a woman is someone who shares your values, as you have previously stated? How is it being unfeminist to find another woman exasperating?

Doodledog I almost felt compelled to reply on your behalf after the personal attack on you, but knew you'd do it much better yourself.
Funny how the word 'feminist' can be so readily assigned or withdrawn from someone, but 'woman' is so woolly it could practically apply to almost anyone.

Peasblossom, the skewing of research stats is something that I have banged on about a lot on these threads, but is always ignored.

It is very important that social research is accurate, as a lot of political decisions are made on the base of it. If we don't know how many women are living in pensioner poverty, or if it appears that the numbers are lessening because the stats now include transitioned men (with their very different life chances) how are we going to argue for changes to the pension system, for instance. 1950s women who lost out on their pensions will become even more invisible.

Similarly, crime figures, stats about educational attainment, housing, access to services, transport, pay differentials etc will all become meaningless if the point of the research was to compare male and female experience.

It is already the case that many day to day items (from the size of mobile phones to the position of seatbelts and airbags) are tested on male bodies. If transwomen are included in the stats as though they are women, how is this not going to get worse? Women as a sex class are being eradicated.

Doodledog you've just reminded me I bought that book, can't remember if it's on kindle or audible, months ago but it's still in the queue, time it was promoted.

Rosie51

Doodledog you've just reminded me I bought that book, can't remember if it's on kindle or audible, months ago but it's still in the queue, time it was promoted.

Check your blood pressure before reading it ?

It is already the case that many day to day items (from the size of mobile phones to the position of seatbelts and airbags) are tested on male bodies. If transwomen are included in the stats as though they are women, how is this not going to get worse?Women as a sex class are being eradicated.

That's a bit out of date. In I think 2019 we protested about that on IWD. And about how bras can restrict people resucitating women and boned ones can cause damage. There is now a resucitation model that has breasts.
And research programmes looking at all the anomalies including gender, pregnancy, age, weight etc genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/what-is-gendered-innovations.html

Most popular books about statistics are going to be 'out of date' as far as examples go by the time they go to print, simply because technology moves so quickly, but the principle remains. Women are being eradicated by statistics as well as by language, and counting transwomen as women will make that worse.

And self-id will, in itself, skew figures, as we need to have constant figures in order to make comparisons. If people can shift sex-class at will (statistically, if not biologically) then those constants are eradicated. A bit like GagaJo's earlier assertion that 98% of transpeople were 'living quietly'. We can't know that unless there is a record of them (and I am not suggesting that they should wear yellow stars before anyone suggests that I am). My point is not about whether or not we should record the numbers of people living as trans, but about the idiocy of spouting figures that claim to be based on stats that simply do not exist.

I did question this upthread, but as ever, the post was ignored - presumably as it doesn't fit the narrative.

That’s interesting but it’s about gender and a bit off the point of the need to identify if someone carries the X or Y chromosome.

Our genetic inheritance is important for all sorts of medical reasons and cant be denied in terms of its consequences.

I can’t get past needing to know a persons birth sex for all sorts of reasons. But if a trans woman can register as female or a trans man as male, without any kind of qualifying of birth sex, well a lot of research and decisions associated with it become flawed.

We have to stop this now, I think. Just say no until we can find a way of recording things accurately and in a form that can be used.
It’s not transphobic, it’s just a medical necessity before people are given the wrong treatments.

Honestly I can’t see how anybody logically could think otherwise. Do you believe emotive protests should trump empirical research. It doesn’t benefit anyone.

Actually that website sums it up very nicely because it isn't just transgender people who skew the figures and they are looking at all sorts of discrepancies It says
Gender bias also leads to missed market opportunities. In engineering, for example, considering short people (many women, but also many men) “out-of-position” drivers leads to greater injury in automobile accidents (see Inclusive Crash Test Dummies). In computer vision, facial recognition trained on biased datasets may not recognize women as well as men or darker skinned persons as well as those with lighter skin, meaning that darker skinned women may not be recognized at all (see Facial Recognition). Facial recognition may also not be able to recognize transgender individuals, especially during periods of transition. In basic research, failing to use appropriate samples of male and female cells, tissues, and animals yields faulty results (see Stem Cells). In medicine, not recognizing osteoporosis as a male disease delays diagnosis and treatment in men (see Osteoporosis Research in Men). In city planning, not collecting data on caregiving work leads to inefficient transportation systems (see Smart Mobility). We can't afford to get the research wrong.
As with intersectional feminism this recognises it isn't a one size fits all or a one subject based problem.