Cancel Culture or Free Speech

Glorianny I'm a gender atheist thank you, don't believe in some internal gender identity. VioletSky's links do not make me uncomfortable, I find too many of them too speculative and littered with 'maybe', 'could', 'might'. I prefer the certainty of experts like Sir Robert Winston, who I recall VS dismissing. That's chutzpah on steroids!

To quote from the link
While it's too early to definitively say the gene variants in these pathways result in the brain-body incongruence called gender dysphoria, it is "interesting" that they are in pathways of hormone involvement in the brain and whether it gets exposed to estrogen or not, says Layman.

I posted on a previous thread that there were rumours of being able to develop a genetic test for gender dysphoria posted on a trans positive site. From initially expressing excitement, the comments that followed wanted no such test, as many felt they could "mistakenly" not get a positive result. Then the discussion went on to dysphoria is not a requirement for transition, it's purely a gender preference. Whatever is found from scientific studies there are only two sexes, defined by the two types of gametes, and nobody can change from one to the other.

Glorianny I'm reposting this because non of the gender critical have bothered to comment on it. It obviously makes them very uncomfortable.
I suspect that any ideas which contradict their insistence that there isn't a problem have to be ignored.

Are we to assume that when you fail to comment on a link it's because it obviously has made you uncomfortable and needs to be ignored?

The point is that young people want to be able to question their gender identity just as they have questioned their sexuality and it really isn't up to anyone else to interfere with that, or to tell them that if they have gender dysphoria that it is just a fiction.

How many times do we all have to say it?

They can question their so-called 'gender' identity as much as they like. They can wear what they like and call themselves what they like, and there will be no argument from me. What they cannot do, however, is change sex. And no amount of superciliousness and patronising from you will change that.

M0nica

Glorianny You are mixing gender and sex and assuming they are the same thing. Being gay, does not change your sex, just your sexual orientation. Transpeople are Transpeople and that is quite clear. What they are not, after their transition, is men, or women, they are transmen and transwomen.

I'm not mixing anything. I'm simply looking at what Kathleen Stock said and applying it to the situation logically.
If someone tells me they are gay I don't demand they demonstrate this, I accept it. If Kathleen Stock says she is a lesbian I accept it. If someone tells me they are a woman I accept it I don't demand proof,

I was thinking about what the gender critical think they will achieve in the end. If they had their way and transwomen were somehow identified and barred from any space used by women how much safer would women really be?
The answer of course is very little. Women would still be killed raped and subjected to violence by some men.
The identification of transwomen might also lead to some women being subjected to ill treatment because of their appearance. It would be ironic if Kathleen Stock (who thinks she looks like Kendal Roy) was challenged when entering a toilet.
Transwomen would continue to suffer high levels of violence and abuse.

“ The fact that one young man hadn't read the badly written books of one author who he had been told was anti-trans proves what? He was a bit thick, perhaps, but little else.”

Well Glorianny I for one think that the Joanne Rowling books are ( mostly) EXCELLENTLY written!

Well Glorianny I for one think that the Joanne Rowling books are ( mostly) EXCELLENTLY written!
My children loved them.

But never mind that - anything to do with anyone who has ever criticised the magical thinking of the trans lobby (ie those who believe that TWAW and lobby for that point of view) will be pulled apart, and the smallest thing exaggerated so that the sense of what they are saying can be ignored. Insults and put downs abound too, again so that people are triggered into defending those and again, the sense is ignored.

This ^ is why these conversations never get anywhere. Diversion, insult, smear, insinuate, but never, ever, answer questions such as the ones about marginalisation or rights (never mind the basics of what 'living as a woman' actually means).

I replied to Violets summary of brain science earlier in the thread.
In the same way I point out that gender critical feminists talk about transmen on a regular basis.
It seems to me a pointless exercise as I have to keep doing it.

Kathleen's stock sexuality is used against her frequently as you have just done. You can barely hide your glee.

Galaxy

I replied to Violets summary of brain science earlier in the thread.
In the same way I point out that gender critical feminists talk about transmen on a regular basis.
It seems to me a pointless exercise as I have to keep doing it.

It's all part of the game, Galaxy. Keep people busy defending themselves against cheap insults, or reading turgid articles, or answering the same old questions, in the hope that we won't realise that the questions we ask haven't been answered. And when we do realise and ask them again, accuse us of 'hounding' or bullying.

Glorianny. You say : "If someone tells me they are gay I don't demand they demonstrate this, I accept it. If Kathleen Stock says she is a lesbian I accept it. If someone tells me they are a woman I accept it I don't demand proof.." Gay, is a lifestyle choice. Science-based proof is both irrelevant and unnecessary. Why would you demand it anyway?. Lesbian is a lifestyle choice. Ditto. Being a woman is biologically determined, no choice involved, and scientific proof can be obtained, and should be if there is any doubt about access to space which is reserved for biological women. You are comparing apples and oranges again, and repeatedly confusing choice of gender-based sexual orientation with biologically- determined sex. People keep telling you this. Can't you get your head around it?

NanaDana

Glorianny. You say : "If someone tells me they are gay I don't demand they demonstrate this, I accept it. If Kathleen Stock says she is a lesbian I accept it. If someone tells me they are a woman I accept it I don't demand proof.." Gay, is a lifestyle choice. Science-based proof is both irrelevant and unnecessary. Why would you demand it anyway?. Lesbian is a lifestyle choice. Ditto. Being a woman is biologically determined, no choice involved, and scientific proof can be obtained, and should be if there is any doubt about access to space which is reserved for biological women. You are comparing apples and oranges again, and repeatedly confusing choice of gender-based sexual orientation with biologically- determined sex. People keep telling you this. Can't you get your head around it?

Yes

Free speech always, especially at universities

HiMay

Free speech always, especially at universities

Yes

The obvious answer is surely to have three lots of toilets, changing rooms and sporting events. Then everyone can be happy.

Galaxy

Kathleen's stock sexuality is used against her frequently as you have just done. You can barely hide your glee.

I haven't used Kathleen Stock's sexuality against her at all. I am mildly amused by someone (but especially an academic) who compares their appearance to a fictional character.
I have used her words against her, but as far as I know that's OK.

It seems you really dislike Kathleen Stock Gloryannie. Is it because she overcame her anxiety and achieved a good academic career? Left her working class roots behind? Genuine question

I don't see being gay as a lifestyle choice. It is, however, about sexuality, whereas being trans is not. Which is why we end up with supposedly lesbian transwomen (ie straight men whose sexuality means that they are attracted to women, regardless of their trans status) in conflict with actual lesbians whose sexuality means that they will never feel the same about them.

Sex (biology), sexuality (innate and about sexual attraction) and so-called 'gender' (a social construct that changes with time and location) are all different from one another.

So to return to Billy Bragg, his changing the lyrics of 'Sexuality' without changing the title or the rest of the song is idiotic on that level alone - not to mention that 'just because you're a they' is a rubbish lyric at best . And his tweet about Stock contradicts his professed gay-friendliness in the earlier version. But then Kathleen Stock is a woman, so - you know.

Whitewavemark2

NanaDana

Glorianny. You say : "If someone tells me they are gay I don't demand they demonstrate this, I accept it. If Kathleen Stock says she is a lesbian I accept it. If someone tells me they are a woman I accept it I don't demand proof.." Gay, is a lifestyle choice. Science-based proof is both irrelevant and unnecessary. Why would you demand it anyway?. Lesbian is a lifestyle choice. Ditto. Being a woman is biologically determined, no choice involved, and scientific proof can be obtained, and should be if there is any doubt about access to space which is reserved for biological women. You are comparing apples and oranges again, and repeatedly confusing choice of gender-based sexual orientation with biologically- determined sex. People keep telling you this. Can't you get your head around it?

Yes

Well the next time someone tells me they are a woman should I then demand they give me proof? What would be best? Shoud I carry some sort of scientific testing set? Or ask to see their genitals?
In the interests of equality I'd need to do the same to men.
What about non-binary people? They wouldn't tell me.

I'd also need to apply the same standards to sexuality, so how should I identify gay people or lesbians?

After all people should be treated equally shouldn't they?

Honestly this paranoia has to stop. The trans-lobby??? Who are they?? Where are they????

Even more, what are they?????
I agree about your paranoia though, you’ll be happy to know.

The point is that young people want to be able to question their gender identity just as they have questioned their sexuality and it really isn't up to anyone else to interfere with that, or to tell them that if they have gender dysphoria that it is just a fiction.

So who does that????
I see lots of accusations from you, but presumably you’re addressing them to those other than on GN because I can’t find any references or posters doing this UNTIL I read your posts claiming it’s happening.

VS
I'm reposting this because non of the gender critical have bothered to comment on it. It obviously makes them very uncomfortable.

VS, just because you label posters Gender Critical, it doesn’t make them so.
I could label you IF or any of the other labels you have ascribed to yourself, because you have claimed to be that.
I can’t refer to you as TW or TM, because so far you haven’t said you are.

As for the complaint about posters not answering questions . . . Now that’s a joke worthy of .

I suspect that any ideas which contradict their insistence that there isn't a problem have to be ignored.

That so perfectly fits your posts, it’s unbelievable that you wrote it

Have a nice day both of you.

MaggsMcG

The obvious answer is surely to have three lots of toilets, changing rooms and sporting events. Then everyone can be happy.

I think you'll find that is not what is wanted by Transmen. They want access to everything a woman has access to even where it tramples on their rights and that is where the problem lies for many women.

Iam64

It seems you really dislike Kathleen Stock Gloryannie. Is it because she overcame her anxiety and achieved a good academic career? Left her working class roots behind? Genuine question

You really don't know much about me do you?
She had a reasonable academic career (not in the area she chose to write her book) I don't think it was particularly spectacular.
Some of my good friends are academics. Some of my good friends (and me) have much more working class roots than Kathleen, whose parents were not working class but a philosophy professor and a proof reader-middle class really.
I do dislike people who seem to demand recognition for themselves and their rights but belittle others.

icanhandthemback

MaggsMcG

The obvious answer is surely to have three lots of toilets, changing rooms and sporting events. Then everyone can be happy.

I think you'll find that is not what is wanted by Transmen. They want access to everything a woman has access to even where it tramples on their rights and that is where the problem lies for many women.

Yes, on the whole I think you are right (although I think you mean Transwomen?). A lot of this is about power, really.

Also, how many places have the space or plumbing to be able to comply with that? New builds could do it, but converting older buildings often would not be possible. So instead, rather than have men inconvenienced, the Ladies 'conveniences' double up as 'gender neutral' and often are also available to the disabled and parents with babies, so men, women, transpeople, the 'non-binary' the disabled and parents are all expected to use the space with cubicles only, whereas the men get a place all of their own with both cubicles and urinals. The best solution? You Decide.

Well the next time someone tells me they are a woman should I then demand they give me proof?

Who are these people that you meet Glorianny, who tell you whether they are woman or a man?
I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who has told me that they are a woman or a man.
Why would they do that with you? Do you look at them accusingly so they feel obliged to announce that.

Is it just Glorianny? Am I the only one who has never been told that by the people I meet?

Mollygo

^Well the next time someone tells me they are a woman should I then demand they give me proof?^

Who are these people that you meet Glorianny, who tell you whether they are woman or a man?
I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who has told me that they are a woman or a man.
Why would they do that with you? Do you look at them accusingly so they feel obliged to announce that.

Is it just Glorianny? Am I the only one who has never been told that by the people I meet?

But surely Mollygo the point is that if your standards are to be applied I need some way of knowing, regardless of if I ask, am told, psychically communicated with, or observe it.
So how will I have proof?

No, me neither, and I have never ever wondered if I should ask to 'look in their pants' either. It's just not something that would occur to me, but I suppose we are all different.

Again, apologies for repetition, but I just take people as I find them. It is only when they want to colonise women's spaces (including sports and language - eg telling me what it means to be a woman) that I object.