Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's like talking to a brick wall.

In the post where I introduced the article, this was the only comment I made on it



That point stands.

If you want to keep saying "you did make a mistake, you did make a mistake" like a petulant child, quote the mistake I made in my posts and then refute it. That's how adults have a discussion.

Maybe I’ve taken you up wrong then.

So you’re not saying that the letter claims that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test in transgender, not intersex people? Is that right?

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

Maybe I’ve taken you up wrong then.

So you’re not saying that the letter claims that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test in transgender, not intersex people? Is that right?

Here's what the letter says:

As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia, and with plans to clarify disputes using “genetic testing”.1 This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity.2

The proposal is in no way “grounded in science” as the administration claims. The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex. Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

These are the opening two paragraphs of the letter. In subsequent paragraphs, they get more specific about which of their studies apply to trans people, and which to intersex. The above are general statements intended to apply to both.

Here's the link to the letter once again: https://not-binary.org/statement/

It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Here's what the letter says:



These are the opening two paragraphs of the letter. In subsequent paragraphs, they get more specific about which of their studies apply to trans people, and which to intersex. The above are general statements intended to apply to both.

Here's the link to the letter once again: https://not-binary.org/statement/

It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

I don’t disagree with it.

I disagree that it says that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test,( out side of intersex conditions) in transgender people.

Is that what you’re saying?


Edit: where you say ‘the above are intended to apply to both’ they’re not. They’re intended to apply to either. It’s a pretty significant difference and may be the source of the confusion.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

How hard is it to believe that sometimes nature f*cks up and puts a man's brain into a woman's body or vice versa?

What is a "man's brain"?

It's always interesting how people who jump through endless nit-picking hoops to argue that biological sex is some sort of spectrum (it isn't) are happy to announce that apparently there are man brains and lady brains and never the twain shall meet.

I would love to know what possible test there could be to assign or observe 'gender' by looking at a brain.

Even if there WERE evidence that men's and women's brains may function differently in some ways, that is most definitely a spectrum in the sense that many women are (what is traditionally perceived as) masculine in nature and vice versa.

A huge amount of this nonsense is people who don't understand the difference between sex (biological fact) and gender (societal roles, pressures, expectations).

eagle eye

suicide_circus wrote:

is there a difference between male and female brains?

Mean are from Mars, Women are from Venus!!!

Wibbs

I find it interesting that most of the conspiracy minded types out there are far more afraid that some regime or a rogue element in government will be the agency to impact their rights(whatever they consider them to be), yet it's far more likely to be an employer, particularly a large multinational that wants to blow with the winds most favourable to their profits that have far more power.

And history also shows that such enterprises will be held far less accountable even if their influence is considered "wrong" when change comes, as it surely does. QV the second world war when the industries and industrialists that directly supported and encouraged the rise of the various Axis powers largely walked away scot free in the aftermath.

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

I don’t disagree with it.

I disagree that it says that sex cannot be determined by a scientific test,( out side of intersex conditions) in transgender people.

Is that what you’re saying?

The statement you’re disputing is clearly intended to include both trans and intersex people.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The statement you’re disputing is clearly intended to include both trans and intersex people.

It’s clearly not.

You can’t make that inference from what’s written there.

And that would make zero scientific sense.

One eyed Jack

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Here's what the letter says:



These are the opening two paragraphs of the letter. In subsequent paragraphs, they get more specific about which of their studies apply to trans people, and which to intersex. The above are general statements intended to apply to both.

Here's the link to the letter once again: https://not-binary.org/statement/

It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

I don’t mean to be funny, but the language used in the letter is intentionally vague, that’s why it appears that they’re saying a whole lot without actually saying anything at all.

They aren’t arguing science, they’re arguing politics, and using ambiguous language to do it. The letter just isn’t a good example to demonstrate anything one way or the other only that it’s easy to find people who will agree with a political point of view and present bad science to argue their beliefs which are intended to influence legislation.

Zorya

The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood.

This sentence is about gender identity not sex.


There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender

This word refers to gender identity not sex


, or even sex.

If scientists are seriously stating there are no tests to determine sex then they are in the wrong job. There are. Unambiguously. Chromosones and DNA. Blood. Skeletons. People can tell what sex thousands of years old bodies were.


Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

This is Gender Theory 101. It is not science. It is post structuralist pseudo (social) science.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The statement you’re disputing is clearly intended to include both trans and intersex people.

“There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex.”

This statement is true in some intersex conditions. Nobody disputes that.

This statement is not true for non intersex XX and XY genotypes.

Therefore the statement does not refer to both.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

What is a "man's brain"?

It's always interesting how people who jump through endless nit-picking hoops to argue that biological sex is some sort of spectrum (it isn't) are happy to announce that apparently there are man brains and lady brains and never the twain shall meet.

Cognitive dissonance, so long as it supports one's position. Quite common to all positions and the more hardline, the more common.

Actually if you look at a few long standing bits of research there does indeed to be some general difference(s) between men and women's brains. Which makes sense as throughout our evolutionary history over hundreds of thousands of years men and women while sharing many selection pressures also faced some gender unique ones. Even our obvious sexual and reproductive traits show quite the divergence from the other great apes. Hidden oestrus and permanently inflated breasts in women, the loss of the penis bone in men, just a few.

I could well believe that in the case of transgender individuals - I would consider intersex a different, if possibly related condition, or at least a more overt one - Male to female Trans folks could show brain structures and activities more akin to naturally biologically female folks and ditto with female to male, because of uterine hormone exposure, genes, later development and a mix of all. Research into Gay men and women's brains seems to show more similarities with the brains of their straight counterparts. IE in certain areas of the brain Gay men look more like Straight women, Gay women more like Straight men. It seems possible that all these states of gender and sexuality are of a similar kind of mechanism just varying by degree.

Looking at the research linked in that letter a few studies have been undertaken which show some differences between Trans individuals and non trans, though much of it is vague, more of it shows little of a comparison and some of it looks like extremely sloppy research with tiny sample numbers and/or dubious conclusions reached. To be fair it's a complex matter and one that will take more time and more and better research.

Though if that time and research does come up with some sort of "test" for Trans that will be resisted I suspect. The letter itself shows that this would be the likely outcome. "There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex. Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities." While I fully understand their moral position on a few levels, they are stating that even if science did come up with a cast iron test of gender it would still be wrong, because self identification would trump it. Even if it were found their own links disproved their position it would still be wrong, because self identification would trump it. That's not science as they claim that's a philosophical position, based on what they believe to be true.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender

This word refers to gender identity not sex


, or even sex.

If scientists are seriously stating there are no tests to determine sex then they are in the wrong job. There are. Unambiguously. Chromosones and DNA. Blood. Skeletons. People can tell what sex thousands of years old bodies were.

Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

This is Gender Theory 101. It is not science. It is post structuralist pseudo (social) science.

Poor you and your conspiracy theories, you and your followers here disagreeing with thousands of scientists on the transgender issue, is that really you Gemma?

suicide_circus

Intersex people have ambiguous genitalia. Trans people have ambiguous thoughts about their genitalia. There is an enormous gulf between those two situations.

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

Poor you and your conspiracy theories, you and your followers here disagreeing with thousands of scientists on the transgender issue, is that really you Gemma?

Well that's a fantastically nuanced rebuttal. Or not. The "thousands of scientists" attached as signatories to the above letter link to references that are vague, incomplete or contradictory and yet kick off with the idea they're against pseudoscience?

Then again let's agree with the above letter(and in many regards I would) you apparently believe the HSE position that claims one can physically change one's gender, which is a scientific and medical bloody nonsense.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

Poor you and your conspiracy theories, you and your followers here disagreeing with thousands of scientists on the transgender issue, is that really you Gemma?

In another thread a while ago you tried that tactic, calling me Gemma. (Hang on, isn't there something in the rules about not speculating about peoples' identities?) But anyways you'll be particularly delighted to know I am far far better looking and much much more groovy than poor oul Gemma.

ILoveYourVibes

Zorya wrote: »

Maya Forstater is a internationally renowned researcher on Tax Avoidance, who worked until recently at the London office of the Centre for Global Development (CGD) think tank.

In March she wrote an article calling for open debate about the consequences of Gender Self ID, particularly with respect to the implications for women. She says womanhood is defined by biological fact not by feeling.

This is the article.
https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787

She has been fired from her position on the grounds that she used ''offensive and exclusionary language'' and that she is ''fear-mongering''.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-expert-fired-for-saying-trans-women-aren-t-women-tpqgnm9vj





She is taking her employer to court to argue that ...



https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/fired-maya/

When people are so gleeful about certain opinions being censored on internet platfroms, remember that censorship can extend exponentially. Their opinions censored today, yours tomorrow. Their job today, yours tomorrow.

Biological facts are now a reason for censorship and job loss.

that is why she says she was fired i doubt that is what her employers barrister will argue why she was fired.

Who ya gonna believe?

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

Well that's a fantastically nuanced rebuttal. Or not. The "thousands of scientists" attached as signatories to the above letter link to references that are vague, incomplete or contradictory and yet kick off with the idea they're against pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience is exactly what the conspiracy theorists and science deniers believe in hence they were rebutted by thousands of scientists in that letter.

Wibbs wrote:

Then again let's agree with the above letter(and in many regards I would) you apparently believe the HSE position that claims one can physically change one's gender, which is a scientific and medical bloody nonsense.

The HSE like many national health services on transgender treatment take their guidance from Wpath who believe a person can change their primary sex as well their secondary sex characteristics, that's a change of sex.

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

Intersex people have ambiguous genitalia. Trans people have ambiguous thoughts about their genitalia. There is an enormous gulf between those two situations.

Actually SC I wouldn't be so sure. Take a thought experiment and imagine that we had the medical science available to do brain transplants. Now let's say we take your brain, I'm assuming you're a man, and transplant it into a woman's body and hers into yours. You wake up and you would still feel you were a man, even though you're in a woman's body, because you have a male brain. Your brain got that way because of genetics and hormone exposure at different times in your life and of course culture and life experiences*. I can certainly imagine that the above "brain transplant" experience could come out naturally, because of a fault in genetics or development which would give an individual more of a male brain in a female body kinda thing.

For me intersex is another category, though those folks seem to back up the innate male/female brain thing. Many of those born in times past were assigned whichever gender was seemed easier for the to live as in life, yet a large proportion of them chose the other gender as they grew up. This has been shown in other cases of medical screwups like penis amputation because of botched circumcsions in the US, where the boy was reassigned and told he was a she and that in every case backfired as they aged and grew up and knew they were boys.



*Though contrary to most progressive blank statists I don't buy into the degree they consider the effect that has. Think on it this way; we live in a strongly heterosexual and "gender normative" culture, yet we still have Gay people. If the culture and environment was a strong as some seem to think we'd have far fewer because the culture would select against it.

WinnyThePoo

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Zorya wrote: »

Maya Forstater is a internationally renowned researcher on Tax Avoidance, who worked until recently at the London office of the Centre for Global Development (CGD) think tank.

In March she wrote an article calling for open debate about the consequences of Gender Self ID, particularly with respect to the implications for women. She says womanhood is defined by biological fact not by feeling.

This is the article.
https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787

She has been fired from her position on the grounds that she used ''offensive and exclusionary language'' and that she is ''fear-mongering''.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-expert-fired-for-saying-trans-women-aren-t-women-tpqgnm9vj





She is taking her employer to court to argue that ...



https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/fired-maya/

When people are so gleeful about certain opinions being censored on internet platfroms, remember that censorship can extend exponentially. Their opinions censored today, yours tomorrow. Their job today, yours tomorrow.

Biological facts are now a reason for censorship and job loss.

that is why she says she was fired i doubt that is what her employers barrister will argue why she was fired.

Who ya gonna believe?

She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed.

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

Pseudoscience is exactly what the conspiracy theorists and science deniers believe in hence they were rebutted by thousands of scientists in that letter.

The HSE like many national health services on transgender treatment take their guidance from Wpath who believe a person can change their primary sex as well their secondary sex characteristics, that's a change of sex.

That you can with a straight face type that someone can change their primary sex and secondary sex characteristics and at the same time cry afoul at pseudoscience takes some doing indeed. They and you can believe all you like but it is a belief it is neither medically or scientifically true.

From the Wiki on the matter; "Biological treatments physically alter primary and secondary sex characteristics to reduce the discrepancy between an individual's physical body and gender identity." reduce the discrepancy, not change gender. There is still a discrepancy.

ILoveYourVibes

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed.

Ah.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

Pseudoscience is exactly what the conspiracy theorists and science deniers believe in hence they were rebutted by thousands of scientists in that letter.

Ya see Klaaaz, that’s not what the letter says, as I explained in this post.

Candamir wrote: »

“There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex.”

This statement is true in some intersex conditions. Nobody disputes that.

This statement is not true for non intersex XX and XY genotypes.

Therefore the statement does not refer to both.

Show me a citation from any one of those scientists that sex (in non intersex people) cannot be determined by a test, and I might believe you.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

Ya see Klaaaz, that’s not what the letter says, as I explained in this post.

Show me a citation from any one of those scientists that sex (in non intersex people) cannot be determined by a test, and I might believe you.

You've been told umpteen times to read the letter. Even Zorya can read it properly in their condemnation of the scientists facts. The paragraph from the letter is there right in front of you, I understand that English may not be your native language.

2,617 scientists wrote:

The proposal is in no way “grounded in science” as the administration claims. The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

You've been told umpteen times to read the letter. Even Zorya can read it properly in their condemnation of the scientists facts. The paragraph from the letter is there right in front of you, I understand that English may not be your native language.

So no citation then?

I’ve read the letter

I’ve explained what it means, an more importantly what it doesn’t.

You are clearly (as demonstrated throughout your posting history) scientifically illiterate.
And not worth bothering with further. Unless of course you can come up with that citation.

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

That you can with a straight face type that someone can change their primary sex and secondary sex characteristics and at the same time cry afoul at pseudoscience takes some doing indeed. They and you can believe all you like but it is a belief it is neither medically or scientifically true.

From the Wiki on the matter; "Biological treatments physically alter primary and secondary sex characteristics to reduce the discrepancy between an individual's physical body and gender identity." reduce the discrepancy, not change gender. There is still a discrepancy.

I can understand that scientific facts amuse you as you believe pseudo science trumps science itself. I never quoted a Wiki, I referenced the Wpath guidance on transgender healthcare, another body full of scientists that you don't believe in!

KikiLaRue

Wibbs wrote: »

That you can with a straight face type that someone can change their primary sex and secondary sex characteristics and at the same time cry afoul at pseudoscience takes some doing indeed. They and you can believe all you like but it is a belief it is neither medically or scientifically true.

From the Wiki on the matter; "Biological treatments physically alter primary and secondary sex characteristics to reduce the discrepancy between an individual's physical body and gender identity." reduce the discrepancy, not change gender. There is still a discrepancy.

I think for all but those with the most extreme viewpoints, it's clear that a trans woman is not a biological woman. I see it is a rhetorical statement rather than a literal one. If that lands me in TERF territory, so be it.

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I think for all but those with the most extreme viewpoints, it's clear that a trans woman is not a biological woman. I see it is a rhetorical statement rather than a literal one. If that lands me in TERF territory, so be it.

If you were an internationally renowned researcher on tax avoidance, that opinion would get you fired. Or contract not renewed. Whichever.

KikiLaRue

BattleCorp wrote: »

If you were an internationally renowned researcher on tax avoidance, that opinion would get you fired. Or contract not renewed. Whichever.

It probably wouldn't actually, because I haven't put my company's reputation on the line.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

So no citation then?

I’ve read the letter

I’ve explained what it means, an more importantly what it doesn’t.

You are clearly (as demonstrated throughout your posting history) scientifically illiterate.
And not worth bothering with further. Unless of course you can come up with that citation.

Personal attacks now? Are 2,617 scientists not good enough for you, how many scientists does it take for you to understand that you're factually wrong?