To celebrate the end of classes, we have two big events this weekend at UMM.
First up, park your butt in an auditorium (haven’t they had enough of that?), and watch a Marvel Movie Marathon. I’m not sufficiently interested in the Marvel universe to do that, but sure, soak in it for the weekend.
And then, top off Saturday night with the Yule Ball. This is a photo of a decorative pile of tchotchkes that were on a table. I like the sentiment on the button.
Party hard, young’uns! For the professoriate will deliver unto you a week of pain immediately afterwards!
I’d prefer a LotR (Extended Edition, of course) marathon myself, but whatever floats your waffle.
And years ago the Fundies were slamming Rowling for her Harry Potter series due to scores of references of witchcraft. Today she’s still being slammed. This is for her Transphobic stance. I honestly swear the 2020-2021 pandemic has gotten to her brains. Likely that’s the reason why she started joining a radical group hellbent on fascism and become transphobic as well.
Re: Akira MacKenzie @ #1…
Please…no. Not that hatchet job.
Recommended alternatives:
The narrative universe of Herr Doctor Cabal, Necromancer or the universe of James Stark aka Sandman Slim by Richard Kadrey (film now in development, I recommend the novels. -Imagine “Tarantino does ‘True Blood’ )
Recommended alternatives:
The narrative universe of Herr Doctor Cabal, Necromancer or the universe of James Stark aka Sandman Slim by Richard Kadrey (film now in development, I recommend the novels. -Imagine “Tarantino does ‘True Blood’ )
WTF? Kill the doublet, kill, kill!
…Also, Richard Stark literally kills a runaway fragment of God. Respect!
@2: I spent years defending Joanne Rowling from the damn fundies, only to have her turn full fascist. I am absolutely embarrassed that I defended her at all!
The only positive: the people that she’s snuggling up to won’t buy her books. Enjoy your residual checks from HP because they ain’t gonna last forever, Joanne.
The idea that JK Rowling is anti-trans is not born out by the evidence, I always assumed, PZ Myers, that ‘evidence’ was your scientific forte? Apparently not. Any post-pubescent male who wishes to live his life as a female absolutely has that right to do so. But such an individual remains biologically male. And one of the reasons that there are women-only spaces is because (some) men are untrustworthy and unreliable. You may have watched train journey’s on Agatha Christie films, with the long corridoors and the separate compartments with sliding doors and blinds on the windows? In the past, UK women passengers were abused, assaulted, raped and murdered in those old-style compartments, leading to the open plan carriages which we have today. There’s also evidence of devious males getting into UK women’s prisons by simply claiming they have the right to do so. I’m truly amazed you have allowed yourself to become embroiled in so-called TERF wars. Isn’t it time you considered the rights of biological women too?
davidmilne:
I wish I were truly amazed that you so very, very obviously haven’t been following PZ for the last 15 years or so. You’re late to the party by at least that much.
@ ^ davidmilne : yeah it is. very much so – see :
https://www.them.us/story/is-jk-rowling-transphobic
& here :
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/09/jk-rowling-transphobia-new-novel-troubled-blood-controversy
In addition to here by Jessie Gender (25 mins long) among many many other places.
Argh. The “yes it is very much so” was meant to refer to #9 davidmilne’s “The idea that JK Rowling is anti-trans is not born out by the evidence,” lie / extraordinary claim.
“biological male.” “biological women.” Please point out to me the non-biological men and women in society.
I don’t see how getting rid of “old-style compartments” is evidence that trans women are sneaking onto trains to rape people. It’s evidence that abusers exist, have long existed, and that society has acted to remove exploitable flaws. It says nothing about an imaginary trans threat. The rapists who took advantage of those “Agatha Christie” trains were cis men!
@ 9. davidmilne : Isn’t it time you considered the rights of biological women too?
You think PZ and the rest of us don’t? Just because we also support trans people’s rights? Seriously?
Also what PZ said above too.
There is, is there? Citation and evidence needed.
Do they? What does that actually mean, how do you define it and you do realise that human gender is – even scientifically – not a simple binary? See this under 15 mins long SciShow clip for one good explanation.
Oh and also please watch this good discussion clip on JKR & transphobia and the HP franchise here by Sarah Z which I’ve just stumbled across and enjoyed which is just under 45 minutes long as well as checking out the search results listing here :
https://freethoughtblogs.com/?s=JK+Rowling
Which contain a lot of articles from a lot of FTB bloggers showing exactly why JK Rowling is transphobic and terribly wrong here.
@ ^ Huh. Dunno quite how I managed to accidentally link two clips at once including that other Jessie Gender JKR essay dissection without meaning to.. Did think that I’d replaced the first youtube clip there with the second one & am sure I couldn’t do it deliberately if I’d actually tried to rather than by mistake but anyhow. so firts one is another Jessie Gender clip dissecting JKR’s transphobia and explaining why Rowling is transphobic as more evidence of, y’know, that. Some audio issues as noted at start there & 55 mins long.
PS. Oddly enough Rowling’s Hogwarts Express is one of those old Victorian era steam trains with compartments that were exploited by cis men to assault women. Hmm.. Also why use that particular means to get kids to the magic school when they have, urm, magic? Efficient. Not.
The Potterverse & her wizarding world does have a very Victorian era vibe to it actually..
Since Rowling lives in Scotland, and is currently whingeing about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill now going through the Scottish Parliament, this document is relevant. In essence, it is the Scottish Government’s response to a letter from Reem Alsalem, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, its Causes and Consequences, to the UK government about the bill. It comprehensively refutes the critical aspects of that letter, and much of the transphobic bilge trotted out by Rowling, davidmilne, etc. (it doesn’t deal with the non-existence of non-biological males and females). In particular, it deals with the failure of those respondents to two consultations carried out in advance of the bill who opposed its aims, to produce any concrete examples of the evils they alleged it would cause, in jurisdictions where similar laws on self-determination of gender have been implemented. The UK Government’s Equalities minister, the raging transphobe (and homophobe) Kemi Badenoch, is apparently scheming to block the bill by referring it to the Supreme Court on specious grounds.
Yes, you’re right, PZ Myers. The men who did those awful things were biological males. (I see no reason for cis). The point you’re avoiding is that post-pubescent males who wish to live their lives as women still remain biological males. With all the urges of biological males. Why is that difficult to understand? You’re a biologist! And as a biological male myself but not making any claims to wish to live as a female, I would still not enter a women’s only space – even if I was allowed to – because – they are for biological females only. For their safety. For their privacy. What’s ‘anti-trans’ about defending the rights of women? TERF is a spurious argument, and you’ve seemingly fallen for it? And we are getting cases – unsurprisingly – of men claiming to ‘be’ women in order to enter women only spaces. Look it up for your self. We’ve reached the stage on both sides of the pond now where women are being referred to as ‘people who have periods’ Funny. I thought the word ‘woman’ pretty much covered that?
John Morales, don’t assume things. Assumptions are not evidence. I’ve been following PZ’s blog for at least 10 years or more, and was in the audience in Yorkshire when he visited us here in the UK many years ago. Also, assumptions are not scientific, as I’m sure PZ will attest.
Steve R, if you read a little more carefully instead of jumping to ‘anti-trans’ conclusions you will see that I am fully supportive of trans people. But if I offer criticism of heterosexual humans would that mean I am ‘anti-humans’ too? Stop already. Equally, not all the decisions concerning trans people necessarily have to be correct simply because they refer to trans people. Now, if the zeitgeist changes over time and women are comfortable with biological males entering what are currently biological women only public spaces, then so be it. But there’s no discussion here, is there? It’s just taken for granted by (some) trans activists that a post-pubescent male merely has to publicly state he is a woman in order for him to gain access to those women-only spaces. And that’s wrong. Plain and simple.
davidmilne:
So why are you still “truly amazed” and bring it up now?
It’s not like PZ has changed his stance in all that time, or that he hasn’t posted about Rowling’s own stance many times.
(But sure, you’ve been following him all this time, and you’re still amazed)
PS
Says the person who claims to have been following the blog for at least a decade.
(Heh — you’re really late to the party)
@20. davidmilne :
If you read a little more carefully then you’d see my nymn is StevoR – one ‘e’, one ‘o’ and no space between the o & the R.
If someone is really “..fully supportive of trans people..” then one shouldn’t have to read carefully to detect that and it should probly be obvious from what they say; don’t you agree?
I am curious as to exactly what “criticisms” you have in mind here. It would depend on the specifics as most things do. If you mean criticising heterosexual humans and their mainstream culture for being homophobic and oppressive to queer, intersex people, trans people etc .. you may have a point and it may not necessarily be anti-human at all. For example, saying a less heterosexual agenda dominated human race would be far better off and happier and more successful would, I’d say, be pro-human. Feel free to start – not that I could stop you in any case. What exactly is your point supposed to be there?
Trivally true,dubiously relevant esp given lack of context and vague. Decisions concerning trans people are histroically and contemporaily often – usually – made by those hostile to them. To say decisions concerning them like the proposed laws barring them from using the public toilets and shared spaces of their chosen gender are “correct” is clearly false based on basic ethics and empathy. So ..?
Do you have any particular decisions and people making them in mind here, davidmilne?
“Biological woman.” You’ve not answered PZ question about how you define that and that term is pretty much a tell for transphobia. What about “biological males” exactly – cis or trans ones? What about intersex & non-binary people? Why the again tellingly transphobic focus on trans women?
There is no IF the Zeitgeist IS always changing as are our culture and societies. Change is the only constant as someone once said. Question is how should it change and how do we make those changes for better not worse? I suggest changes that increase our inclusivity and welcoming to trans and non-heteronormative folks is desirable and beneficial for everyone and that dropping old prejudices and stereotypes and bigotries like transphobia is a positive thing that we should work towards and not against.
Whelp, you clearly haven’t being paying attention have you? Yes, there’s been plenty of discussion. Too much of it dominated by bigots.
If your second sentence was meant to refer to your first then yes. It is a false claim – an outright lie – to state as you did that “It’s just taken for granted by (some) trans activists that a post-pubescent male merely has to publicly state he is a woman in order for him to gain access to those women-only spaces.” That just doesn’t happen nor is it taken for granted.
It should be accepted that trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary people exist and deserve to have their wishes and humanity respected.
Would you, in your alleged “fully supportive of trans people” “wisdom” simply acknowledge and accept that? I doubt it but please prove me wrong, davidmilne.
Tchotchkes. Had to google that one, what a great word!
Human biological sex is binary. Male and female. Chromosomes, gamete production define biological sex. Any individual who is post-pubescent remains biological male or biological female – irrespective of their wish to live as a member of the opposite sex. Thus, Scottish government’s simplistic approach of supporting the idea that a person’s sex is what they claim it to be whilst simultaneously ignoring their biological sex is fraught with difficulties. This is an issue which (some) trans activists choose to ignore. The claim that ‘trans women are women’ where individuals are post-pubescent is scientifically incorrect. Now, if there is a new definition of the ‘woman’ please post here so we can all discuss it. Current figures of 99.98% show humans to be biological male or biological female. Yes, there are some individuals born with inter-sex complications, but that does not overcome the binary reality. On both sides of the pond we are hearing people describe women as ‘people who have periods’. Really? I thought the word ‘women’ covered that?
<clickety-click>
Ah, right.
Worked-up over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill
Progress.
@25. davidmilne :“Human biological sex is binary. “
Clearly you didn’t read or watch any of the evidnece I’ve presented to you especially not the SciShow clip I cited for you in # 14.
FYI again :
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Go read that & think about it.
@ 25. davidmilne – continued :
Oh & also see :
Source : https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/
Plus , hell, even wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender
Or, y’know, this very blog which you – evidently falsely – claimed in #19 to have followed for a decade. :
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/12/23/a-science-writer-who-doesnt-understand-the-difference-between-binary-and-bimodal/
You do know you can search this blog for terms like “gender binary” & transphobia” & (as shown before in my #14) “JK Rowling” etc right? There’s a little box with a magnifying glass icon , top right of at least my screen on the desktop?
Out of morbid curiosity and to determine the exact extent of your seemingly deliberate incuriousness – what about individuals pre-pubescent or during puberty? This has implications of course given the argments over puberty blockers for kids which buy them time to decide on their chosen genders.
Of course, it has been noticed davidmilne that you have FAILED to respond to my #23 and other questions asked of you here.
Whose figures from where exactly? For someone who claims to respect science & by extension academia you really seem clueless how it works and unwilling to show your sources. Surely you realise that merely asserting and repeating unsupported assertions not backed up by – and indeed contradicted by – the evidence which has already been provided for you – is the hallmark of a troll not a serious commenter or scientist.
I sincerely doubt you actually think that talking point is valid given the obvious exceptions of post menopausal women, the many women who for various reasons don’t or can’t menstruate and the fact that this is another tell for transphobia being a familar PRATT. (Point Refuted A Thouand Times Already.) To make that stale old claim reveals either disingenuousness or wilful ignorance and lack of thought on your part, davidmilne.
Based on your comments here so far, it is now very clear that you, davidmilne, are a transphobe & a rude and particularly dim one at that. I had hoped you would prove me wrong but no. I guess it is a waste of time answering your questions and engaging with you constructively given the above especially your apparent refusal to actually the look at the evidence which refutes your unscientific transphobic beliefs.
Only they’re not. Neither women’s toilets, nor women’s refuges, demand the production of a chromosome analysis, a genital inspection, a birth certificate, or any other supposedly universal signifier of womanhood. That’s because in fact, and contrary to transphobe claims, “woman” is primarily a social rather than a biological category. But maybe you do demand one or more of these before you will accept someone as a woman? Do let us know!
Naturally you give no source, but let’s suppose that figure is correct. That means well over a million people do not fall into the claimed-by-transphobes-to-be-universal binary. Who the fuck are you to define these people out of existence?
Anyone ignorant enough to think that there is any simple definition of “woman” really needs to do some reading – but that might disturb their comfortable certainties. You’ve tried chromosomes, gamete production and periods. But none of these actually works (ciswomen can have XX, XO or XY chromosomes – look it up – and many ciswomen do not have periods or produce gametes at any time in their life).
StevoR I have read the article in Scientific American, which ends ‘Trans people exist.’ Well, yes, but what’s your point? I have never suggested they do not exist! But I’m afraid that your attempt to conflate biological sex and gender as both being ‘on a spectrum’ is poor reasoning on your part. Think about it: If trans people are real (they are!) and I have already said so, then clearly I accept there is a dichotomy between biological sex and the need for an individual to wish to live their lives as a member of the opposite sex. Not a problem for me. Carry on! But that does not remove your problem, for despite your denials, a post-pubescent male remains a biological male irrespective of wishing to live a woman. Can you grasp that that? According to Nicola Sturgeon’s way of thinking, a man who is a biological male on Monday may simply and publicly claim to be a woman on Tuesday, and immediately have access to all the spaces which are currently reserved for biological women. And this kind of poor reasoning shows itself time and time again in practical examples, sports competitions, medical care, social care. In your efforts to promote trans humans as being victimized and in some sort of ‘battle’ against ‘transphobes’ like JK Rowling et al, you seem unable to deal with the reality of biological sex. By and large, UK public opinion is fully accepting of gay and lesbian humans – we’ve moved on from the terrible days of the 1950’s where homosexuality was illegal and could be prosecuted. Alan Turing, John Geilgud and countless others suffered under that kind of ill-informed thinking. Bearing that in mind, have you considered the possibility that it’s your own intransigence that is fuelling the genuine anti-trans lobby out there with your insistence that biological males are women? Maybe you need a re-think?
davidmilne, you really don’t see the point?
The article title:
“Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia”
The subtitle: “Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary”
And, it ends thus: the point → “While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.” ← the point
—
You, after:
You really don’t see the irony here?
Again, for you:
You: “Human biological sex is binary.”
The article: “While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.”
(See, the point is that the article directly contradicts your claim)
It seems that dm the transphobic troll actually expects me to answer more questions and engage with him further after he has ignored all the questions he’s been asked by me & others here too* (incl eg. #29 KG above) and keeps making unsupported assertions which have already been debunked including with cited scientific & historical evidence eg that demonstrating Rowling’s transphobia in comments #28, 27, (KG’s) 17, 14, & 11.
.* Including among other questions dm the transphobe has ignored and seems unable or unwilling or both to answer :
I) “biological male.” “biological women.” Please point out to me the non-biological men and women in society.
– PZ Myers
II) If someone is really “..fully supportive of trans people..” then one shouldn’t have to read carefully to detect that and it should probly be obvious from what they say; don’t you agree?
III) Do you have any particular decisions and people making them in mind here, davidmilne?
IV) “Biological woman.” You’ve not answered PZ question about how you define that and that term is pretty much a tell for transphobia. What about “biological males” exactly – cis or trans ones? What about intersex & non-binary people? Why the again tellingly transphobic focus on trans women?
V) Would you (davidmilne), in your alleged “fully supportive of trans people” “wisdom” simply acknowledge and accept that trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary people exist?
VI) Regarding dm’s false claim “..that ‘trans women are women’ where individuals are post-pubescent is scientifically incorrect” – what about individuals pre-pubescent or during puberty?
VII) On dm’s claim that “current figures of 99.98% show humans to be biological male or biological female.” – Whose figures from where exactly?
I’ll add which of the many sources cited for dm in #11, 14 & 28 has he actually read or watched?
PS. It is noted that davidmilne the transphobe has provided precisely zero (0) citations or scientific evidence throughout this now 3 day old thread and has failed to support any of his repeated, scientifically disproven, transphobic assertions.
SteveoR You really need to focus more carefully on what is written. In my reply to PZ Myers I DID answer his question – but seemingly you are incapable of understanding that. He and I both accept that human biological sex is represented by the chromosomes, sex organs and the particular gametes produced by an individual. You on the other hand seem to want to claim that biological sex is ‘on a spectrum.’ OK. Where is there any evidence to be found for that view? There isn’t any. Please explain where human biological sex is on a spectrum. Thanks.
SteveoR The reason I have focused on post-pubescent males is because irrespective of their wishing to live as females they remain biological males. Stating that is not ‘anti-trans’ as you wish to imply, but remains a scientific fact. And there are circumstances where a woman may not wish to compete in sports or receive medical care from an individual who remains a biological male. And such women need to have their rights respected. If a woman has suffered abuse, rape at the hands of a man, are you so selfish and self-centered to be unable to see see that their wishes need to be respected?
Repeating your mantra of “biological males” and “biological females” doesn’t answer anything. You claim that we agree that sex is defined by “chromosomes, sex organs and the particular gametes” and you’re wrong. You left out a whole bunch of criteria: hormonal sex, behavior, cultural interpretation, etc.
Just the fact that you’re able to identify 3 characteristics of what you call “biological sex” implies the existence of combinatorial variants, which implies the existence of a spectrum.
All males and all females and all trans people are biological. Quit using a meaningless modifier as if it makes your biases scientifically valid.
I have to add that I get really annoyed by these opinionated TERFs who use an innocent post about students celebrating the end of the semester to start up arguments over their bigoted assholery.
I’ve already pointed you to the Scottish Government document which refutes much of the garbage you’re spewing. In particular, the Gender Recognition (Scotland) Bill will not allow anyone to access women’s spaces who can do so now because access to precisely none of those spaces depends on having a Gender Recognition Certificate. It also cites support of the bill from Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid, and points out the complete lack of evidence of harm from similar legislation in multiple countries.
“who can do so now” should be “who can’t do so now” @38.
PZ Myers – you also need to read what is written. I did NOT say that “sex is defined by chromosomes, sex organs and gamete production.” I actually used the phrase “biological sex is defined by chromosomes, sexual organs and gamete production.” See the difference? And, just like SteveoR, you have avoided commenting on my points regarding a woman’s right not to be examined by a biological male. You’ve dodged that issue. You conflate ‘sex’ to incorporate biological sex and gender. Shame on you. SteveoR wants citations: OK here’s a few to be going on with: 1. ‘In Defense of the Binary in Human Sex’ by Prof Jerry Coyne, 2020′ 2. ‘The Dangerous Denial of Sex’ by Colin M Wright, Emma Hilton (latter is a developmental biologist at Manchester University). 3. ‘Material Girls – Why Reality Matter For Feminism’ by Kathleen Stock. 4. ‘Trans – When Ideology Meets Reality’ by Helen Joyce.
PZ Myers Given that I was specifically responding to your support for the button ‘JK Rowling fucking sucks’ your comment regarding “opinionated TERFS” is just plain ludicrous? What! Only Opinionated Biologists Are Allowed To State Their Opinions..!! If you feel the need to dish it out don’t complain when it comes back. It’s called democracy, free speech etc. And by the way, in what way are people like JK Rowling, Martina Navratilove et al, and myself, wanting to EXCLUDE trans humans? We’re not. Utter bullshit, sir. Your problem is you’ve got caught up in the kind of trans activism which wants to suggest that any views which appear to criticize any of the demands made by said trans activists are a statement against trans humans per se. Again, utter bullshit, sir.
I like the “sir”.
To be fair, you’re more of a FART than a TERF, davidmilne.
(What’s highly amusing is that you adduced Coyne to PZ)
John Morales You mean YOU don’t fart? Golly gosh, you must be a special kind of human..!! ho ho ho..! But of course, such comments are just a smoke screen to hide your inability to respond to the points I have raised in this discussion. Dear oh, dear…
PZ Myers what can we agree on? Trans people exist and have rights? Yes, and yes. That part was easy. But some of the demands made by trans activists are unfair and unjust to women, who also have rights. Why should top class female athletes have to compete with a trans woman who retains all the advantages of the biological male? Remember, it’s those very advantageous differences which brought about the separation of male and female sports in the first place. Should a post-pubescent trans woman with an illness which needs to be treated based upon the sex of that individual be considered male or female by her medical team? Should a woman who has been abused and raped by a man be forced to accept treatment from a trans woman who retains all the attributes of a biological male? Currently the advice to such traumatized women is that they ‘need to re-frame their their perspective’..! What are your views here…?
Again: for well over the last decade this has been discussed ad nauseam.
You bring nothing new to the table. There are bingo cards for what you do.
You know the acronym
PRATT?Heh. Lemme guess, ‘elite athletes’ are part of your
Bingo cardrepertoire.@ davidmilne : You still can’t even get my name right or actually answer the questions asked of you in # 32 & previous.
FART = Feminism Appropriating Regressive Transphobe.
Answered already repeatedly. See # 27, 28, 14. Let me guess; you still haven’t even bothered to look at the sources that refute your bigotry.
Transwomen ARE women. You claim you support trans people (#20) yet you refuse to acknowledge this reality.
LOL! Projection bigger than IMAX. No. I really do not – that would be you. Sex is the act of physical intercourse. Gender is a cultural construct and sexuality likewise and biologically and cultural both exist on spectrums like stars do. The shame is all yours.
Again, what part of trans women are WOMEN too do you NOT understand?
@ 40 Geez still no actual links… why not?
Googles :
&
Source : https://katjat.medium.com/a-pinch-of-expertise-plus-a-ton-of-speculation-a85684120160
Plus :
Source : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kathleen-stock-transphobia-university-austin-b1954486.html
By “freethought” they mean reich wing bigotry but then we all know that right? By “accusations” we know they mean called out for transphobic bigotry but, again, see end of previous sentence.
Oh &
Source : https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/06/03/helen-joyce-transgender-lgbtq/
Wow. Your sources certainly do reveal your own transphobic trolling bigotry bigoted troll.
StevoR…! Your ranting and personal insults show you to be incapable of understanding that women have rights. And I use the term ‘women’ in the sense of biological women, and not post-pubescent males who wish to live as women. I appreciate you want to say’ but trans women are women, but that’s not what the science of post-pubescent trans women tells us. Do their male chromosomes, male genitals and sperm production miraculously disappear and cease simple because they wish to live as women? No. You are silly. Your bad, not mine. ps have you read JK Rowling’s 3,000+ word essay on this topic, which clearly supports the rights of both trans people and women’s rights. I guess you haven’t, preferring instead to spew your vitriol about what you imagined she wrote. Dear oh, dear.
Like a gerbil on a wheel, you are, davidmilne.
—
“If you can’t be a good example, you’ll just have to be a horrible warning.” -Gwen Goodnight
John Morales We’re both gerbils on a wheel. I deal in Truth and Reality, you deal in Untruth and Ideological Misperceptions. You are sufficiently blinkered enough to think that having an alternative view regarding statements ‘a biological male is a female if he says so’ is somehow ‘anti-trans.’ It’s not. Read JK Rowling’s 3,000+ essay on her website and you will see she is as supportive of trans rights as she is of women’s rights. Of course, to do that you’ll have to come out of your comfy corner and view the world in all it’s reality. But it’s there – waiting for you. Try it.
Hey transphobic troll dm ya seen this thread yet? :
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/12/20/i-wont-do-that/
The last sentence of the OP would seem to apply to you as well as your apparent idol here.
PS. @ davidmilne : Still not answered any of the questions asked earlier I see nor read or watched those multiple sources I provided for you which refute your anti-science bigotry I see. Why not? Unwilling? Unable? Too frightened to look at what actual science says when it contradicts your transphobic ideology huh?
I expect you’ll run away again and not engage constructively with actual arguments and science and logic but do feel free to try to prove me wrong.
@48. dm the transphobic troll :
Huh. You want a breakdown, a deconstruction, of JKR’s essay? here you go – another relevant source for you to typically ignore and refuse to watch and never actually view because you are a coward but do prove me wrong by actually watching it and engaging and responding to its actual arguments and the scientific facts for a change.
#40: adding the modifier “biological” to “sex” is meaningless. You just imagine that it carries a whole lot of sciencey baggage, but it’s meaningless. All sex is biological.
For your references, you cite Coyne, Wright, Hilton, Stock, and Joyce. It would be shorter to just say you get all your information from Quillette and the British tabloids. Unimpressed.
PZ Myers I do wonder if you’re being deliberately obtuse? Yes, of course all sex is biological, and is based upon chromosomes, genitalia and gamete production. XY, penis, testicles, sperm production = male. But a post-pubescent male who wishes to live his life as a female remains a biological male. Do you want to dispute that? If not, then maybe take a sympathetic and understanding look at the rights of biological women (XX, ovaries, vagina, egg production), and try and understand their viewpoint at being described as ‘individuals who menstruate’ or at the unfairness of having to compete in top level sports against more muscular males who simply call themselves trans women. In the the UK we have dodgy male prisoners claiming to be trans women in order to gain access to female only prisons. Several prison governors have already written to the Home Secretary with such examples. I note you never answered my point about whether the medical team of a trans woman who needs treatment based upon their sex should regard their patient as being male or female? Once again, I urge you to read JK Rowling’s 3,000+ word essay regarding her position on this important issue and in which she shows full support for the rights of trans people and the rights of women in general., and show me where you consider her to be transphobic. And your comment regarding Coyne, Wright, Hilton, Stock, Joyce, is just plain foolish. And unscientific. For a scientist with socialist views you seem reluctant to consider the rights of 51% of the world’s population?
StevoR, thanks, but referring me to articles written by people who are already unjustly biased and – like you – seemingly have little or no understanding of the reality of the issue is just wasting both our times. However, ever willing to engage, I refer you to my last post addressed to PZ Myers. Maybe answer some of my points there, eh?
. Very good. Now which sex are you talking about that isn’t?
Just stop stuffing random adjectives into your rants when talking with a biologist. It makes you look like an idiot.
davidmilne, mate! You are so far behind!
All these things have been more than thoroughly addressed over the years in this very blog.
Is it not super-obvious, even to you?
She thinks trans women are men, and she thinks trans men are women.
She thinks trans women should be treated as men, and she thinks trans men should be treated as women in all social circumstances, without exception.
That’s exactly the opposite of supporting trans rights.
It’s exactly like saying to someone “You might be a naturalised citizen, you might live in this country, but you were not born in this country, so you are a foreigner and are not a citizen of this country and don’t deserve citizen’s rights”.
(Fucking transparent, that is)
Ah, yes. The assertion with a question mark — a sign of intellectual turpitude.
(Maybe PZ knows just a bit more about the biology than you do? ;) )
Willing to utterly ignore anything other than your script, you are stuck in the rut of your scripted talking points. Evidently.
See, this evinces your utter lack of understanding the distinction between sex and gender.
Also, your — ever so predictable — total focus on trans women, rather than trans men is telling.
Nevermind the concept of genderfluid people, you can’t run if you can’t walk, and you can’t walk if you can’t even crawl.
—
Basically, you’re mostly being ignored except by me (because I like my chewtoys) and StevoR (because he’s so very earnest) and PZ (because you’re not obnoxious enough to ban, and not informed enough to know what’s what).
Again: this is a topic that has been discussed to the nth degree over the last decade at the least, and you bring nothing new to the table.
(The term is ‘sealioning’)
@ ^ John Morales : Yes, yes the term is sealioning & you are spot on with the rest of your comment above.
@ 55 & 56 davidmilne
So, among others, actual trans people with lived experience are “unjustly biased” in your view but science denying transphobes who are going against the consensus of their collegaues with no supporting evidence and relevant expertise – see again my # 47 – are fine and, indeed, the only people here you’ll listen to. Oh & still no actual answers or citations of any worth to support your bigotry.
Name some. The purported male prisoners claiming to be women to get into women’s prison I mean not the Home Secretary. Specifics and citatations or it didn’t happen.
@ 50. dm troll :
Take your own advice and watch and listen to JessieGender’s video linked in #53 which addresses that. Done already and repeatedly and your reptitionof your debunked claims is noted and obvious transphobic trolling.
Your lack of alternatives their (“Their”! Non-binary. Xie, etc..) is noted as is your transparent disrespect for people and poor manners. If you ask to be called ‘X’ then I call you ‘X’. Unless there is clear reason to do otherwise. Not hard dude. Depends on the specifics but in general call the patient -the person – what they want to be called. Your problem with that here is ____ ?
Now having yet again answered your “question” care to answer those of mine noted above in # 32?
PS @ 5. John Morales : I like the odd chewtoy too. Even with my teeth.
^ # 58
^ # 58
Dangnabbit! Apologies for the ..triple stuff up..Still.
PZ Myers, I talk of ‘biological sex’ specifically in order to distinguish from the use of the word ‘gender’ which is, as I’m sure you’re aware, been misapplied by (some) trans activists to back up their claim that a post-pubescent male can be a female, while simultaneously retaining the sex organs, gamete production of a (biological) male. Yes, we could have a conversation about biology and sex, but what would be the point? Human sex is binary, except in rare instances, and even then the range is still between male and female. But what I’m raising here – and which you’ve never deigned to offer an answer – is why such a view is possible, and why it should be presented as an argument to override female only spaces? Let’s have your thinking here, instead of soundbites. Thanks.
John Morales, sex is binary, and for good evolutionary reasons. Ask PZ Myers, he’ll confirm that. If you claim that ‘sex is on a spectrum’ of what does that spectrum consist of? Trans, gay, lesbian, bi, only exist between a male/female spectrum. Unless you want to hypothesize a third (or fourth) sex?
davidmilne, since you follow this blog, you’re aware of this post, right?
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/12/21/awaiting-a-blizzard/
There’s a video there. It features you.
Sex is not binary, unless you reduce it to the trivial meeting of sperm and egg. Human sexual behavior and roles are immensely more complex, and not explainable in terms of mere cells. You’re aware that humans are multicellular, correct? That sexual physiology and behavior undergo continuous change over the individual’s life cycle? That every person has a unique perspective on sex?
Since you insist on continuing to use this bogus social construct of “biological sex”, I now tell you to fuck off and don’t come back.