mercalia wrote: Vorpal 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 examinedhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54450273
and a podcast from the GuardianUnderstanding the fight over trans rightshttps://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.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom