The gender ideology thread

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

Russ, what you’re offering here is a variation on the ‘but it’s only a few men, why can’t you just leave them alone’.

Nope, you’ve read far too much in to what I posted. It was simply an example of how distorted the media (and yep it’s the yank version of The Mail) are willing to go on this subject.

[Itshim]

Love the idea of leave them alone , fairs fair , that's fine if they leave the rest of us alone. Any islands up for sale?

Originally Posted by Chris

1. The London Marathon publishes rankings even way down in the thousandths. Any man who took part has distorted those rankings and unfairly disadvantaged a woman.
2. No man should have been allowed to enter the women’s race. The London Marathon is a UK Athletics officially sanctioned event and the LM organisers have breached its participation rules by allowing men into the women’s event.

Russ, what you’re offering here is a variation on the ‘but it’s only a few men, why can’t you just leave them alone’.

The point is, fairness is fairness. If you have a category whose entire reason to exist is to give fair sport to women, who as a class cannot compete fairly against men, then you cannot allow men to compete in that category under any circumstances. If you do, then you abolish the category.

Fox News can get stuffed. They have their own reasons for saying what they say and I don’t care about them in the slightest. However, any man who ran in the women’s category took a place in the entry ballot from a woman. Simply entering the race was an act of theft. Taking a place on the finishers table robs every woman who finished after him of their rightful result, however small a difference it made. And holding a women’s participation medal is a lie in service of an entitlement he did not deserve and which the rules said he should not have.

If he actually does hand his women’s participation medal back and get himself deleted from the table, then that goes some way to restoring fairness. Although somewhere, there is a woman who was not allowed to run in the London Marathon this year because the organisers gave her place to a man. I wonder what, if anything, he would be prepared to do about that.

[Jaymoss]

When I was a competitive kickboxer I only wanted my full contact fights to be against a fair opponent. I was in mis matched fights and I took no pride in winning them. I guess that shows the difference between a real sports person and someone who is entitled and can not compete against equals

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

Nope, you’ve read far too much in to what I posted. It was simply an example of how distorted the media (and yep it’s the yank version of The Mail) are willing to go on this subject.

Yes…

But it was factually accurate, regardless of the spin put upon it.

The headline Should’ve been, “man takes place away from woman” …that’s it.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes…

But it was factually accurate, regardless of the spin put upon it.

The headline Should’ve been, “man takes place away from woman” …that’s it.

There’s a petition on the go …

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/716553

Petition
Require the use of sexed language in government-funded health communications

Require the terms woman, girl and mother be used in their sexed meanings of adult female person, female child and female parent in government-funded healthcare groups and communications including policy and guidance documents, legislation and public health communications.

The Women's Health Strategy for England says sex-specific language should be used 'to communicate matters that relate to women’s and men’s individual health issues, and their different biological needs. However, that increasingly communications of all kinds related to women's health in the UK are being desexed. We believe this goes against well-established principles of health communication and risks confusion, inappropriate inclusion, and miscommunication and so undermines women's health and rights.

Seems eminently sensible to me. As well as being downright insulting to women to reduce their status to ‘birthing person’ or ‘person with a womb’, deliberate, political obfuscation of language in healthcare carries genuine risks to safety.

There are already trans-identifying males who have convinced themselves their biology has changed and they won’t need a prostate check when they get into their 50s.

Originally Posted by Chris

There’s a petition on the go …

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/716553



Seems eminently sensible to me. As well as being downright insulting to women to reduce their status to ‘birthing person’ or ‘person with a womb’, deliberate, political obfuscation of language in healthcare carries genuine risks to safety.

There are already trans-identifying males who have convinced themselves their biology has changed and they won’t need a prostate check when they get into their 50s.

[RichardCoulter]

Listened to a programme about this subject yesterday and it was said that, as the two terms mean different things, it's possible to change ones gender, but not sex.

Can anyone explain this to me?

[Sephiroth]

Perhaps in other words:

Does the Supreme Court ruling have the effect of equating the word "Sex" with the word "gender"?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Listened to a programme about this subject yesterday and it was said that, as the two terms mean different things, it's possible to change ones gender, but not sex.

Can anyone explain this to me?

You cannot change sex because it is written into your DNA. You can always tell what sex someone is. In 99.9% of cases you simply have to look at them. You don’t need to remove their clothes or take a DNA sample. We all know what a man is and we all know what a woman is. Sex is binary, it is immutable, and it is important for a whole range of reasons. Sex is expressed fro your DNA via the gametes your body produces, whether or not these are healthy. This also means there is no such thing as an intersex individual. Every such individual who is born with a chromosomal irregularity compatible with life is, ultimately, either male or female (and the vast majority of these are male).

Gender, when the word is used in the sense of self-identity, is an ill-defined, untestable, unobservable claim an individual makes about their sense of self. They may claim, though they are biologically male, to be a woman, or vice-versa. Or they may claim to be any number of other genders of various kinds which are even less congruent with what we might understand as the norms of the human sex binary.

As gender is entirely in the mind of the one claiming it, they can change it as often as anyone changes their mind about anything, and as it has no rules they can change it to whatever they want. They may even ask others to refer to them by third-person pronouns other than the ones commonly used in the English language, even though these are binary and connected to sex, not self-identified gender.

There was a time when for the sake of politeness I would probably have referred to a man as ‘she’ if he was making what seemed to be a genuine stab at living as a woman. I now consider that to be a position derived from a profound ignorance of just how malign this movement has become, as it has demanded ever more accommodations and sought to hoover up the rights and protections that rightfully belong to actual women.

I will no longer use the term ‘trans woman’ to refer to such a man (or vice versa). I endeavour only to use the term ‘trans-identifying male’, which accurately and succinctly describes both their sex and their interest in gender-identity ideology.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Listened to a programme about this subject yesterday and it was said that, as the two terms mean different things, it's possible to change ones gender, but not sex.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Biological sex cannot be changed. 'Gender', for lack of a better word, is more akin to being an opinion.

Within reason (for exactly the kind of reason Chris gives above), there is no harm in using a descriptive word that someone would like you to use when describing them.

Today I found out that one of the people on my team, who has all the outward looks, mannerisms, speech nuances, etc of a woman, identifies as non-binary and prefers (not asks or demands) to be referred to as they/them. I'm happy to accommodate that, I even went as far as offering an apology-of-sorts for previously saying her, she etc. I was, of course, told no such apology was necessary as it wasn't something I previously knew about. They aren't any type of activist, doesn't get pissy if people continue to use she/her and is pretty much a laid-back and well-liked member of the team.

[nomadking]

While there's claimed to be over 70 genders, "gender dysphoria" is binary. Another in the ever growing list of words that have been hijacked.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Biological sex cannot be changed. 'Gender', for lack of a better word, is more akin to being an opinion.

Within reason (for exactly the kind of reason Chris gives above), there is no harm in using a descriptive word that someone would like you to use when describing them.

Today I found out that one of the people on my team, who has all the outward looks, mannerisms, speech nuances, etc of a woman, identifies as non-binary and prefers (not asks or demands) to be referred to as they/them. I'm happy to accommodate that, I even went as far as offering an apology-of-sorts for previously saying her, she etc. I was, of course, told no such apology was necessary as it wasn't something I previously knew about. They aren't any type of activist, doesn't get pissy if people continue to use she/her and is pretty much a laid-back and well-liked member of the team.

If gender is an opinion, does that mean others hold the right to disagree and not conform or humour the opinion on the holder?

Thsi isn't aimed solely at Russ by ther way - this is open to everyone to answer. I'm interested to see what others think here.

It’s more than an opinion. It is an entire belief system. That means it must be taken seriously, but it also means in a free, open, democratic society, we must be free to say we simply do not share that belief system and exercise our freedom to decline to speak its creeds and confessions.