Cycling UK Forum

mercalia wrote:

Vorpal wrote:

mercalia wrote:
I can define "trans woman" as " a man who identifies as a woman"
thus a trans woman is man

It's a good thing that you don't get to police what someone is, or how they identify.

They can identify how ever they want and live how they want. But I can use a persuasive defn just as much as they ( the activists ) do. achieves nothing. I suppose the issue is whether how you self identify should erase, conceal or cover up your origins. Real women would say I think no, trans activists would say yes. If the activists get their own way then maybe the next step is to remove the distinction between men and women completely, all we have are just people? Your origins are not visible in any way. But where then self identification?

Am I not a real woman? Frankly, I find your statement to be offensive. But it also applies a logical fallacy.

I don't give a **** what someone's origins are. If someone tells me she is a woman, I am happy to believe her, and see no reason to use a 'persuasive' definition. None whatsoever.

Another interesting article this time from a trans woman , in the Spectator

After all, if trans people like me want to be respected for who we really are, it is vital that we can be recognised as gender non-conforming members of our own biological sex, not members of the other one...... When I transitioned, I never bothered applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Not because it was humiliating, bureaucratic or expensive, but because it was irrelevant. I transitioned to find peace in my own body, not to change society. My legal sex remains male but then I have never felt the need to change the past – the sex on my birth certificate – in order to live in the present.

an interesting viewpoint? I am not sure her position is fully worked out as she has still changed her name to a female one. But its a step in the right direction.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-i-m-glad-the-government-rejected-gender-self-id-?

An interesting viewpoint, and no less valid than that of anyone else in such a situation. The author's attitude seems to be to accept the past and move on, which is certainly better than pretending it never happened.

I notice that, despite the vilification of the author, JK Rowling's new book has gone straight to #1.

I guess that's what happens when you try to ban a book.

Vorpal wrote:

mercalia wrote:

Vorpal wrote:It's a good thing that you don't get to police what someone is, or how they identify.

They can identify how ever they want and live how they want. But I can use a persuasive defn just as much as they ( the activists ) do. achieves nothing. I suppose the issue is whether how you self identify should erase, conceal or cover up your origins. Real women would say I think no, trans activists would say yes. If the activists get their own way then maybe the next step is to remove the distinction between men and women completely, all we have are just people? Your origins are not visible in any way. But where then self identification?

Am I not a real woman? Frankly, I find your statement to be offensive. But it also applies a logical fallacy.

I don't give a **** what someone's origins are. If someone tells me she is a woman, I am happy to believe her, and see no reason to use a 'persuasive' definition. None whatsoever.

I'd say it would be rather foolish to believe that 'Barbie Kardashian' is a woman

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... 63823.html

He is extremely disturbed and dangerous and has a habit of wanting to rape and murder women.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 7b2518ff8a

Is desperate to be sent to women's prison.

Perhaps there should be a different word for people who identify with certain sex-based stereotypes. But I don't think that word is 'woman'.

thelawnet wrote:
I'd say it would be rather foolish to believe that 'Barbie Kardashian' is a woman

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... 63823.html

He is extremely disturbed and dangerous and has a habit of wanting to rape and murder women.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 7b2518ff8a

Is desperate to be sent to women's prison.

Perhaps there should be a different word for people who identify with certain sex-based stereotypes. But I don't think that word is 'woman'.

I'm not sure what either of these have to do with what I said, but I will respond, anyway.

People who are criminals, are criminals. If they use their gender or gender identitiy as a means to perform criminal acts, then they may require special handling in the criminal justice and and/or social services systems. I am not expert & don't know what is best for either circumstance. I have read of circumstances where the British criminal justice system has failed vulnerable prisoners, so I would expect that it is something that would need to be dealt with carefully.

But people like in the two specific examples you posted are no more representative of transfolks in general, than you are of a heterosexual criminal who performs horrible acts, for example Jack the Ripper.

The transgender story in pakistan

Do ‘Terf hunters’ care for Pakistan’s persecuted trans people?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-terf-hunters-care-for-pakistan-s-persecuted-trans-people-?

A witch hunt in Scotland:The hounding of a Scottish poet by trans activists

To begin at the beginning, Lindsay is a poet who makes what living she can by performing live, organising events and mentoring young writers. In June 2019 she objected to a writer for the Skinny, who said they believed in ‘violent action’ against Terfs (in this instance lesbian feminists at a Pride March). Lindsay contacted the magazine on Twitter and said:

“‘Hello! One of your commentators here advocates violence against lesbian activists at Pride. I find it extraordinary that such views are given an airing in The Skinny.’

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hounding-of-a-scottish-poet-by-trans-activists?

mercalia wrote:Transphobe objects to being called a terf... article by The Spectator

Please stop posting this biased click-bait.

Vorpal wrote:

mercalia wrote:Transphobe objects to being called a terf... article by The Spectator

Please stop posting this biased click-bait.

which one are you referring to as I cant find I said that in any recent posts?

mercalia wrote:

Vorpal wrote:

mercalia wrote:Transphobe objects to being called a terf... article by The Spectator

Please stop posting this biased click-bait.

which one are you referring to as I cant find I said that in any recent posts?

The 'witch hunt in Scotland'. The article posted immediately before my post, by you, is about a transphobe who objected to being targetted by transactivists. My summary may have been a little flippant, but you have posted multiple articles like this, with similar themes by the Spectator.

Vorpal wrote:

mercalia wrote:

Vorpal wrote:Please stop posting this biased click-bait.

which one are you referring to as I cant find I said that in any recent posts?

The 'witch hunt in Scotland'. The article posted immediately before my post, by you, is about a transphobe who objected to being targetted by transactivists. My summary may have been a little flippant, but you have posted multiple articles like this, with similar themes by the Spectator.

well you think she is a transphobe others may disagree. you are showing your bias I think and you clearly dont like the Spectator

it seems the whole question on teen transitioning is going to court. good thing too. The whole issue needs to be examined

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54450273

and a podcast from the Guardian
Understanding the fight over trans rights
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2020/oct/08/understanding-the-fight-over-trans-rights-part-1?

By the way the Guardian podcast Today In Focus is a good podcast to sub to in a podcast "reader" on your smartphone

mercalia wrote:

Vorpal wrote:

mercalia wrote:
which one are you referring to as I cant find I said that in any recent posts?

The 'witch hunt in Scotland'. The article posted immediately before my post, by you, is about a transphobe who objected to being targetted by transactivists. My summary may have been a little flippant, but you have posted multiple articles like this, with similar themes by the Spectator.

well you think she is a transphobe others may disagree. you are showing your bias I think and you clearly dont like the Spectator

it seems the whole question on teen transitioning is going to court. good thing too. The whole issue needs to be examined

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54450273

and a podcast from the Guardian
Understanding the fight over trans rights
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2020/oct/08/understanding-the-fight-over-trans-rights-part-1?

By the way the Guardian podcast Today In Focus is a good podcast to sub to in a podcast "reader" on your smartphone

You are correct that I do not like The Spectator, but that's really not the problem, here. The problem is that you are repeatedly posting stuff from them, without comment, when it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. It's the same sort of thing, different articles, with similar opinions, and no analysis. *that* is what problematic, not that it comes from The Spectator. Their articles on this subject are offensive, and I have been letting it go for months.

The person featured in the article does not agree that trans women are women. That either makes her a transphobe or a terf, take your pick.

What the science says is that there are no clear lines between male & female, as shown in the figure below


While this comes from a blog, it is wrriten by a scientist; Katherine Wu holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunobiology from Harvard University. The title for the diagram includes the following:

An incomplete and incomprehensive representation of gender identity and sexual orientation. Transgender individuals are those who identify with a gender that differs from their assigned sex. This is a facet of identity that is completely distinct from sexual orientation. These graphs do not represent the full spectrum of either facet, as they are multidimensional. For instance, there may be genders that some identify with that are neither “male” nor “female. Furthermore, there are no “lines” that divide these identities, and they may be considered malleable and overlapping.

The blog is published by Harvard http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/ ... -identity/

The science is not subject to opinion. The belief that gender is a binary male/female is simply that. A belief. There is little scientific basis for it.

https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

I have read a number of articles, even scientific ones, that 'show' that sex is biological and binary. One of them uses the lack of non-binary sex in simple organisms as evidence. Another simply states that there is a 'great deal' of research supporting it, but the references are mainly more than 30 years old. Another used population statistics to show there is only a tiny minority of people who don't fit the binary, and therefore, everyone can live with what their birth certificate says. Yet another used semantics to demonstrate that the words male and female are by definition binary, therefore humans are sexually binary. None provided any convincing evidence or alternative explanations.

If you wish to discuss this further, please provide science and/or critical argument.

Vorpal: well we disagree on the matter that transwomen are women and that makes me a transphobe or terf by YOUR criteria. The distinction between men and women predates any science ( how many more times do I need to say that?) you mention so doesnt necessarily have relevence. You dont seem to get that point? You are claiming this common notion should be revised, others would say no. How to decide the matter. I personally think the best soln is to have further genders rather than revise old ones ( eg India with a 3rd gender in law ) You have a deeply entrenched view. The Spectator articles I broadly agree with and are offered for information as not every one follows their newsletters. There is no necessity to comment on them. People if they want to read them can make up their own mind what they think just as I am doing

One thing I have difficulites with I havent said much about is the whole matter of self knowledge - transactivisits seem to think ( thats my impression ) that this knowledge is introspectively gained and some how innate or independant of anything out side( having a male body or going thru puberty or even before that kicks in). That some how you cant be wrong in your decision ( as eg if you have the sensation of pain that is beyond doubt or error). Thats fraught with problems. Can trans people be wrong in deciding they are trans? are there alternative ways of understanding their experiences of their self without thinking they have the wrong body? ( eg in the 1950s we had tom-boys). How does transpeople beliefs in what they are compare to religeous beliefs which are beyond any refutation & have an obscure origin in many cases? We protect in law such people but some here would think they are wrong in their beliefs.( there is no problem with them as the places they go viz churches non religeous people dont want to go) If it was as simple as you seem to make out that lady in one of the Spectator articles who says she is a transwoman but NOT in the wrong body but just a gender noncomformist should not be possible ( i'm not sure her postion is fully worked out). Her internal knowledge should should say she does have the wrong body just as much as she has the sensation of pain if I stick a pin in her arm. Examples like that raise doubts about trusting introspection that some trans people place so much weight on. And if introspection is not the final arbiter then what?