- This topic has 33 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Babbit offers us the old tired worn-out “gender wars” ‘straw man’ stereotype, suggesting Craig Murray supports the idea: “of (a) men entering female safe spaces as hiis human right and (b) it being a woman’s enlightened duty to surrender to men private & safe spaces”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/i-am-puzzled/comment-page-2/#comment-1025859With andyoldlabour suggesting that “No matter how people try to identify, they can never change sex and no man knows what it is like to “live as a woman”.”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/i-am-puzzled/comment-page-2/#comment-1025868As such, this is an entirely trumped-up fictional non-reason to suppose some people may have appeared to cancel subscriptions to Mr. Murray’s blog. If they did cancel on these spurious grounds, here’s some science and some cultural observations to help disabuse readers if they persist in holding such unhelpful sarcastic misdirected constructions of the reality of sex and gender in human beings.
a) The six most common karyotypes of biological sex in human beings that do not result in death to the fetus:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 birthsb) As the above genetic range suggests, the molecular biology that underlies gender identity, the development of gonadal and genital anatomy, and the factors that define sexual behaviour is proving unexpectedly complex and is still incompletely understood. It is now evident that humans cannot be characterized as member of 1 of 2 clearly defined units: male or female. In fact, individuals exist on a continuum: those who do not conform unequivocally to the dyadic view of human sex in terms of anatomy, gender identity, and/or sexual behaviour should be characterized as having variations in rather than disorders of sexual development. Such individuals can no longer be regarded as anomalies to be rejected, condemned, and, if possible, “corrected” either psychologically or anatomically. As such concern over the impacts of ‘trans’ people – who are significantly disadvantaged compared to ‘non trans’ people – far outweighs the tiny fraction of the global population they are.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2470289718803639
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=variations+in+biologcal+sex+humans&t=ffsb&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=how+many+trans+people+are+there%3F&ia=webc) Other cultures have acknowledged the scientific reality that sex in humans is not binary without imploding. India has a long history of recognising a third gender – Hijras were well-respected and revered in ancient India, and since 2014 legally recognised in India.
https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2018/10/29/indias-relationship-with-the-third-gender/
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/busting-myths-about-sex-and-gender/d) Native American cultures for thousands of years before Europeans murdered most of them encouraged their children to chose their own gender roles.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Native+American+has+a+third+gender&t=ffab&ia=webe) However, the biological reality of a non-binary genetic / cultural spectrum of sex and / or gender in human beings does not support nor imply a proposal that genetic tests should be required for registering one’s sex and / or gender in formal or legal binary (male or female only) processes.
Biological men are born that way. They will also die as biological men.
They are legal men from birth to death unless they take advantage of The Gender Recognition Act 2004 which allows them to become LEGAL women.Biological women are born that way. They will also die as biological women.
They are legal women from birth to death unless they take advantage of The Gender Recognition Act 2004 which allows them to become LEGAL men.Biological sex cannot be changed, only your legal status. Somebody tell Comrade Starmer please…_
DiggerUK, what’s it to you?
So far as I’m concerned, another person’s bodily features, karyotype, gender identity and sexual orientation are none of my business, unless or until we found ourselves physically attracted to each other, and even then they’d only be a few matters among many.
Sexual molestation is molestation, no matter who does it to whom. There are laws against it and it’s important that they are properly enforced.
So why is rigidly classifying other people so important to you?
Clark,
“Bodily features” can be changed, “gender identity” can be changed, “sexual orientation” can be changed, but my research and experience tells me that biological sex and “karyotypes” cannot be changed.Chromosomes, it seems, are as chromosomes are, it’s what makes male and female binary. To date, foetuses have only ever been known to gestate in a biological female, not a biological male.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I do respect the right of both biological males and biological females to give birth, irrespective of whether they are legally male or female.
However, my experience till now has shown that the only birthing parents’ I know of, have all been biological females…_Natasha, thanks for your post, which I find interesting. There seems to have been considerable advances since I looked into this over a decade ago.
In November 2021 my friend Steph and I went to protest at COP26. After the march on Saturday the 4th she found us a place to stay at Baile Hoose, a squat secured by an anarchist collective (link), most of them trans or queer(link). We ended up staying about nine days, I think. Covid prevalence was rising so I wasn’t keen on spending much time indoors, so I ended up mostly tending the gate. Apart from an attempted raid by Thames Valley police (which was stopped by Police Scotland!) it was one of the best times I’ve ever had, with workshops, art, open days and gigs. I’d not knowingly met many non-binary people before, but I think it took a couple of days and a pronoun correction before I really noticed.
DiggerUK, according to my experience, and the research Natasha cited, biological sex cannot be so simply classified.
I’ve never had my karyotype determined, and I expect the same goes for the vast majority. But indeed, I expect that a person’s karyotype cannot change or be changed – as yet. But if you read Natasha’s first link you’ll see that some people are chimeric, that is, they have more than one set of DNA, so there are people who are genetically both male and female simultaneously. It is also possible to have both sets of reproductive systems.
I don’t know what Starmer may have said, but then I don’t really want to; it’s unlikely to be honest let alone useful.
As I understand it from years ago, the basic animal form is what we call female, and maleness is a modification of it (so the Genesis story got it completely back to front). So I suppose it could be argued that our language has it wrong in that there is only one ‘sex’ and it is maleness, whereas a lack of such deviation from the standard is what we have labelled female. This makes further sense as we can imagine a population of reproductive females involving no sexual activity, but not such a population of males.
Biological sex is real, not imagined, the resultant males and females ARE binary. Biological sex doesn’t predetermine sexuality or gender balance, that is the role of social conditioning or self choice. In my lifetime self choice has become preeminent.
A cadaver recovered from a fire can be sent for an autopsy, the pathologist will determine what biological sex they were before ending up as an unrecognisable lump of charcoal.
No such examination can reveal what the person’s sexuality, gender balance or pronoun choice was.Biological sex cannot simply be cancelled…_
Yes, “biological sex is real”, but the foregoing is only a construction of language, a description or a representation, and ultimately a simplification. A map is not a territory, it’s a representation of a territory. Science gives us more detailed and accurate descriptions than common language, but they are still descriptions.
“Biological sex cannot simply be cancelled”, but it can be private. It can be, and generally is, less than fully known by its bearer; I have never been tested for karyotype or chimerism, and I’m quite unsure how “male” or “female” my personality and brain structure are.
And I’m not sure anyone’s trying to “cancel” biological sex anyway; I think that’s just a fear felt by people who’ve forgotten that language is only a description.
What would happen if a retrovirus was developed that could, through infection, change the sex chromosomes in every cell in a body?
Me, Sept 29, 03:10, comment #88978:
– “So I suppose it could be argued that our language has it wrong in that there is only one ‘sex’ and it is maleness, whereas a lack of such deviation from the standard is what we have labelled female.”
Another little thing that might support this interpretation is that testosterone is the sex-drive hormone in both males and females.
Clark, thanks for sharing your experiences.
DiggerUK appears to have failed to read the opening post in this thread, thereby offering us an anti-scientific ‘straw man’ suggesting:
- “Biological sex is real, not imagined, the resultant males and females ARE binary.”
- “A cadaver recovered from a fire can be sent for an autopsy, the pathologist will determine what biological sex they were before ending up as an unrecognisable lump of charcoal.”
- “Biological sex cannot simply be cancelled”.
First, nobody is trying to “cancel biological sex” and yes, of course, to make a child those involved have to have functioning genes, gonads and reproductive organs, (or be conceived via in vitro fertilization as Louise Brown was in 1978).
But as the opening post reports: it is a biological genetic FACT that a tiny fraction of 1% of the global population do not fit into the genetic and/or morphological binary assumption. In some cases a genetic test on the “cadaver recovered from a fire” would return one of the non-binary results.
Thus not every human is so equipped or wants to reproduce. Some are born infertile, or have indeterminate genitalia or possess an entirely unrecognisable mixture of reproductive organs typical of the two needed to successfully fertilise and give birth. And some may also have divergent gender identity that does not accord with their gonad endowments.
In other words, “biological sex” in humans is NOT binary for every single one of the 8 billion of us alive today, according to those who’s professional job as scientists studying and publishing on the subject of genetic sex karyotypes in humans have discovered.
So why so eager to simply ram the tiny fraction of 1% into whatever binary legal container suits whoever makes such decisions at birth for the rest of their lives?
Is it to avoid stoking cognitive dissonance in those people who don’t believe, or are blind, for whatever reasons, to what biological science, self reporting, and multiple historical and contemporary cultural manifestations has determined, so far, about the non-binary spectrum of sex and gender in humans?
Are the tiny fraction of 1% of non-binary people simply deemed to not exist and be blown away in a puff of arrogance?
Or should we instead simply consult the tiny fraction of 1% themselves? And ask them: into which binary legal container do they think they fit – since they were born, just like all the rest of us – with whatever biological and mental equipment they do or do not have?
Second, the tiny fraction of 1% or indeed anyone else lobbying for changes to binary legal categories, are NOT asking for, or aiming for the childish, ignorant, and utterly ridiculous twisting of the biological fact that “sex and gender in humans is non-binary”, into: those who dispute or act upon this fact are somehow fraudulent on grounds it equates to a call for “biological sex” to be “cancelled”.
Third, why all the panic and fear over the imagined power of this tiny fraction of 1% of humans? Do they really have the power by simply speaking out to thereby be accused of mounting a crusade to somehow destroy the other 99.9 percent’s sense of identity, safety and cultural normality? Is it not already illegal for rapists and sexual predators to sneak into women’s safe places disguised as women to commit their crimes?
Why do some people urge us to edge further down such a dangerous path towards a world where these people could indeed trumpet that they have somehow “cancelled” all the non-binary people as irredeemable perverts and thereby fully impose their mantra: “Biological sex cannot simply be cancelled” ?
Getting so hot and bothered with such studied blindness to the scientific facts of non-binary sex genetics and self identified gender variations in humans, stinks of the path towards eugenics.
Seems the right wing (ie fascists) have done a good job of stirring up culture war issues, so now the feeble minded think Trannies are some huge, growing threat to society, in the exact same way that The Gays were a couple of decades back.
No, the Trannies aren’t “coming to get us” or “after the children”, any more than The Gays were out to ‘recruit’ kids to replete their supposedly dwindling numbers back in the day.
But the far right (notably on the rabid-right Fox news TV sewer) have it that teachers – a big target in culture wars these days! – are suggesting that a kid under their care should consider their gender, and maybe try out a new identity …hmmm? Wouldn’t ‘Sharon’ be nicer than ‘Shawn’ for a bit?
Except, of course, that none of this ever actually happens.
Going into DiggerUK mode for a moment…
Some people might not be entirely happy with the gender they were born with…
Just like gays and lesbians don’t automatically get attracted to the opposite sex…………
Maybe stereotypes of gender and attraction aren’t quite as simple as Bible-thumping bigots want one to believe ………………..
And maybe people should just STFU and leave others alone when it’s nothing to do with them whatsoever, so stop trying to cancel other people altogether, just because you’re bigoted against their sexual orientation………………………………………………………….
I think it has a lot to do with language. We have words for ‘him’ and ‘her’, ‘his’ and ‘hers’, but no way to refer to one person, or even their relatives or possessions, without taking some guess at their gender identity. I think that a generally accepted and widely used gender-neutral pronoun would go a long way to soothing the cognitive dissonance 🙂
As the above genetic range suggests, the molecular biology that underlies gender identity, the development of gonadal and genital anatomy, and the factors that define sexual behaviour is proving unexpectedly complex and is still incompletely understood. It is now evident that humans cannot be characterized as member of 1 of 2 clearly defined units: male or female.
This may be true but to the largest extent it is generally only females (defined as XX) and males (XY) that are able to reproduce by fusion of an ovum with a sperm; the other variants are not generally fertile and therefore do not contribute to the evolutionary process.
Gender and gender recognition is a social construct and is therefore changeable with changing times and in different societies, and of course anyone is free to belong to whatever gender they choose; but that does not alter the biological facts of reproduction. I therefore do not see any arguments about letting anyone express whatever gender they wish to express, but what is causing the problem is that many people feel coerced to redefine the way they speak but also the often-confused arguments between biology and sociology.
SA:
– “many people feel coerced to redefine the way they speak…”
I feel that the English language already coerces the way I speak. Why should I have to attempt to identify a person’s gender when I enquire whether this is their raincoat or not?
One Lady Haldane passed judgement. This is one extract.
The Gender Recognition Acts are becoming more of a Dangerous Dogs Act as time passes.
We now have a legal situation in Scotland that clearly states that sex and gender are the same, except when they aren’t.https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/haldane2.jpg
Who gets to wear the kilt now…_
Try “extract” 53 in the judgement…_
The BBC reporting of the Scottish government passing the reforms to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) contains this gem…. “People in Scotland have been able to change their legal gender from male to female or female to male since 2005”
As far as I am aware no citizen of the UK has ever possessed a “legal gender”… a legal sex, yes… but a “legal gender”, no.All the GRA did was allow you to have your legal sex changed to the opposite sex, or a sex of your choosing. Quite why sex needed to be changed to gender can be discussed at some other time.
Now, thankfully, the government in Westminster is considering if Holyrood has the right to pass such legislation in to law.
Merry xmas, praise the Lord and pass the popcorn…_
Male Reindeers drop their antlers in winter. So all the reindeers pulling that heavy laden sleigh are female.
And they are mightily pissed off with Transitional Rudolf up front as he is pretending to be male and keeps farting in their face.
Is Nicola trying to be Rudolf? farting in the face of Westminster with her badly worked out self ID policy, unworkable UK wide.
Is the rest of the UK being asked to follow this folly which seems to ignore the majority view of women? or is it just another indication of more unmandated forcefeeding of rubbish to the public?Sex and gender is not binary, however, for most people, the physical distinction matters. This is a matter for sociological debate. As people, however, cultural distinctions are marked by status differentials, while biology presents different priorities. For biological females to have access to all areas, toilets and feminine hygiene products are a necessity. Without these practical items biology places social and workplace restrictions on equal access and opportunity. These issues are however fundamentally private and need not be public concerns beyond access and respect for privacy. So my 2 penn’orth says choice and equality of access to all public areas should not be gender defined. On your passport you should be allowed to put male, female or “prefer not to say” and no one should need to imagine what you have in your underwear in order to determine access. Private spaces for females are still necessary because they menstruate, because they may be vulnerable to status disadvantage, because males wish to imagine what is in their underwear. Prefer not to say should have gender neutral toilets which can be accessed by everyone and no questions asked. Three kinds of toilets are therefore necessary and biological males should not have access to biological females safe spaces
Wings Over Scotland continues its excellent coverage of transgender appreciation.
In their investigative article of January 4th, the accomplishments of transgender activism has a light shone on it. Not an altogether favourable light either.
It’s a meaty piece, please read the links.It’s easy to heap ridicule on some of the insights W.O.S. covers, until you realise that this could allow proposals to criminalise actions which neither intend to cause, nor actually cause, any harm to anyone……”it’s a crime Jim…..”
I’m beginning to wonder if everyone in The Flat Earth Society has transgendered.The upside to all this is how multimedia this is all going, a robust debate is what is needed. Thankfully it will end in tears for some…_
I have only seen a few summaries of journalist, Helen Joyce’s output in her book “Trans” :-
“Gender identity ideology is about more than twitter storms and using the right pronouns. In just ten years, laws, company policies, school and university curricula, sport, medical protocols, and the media have been reshaped to privilege self-declared gender identity over biological sex. People are being shamed and silenced for attempting to understand the consequences of redefining ‘man’ and ‘woman’.”
“Joyce thinks all children are being poorly educated about gender identity […] For Joyce, schools are at risk of eliminating the one distinction that can matter – sex – while reintroducing archaic social differences that do not. We are “dissolving ‘male’ and ‘female’ and replacing them with ‘manly essence’ and ‘womanly essence’ for everybody […]”
Here is my response to Joyce’s (above) output:
1. Since Joyce is arguing against it, the concept “Gender identity ideology” exists, which means that by definition she must also accept there is an existing “ideology” that is being challenged, let us call it “binary ideology”. Thus language choices are fundamental to constructing and framing propaganda messages. For example, the subject of this email from Richard is “Trans woman guilty ….” rather than for example “Binary ideology guilty …” or something similar. Let me explain its guilt here below.
2. Laws and certificates can not stop rapists from entering women only spaces!
3. “In just ten years …” but anthropology has many accounts of non-binary cultures going back thousands of years, and lots of modern cultures don’t have a “Binary ideology”.
4. Those who study the topic say that “biological sex” is not binary:-
The six most common karyotypes of biological sex in human beings that do not result in death to the fetus:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 birthsSome Basic Propositions about Sex, Gender, Patriarchy, and Ecology – Robert Jensen
Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity – Agustín Fuentes
Busting Myths About Sex and Gender Is Crucial for Human Development – Agustín Fuentes
Transgender People and “Biological Sex” Myths – Julia Serano
In fact, of the 140 million babies born last year, at least 280,000 did not fit into a clear penis versus labia model of sex determination.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/002244902095521395. “People are being shamed and silenced for attempting to understand the consequences of redefining ‘man’ and ‘woman’[…]”.
But given the “Binary ideology” is only one amongst a wide spectrum of human sex and gender “ideologies” then any shame felt by those wedded to the “Binary ideology” is self inflicted cognitive dissonance in face of social and biological scientific data that does not support their internal belief systems that the “Binary ideology” is superior to all other sex and gender “ideologies”.
6. “[…] all children are being poorly educated about gender identity […] schools are at risk of eliminating the one distinction that can matter – sex – while reintroducing archaic social differences that do not.”
Given the multipolarity of human cultural, anthropological and biological reality, that sex and gender are NOT binary, those such as Joyce who’s thesis is wedded to the supremacy of “Binary ideology” must be rejected as proposing an anti-scientific world view that is not special or essential despite their loud protestations to the contrary, because there is no “one distinction that can matter – sex – ” for all people all the time.
Wings Over Scotland continues its sterling reporting of all matters trans.
The phrase ‘lost the plot’ comes to mind…_“Nicola Sturgeon is a Transphobe” (Wings Over Scotland, 2 Feb 2023)
The opening quote is quite a good if simplified summary, but the focus on karyotypes is misleading. Clark correctly identifies chimaeras.Indeed I knew someone who was found to be a Klinefelters chimeric but this was discovered in a rather unusual way. He was pretty much phenotypically indistinguishable from xy. The general rule about heritability in relation to sexual characteristics is that sex related characteristics have low heritability as there is a strong association with reduced fertility or infertility.
There are many other causes of variation from some standard binary developmental ontology. Epigenetic factors are well established as altering the expression of genes. What can be said is that many of these variations are subtle and difficult to define and the process cannot be reverse engineered. Surgical and chemical interventions cannot create an authentic altered sex although it may be that the individual’s phenotype has already been influenced in some unusual way and surgery or chemical treatments bring about some kind of more fitting alignment of characteristics. The current brouhaha over sex and gender is very regrettable as it is generating much heat and not much light. The political decisions taken around the issue have been utterly inept and one has to hold those in power accountable. I do of course refer to Sturgeon and I cannot see how she can persist in her current key position.The notion that sex is not strictly binary is not even scientifically controversial. Among experts it is a given, an unavoidable conclusion derived from actually understanding the biology of sex. It is more accurate to describe biological sex in humans as bimodal, but not strictly binary. Bimodal means that there are essentially two dimensions to the continuum of biological sex. In order for sex to be binary there would need to be two non-overlapping and unambiguous ends to that continuum, but there clearly isn’t. There is every conceivable type of overlap in the middle – hence bimodal, but not binary.
“Bimodal”, this doesn’t rise to the level of splitting pubic hairs, it’s gobbledygook in the context of this debate.
Statistics is a specialist study within the sciences, almost totally reliant on mathematics. Just because bimodal rhymes with biological gives it no credence in the understanding of male and female…_
I totally agree with everything you have said in this post.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party.
That being said I can only congratulate the Communist Party of Britain for a supportable position on issues transgender.
Please don’t get them confused with the Communist Party of Great Britain, you’ll cause a faction fight and we’ll probably have four more parties to contend with.I don’t see the SNP being infiltrated by an entryist CP; but it would bring a challenge to the loss of reason that male and female aren’t binary…_
https://www.communistparty.org.uk/the-gender-recognition-bill-and-equality-law/
Whereas the Communist Party of Britain seems to have their heads on the right way round, Keir Starmer seems reluctant to sort his head out, or at least get his maths correct. …”He has sought to clarify his stance on transgender issues by stating that 99.9 per cent of women “of course haven’t got a penis” … well, that’s a relief to know.
He then correctly states “For 99.9 per cent of women, it is completely biological… and of course they haven’t got a penis”. Which still leaves 0.1% of ‘women’ wondering what the dangly bits between their legs are.
OK, that 0.1% aren’t puzzled, because he is referring to men who live as women who know full well they are biological men who claim to be women.He moans that “politicians who have nothing substantive to say on the issue” are “turning everything into a toxic culture” …..got any particular politician in mind comrade?…_
This is what UK replied to me:
(emphasis mine)
I should point out that the UK system is a binary one, and currently only allows for the legal status of ‘male’ or ‘female’. With this in mind, if you would like to change your legal gender, you will need to submit an application for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
All applications for a GRC are considered by the Panel, based on the documentary and medical evidence provided. The Panel consider applications in line with the terms set out by the Gender Recognition Act 2004, details of which can be found here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents
Full information on how to apply for a GRC can be found on our website: https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate. If you have any further queries regarding the application process, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The proponents of binary biological sex will hopefully be surprised by the biological information in the following article. However, it is a scientific perspective, ie. based on actual evidence from reality, so fans of the tabloid newspapers will likely dismiss it with sneering contempt, as they consistently have above.
The Misuses of “Biological Sex”
by Katrina Karkazis of Amherst College;
originally published November 2019 in The Lancet,
this copy at Researchgate– …For a century, scientists studied an array of human characteristics that inform our ideas of what makes someone a woman or a man, seeking to pin down a single, definitive biological indicator of sex. Bodies troubled these schemes and socially untenable categorisations ensued. If gonads were understood as the essence of sex, women who were phenotypically female but who had testes were men. This seemed illogical, so scientists proposed yet other traits. Even as they debated which biological trait or combination of traits signalled its essence, scientists understood sex as biological and involving multiple, if contested, factors.
The six most common karyotypes of biological sex in human beings that do not result in death to the fetus:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 females (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 males (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 males.
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 male births.Fixed it for you.
Knobby, are you sure you’ve fixed it? Surely, in each point you’ve altered, you’d also have to approximately halve the population size in which one instance is found, to make up for the fact that conventionally, only approximately half of the population is regarded as male, and approximately half as female.
Pardon me for saying, but you seem to have sort of contradicted your own implied point by omitting this, er, small detail, as if you regard everyone as being both male and female.
Or just possibly, by posting under a name like Knobby, you’re trying to appear as a bit of a dickhead 😀
