Yet another MP, ignorant about biology.

Grantanow

Can't expect MPs to know everything!

If they want to pontificate on a subject I expect them to have a good working knowledge. I'd also expect someone who dropped out of a medical degree to know about biological sex, and that it's immutable.

Katie59

Lathyrus

Katie59

I dont believe that 1.7% have chromosome differences, there are many other reasons that sexual characteristics don’t develop fully at puberty.

It is more or less correct As I posted early most of these have Klinefelter syndrome. They are male with all the male bits except reproductive gonads.

1.7% is around 1 in 60 you are quoting “most” Kleinfelter as
1 in 650

Is there maths problem somewhere, as a midwife I did look and we were shown the variations and in my whole career only 2 or 3 had those characteristics, many others with downs and other conditions.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other a bit.

As a midwife you wouldn’t have seen anything other than a normal male baby on delivery. Maybe with one or two undescended testicles which is a characteristic of Kleinfelter but also occurs in XY males, so not any kind of indicator of XXY.

I’m no mathematician so probably you are right about the statistics. I suppose I just want people to understand that Kleinfelter has nothing to do with trans and for the trans lobby to desist in using genetic variation to further their cause.

Elegran

The operative words in Kirsty Blackman's speech is "probably xy", which means that she is "probably" unlikely to be one of the 1.7% Herefornow refers to, and was "probably" raised as a to consider herself male.

What was being debated at the time was "“Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex” Surely when 98.3% of people are of the same biological and chromosomal sex as the rest of their cohort but only 1.7% are chromosomally at odds with that, then the characteristic sex is the biological sex whatever the subsequent life choices of each (chromosomally unchanged) individual. The 1.7% are outliers, not representatives of the characteristic.

I’ve just been reading the Hansard report on this debate from Parliament, emailed to me as I signed the petition.
Makes for interesting reading! Some really good common sense from some MP’s in favour of amending the Equality Act( to biological women) and some jaw dropping crap from one particular MP.
Angela Eagle and Joanne Cherry both Lesbian and both in favour of amending the Act ( good on ‘em) and a really good short speech from Jess Phillips and one from a Cons MP from Hampshire.

Doodledog

Sorry - I forgot the quote there, but that was to VS. I do not tell lies, and will defend myself against accusations that I do.

That post was not sharing a quote - it was a direct comment, whether or not someone else had said it first. In many ways it doesn't matter anyway. I was simply referring to the fact that VS had said it, which she did, and she decided (although she claims that she doesn't report) to hit the report button.

It's all there black and white , what you say I said, what I actually said.

I haven't said anything rude about you, I've just stated the truth

This is why I don't speak to you.

You seem very clued up on certain things yet you constantly try to tell me who I am, what I mean and misquote me.

Ive tried several times to impress upon you that I am a genuine person with granted, autism and a silly sense of humour but I am not a threat to anyone I am just different and different isn't bad.

I won't engage again

Thankyou Maddyone, I have full respect for transgender people, they deserve understanding and respect . However if a 'man' with all his tackle wanted to join me and my aqua ladies in our communal changing room ( because ' he' identified as a women it would not go down well !! Any decent transgender woman would know not to do that . As for the
eradication of women - don't get me started!! The world has gone mad !!

It's all there black and white , what you say I said, what I actually said.

Indeed. And people can judge for themselves.

Ilovecheese

VioletSky

Why don't we just leave people's biology to people educated in the subject like scientists and doctors so they can assure everyone gets the medical care they need

Then we can mind our own business and stop having threads about people who don't deserve a public coal raking just for existing

You mean like Sir Robert Winston?

Yes, this Professor Winton.

This Sir Robert Winston who is totally ignored, or worse rubbished, by some people who'd rather believe a student publication full of mights, could, maybes, than a leading fertility expert?

Genetics is, of course, hugely complicated and subject to variations on other chromosomes
Extra sex chromosomes in addition to 46,XY or 46,XX are not unknown but are rare.

Science isn't finished

They only just sequenced the entire human genome in 2021 I think it was. Over 3 billion long.

Human beings can differ genetically in almost 2 million genes.

They do not know the function of many of those genes yet. Some do not appear to function at all.

We are far more than XX and XY, we actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes. 22 pairs are identical in men and women. Every chromosome contains hundreds or thousands of genes.

We are vastly complicated and we absolutely know, not perfect. Mistakes happen at different areas of development. There absolutely could be a genetic explanation for gender dysphoria and ruling that out at this stage is literally impossible, especially when we know that science has already discovered 21 differences in 17 genes of trans people.

More is coming

And I do find it difficult to respect any scientist who thinks the matter is closed.

But some sadly let their opinion close their minds or otherwise direct their work.

VioletSky

And I do find it difficult to respect any scientist who thinks the matter is closed.

But some sadly let their opinion close their minds or otherwise direct their work.

Ah the anonymous “some”. The snide sideways dig at a man whose life’s work has been in human fertility and whose knowledge and compassion has been the saving of many.

I don’t find it at all difficult to respect him.

If “some” can’t argue the facts they cast a slur.

If you can’t disprove, discredit.

“21 differences in 17 genes of trans people”

How many variations are there in non trans people
Many Hundreds?.

Some is an amount

It's an unknown amount of somethings or someones

In that comment it means an unknown amount of scientists

If you want to take it as some sort of insult you are doing that to yourself

Not too myself but to a wonderful, intelligent, compassionate man.

I won’t let a snide slur on his knowledge and intelligence go by.

Katie59

“21 differences in 17 genes of trans people”

How many variations are there in non trans people
Many Hundreds?.

Oh millions

But where it is known or suspected what a gene actually does, they can isolate where a difference should not be.

What is currently being researched is genes that are responsible for washing the body with male and female hormones in certain stages of development... And whether this causes gender dysphoria

I am absolutely sure they will find an answer to this at some point but obviously research has to be funded and impactful.

Scientists had to be specifically hired and focused to map the genome sequence.

When other things like illness and disease are linked to genetics some things do tend to take priority. Trans people are otherwise healthy. The main risk to their health comes from society

Lathyrus

Not too myself but to a wonderful, intelligent, compassionate man.

I won’t let a snide slur on his knowledge and intelligence go by.

I have no idea who you or your husband are and it matters not to me whether you want to insult yourself or him for absolutely no reason.because I said "some" using the standard dictionary definition

My respect is mine to give

FarNorth

I'm glad that John Hopkins University has withdrawn this Glorianny and I wonder how it came to appear in the first place.

It does erase all women, not only lesbians, because the word which should have been used was 'women' and it was replaced with 'non-men'.

It came to appear in the first place because the individual who wrote it is so a “trans” identified male who holds some kind of position in ‘diversity & inclusion’ at the University.
See if you can guess which one he is! (Clue - his voice is deeper than most women's but only because he comes from New Jersey)

twitter.com/blancochristin/status/1092557647298129922?s=61&t=38dnssMfaGnDXaRjTrU1lw

VS Two things

"Did anyone see in the news that John Hopkins University now calls women non-men."
Would you agree that this is unacceptable?

Also. I think what is not liked is you saying "if people dont like you take joy in being as annoyingly yourself as possible".
You may find that acceptable but not sure others do.

VioletSky

Lathyrus

Not too myself but to a wonderful, intelligent, compassionate man.

I won’t let a snide slur on his knowledge and intelligence go by.

I have no idea who you or your husband are and it matters not to me whether you want to insult yourself or him for absolutely no reason.because I said "some" using the standard dictionary definition

My husband?????

Weird.

Thank you for pointing that out Lathyrus I misread something without my glasses. Sorry about that

I was getting a bit excited that you were married to RW lathyrus, I was going to ask you to pass on my thanks to him

Trans people are otherwise healthy. The main risk to their health comes from society

Yes, a society where TRA are allowed to attack and endanger females in the name of the huge majority of trans people who neither need nor want that sort of support.

The other main risk to their health comes from people who persistently claim or imply that everyone except them hates trans.
It’s a lie, but if trans hear those people who are purporting to empathise with them, say it, they may not understand it’s a lie.

fancythat

VS Two things

"Did anyone see in the news that John Hopkins University now calls women non-men."
Would you agree that this is unacceptable?

Also. I think what is not liked is you saying "if people dont like you take joy in being as annoyingly yourself as possible".
You may find that acceptable but not sure others do.

Point one, I haven't read this and do not know their reasoning but on the face of that, no that's not acceptable

Point two, one thing I've discovered in life is that people will dislike others for a myriad of reasons. But I've reached a stage in life where people disliking me is not a problem for me. Plenty of people do. So I'm completely happy and comfortable being myself and hope others may feel the same. I liked the quote so shared it with a member getting a hard time. I take the quote to mean this:

When others do not like you, and take great pains to let you know this by being rude and insulting, that's a them problem, not a you problem. So be your happy authentic self, it's not your fault you annoy them by existing or being different to them in some way

Biology is indeed a simple concept - there are two sexes. If you shout about black being white from now until eternity, it doesn't make it so, but of course you can always troll, cancel, threaten and/or intimidate people into keeping quiet about the truth. It changes nothing. Call yourself what you like, live as the person you want to be, behave as you wish,but there are two sexes.