Transgender rights discussion

fergieisold

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
7,122
Location
Saddleworth (home) Manchester (work)
NotThatSoph said:
This actually made me curious.

The discussion prompt is that some people/scientists want to "degender or neutralize language". Morgan says that they're doing this by pretending that bioligy doesn't exist, and while agreeing Dawkins says that there are two sexes. Who are they talking about? Who says that?

Dawkins then says that it is bullying, and that we've seen Kathleen Stock and J.K. Rowling get bullied. What does that have to do with chromosomes or gametes? Take Kathleen Stock: she is, or at least was, a trustee of the LGB Alliance and she opposes banning of conversion therapy because she wants it used on trans people. What does that have to do with sex?

He then says that sex is biological, and that he doesn't want to talk about gender. However, they go straight to his old tweet about Rachel Dolezal, and where he says that some men identify as women, some women identify as men, and compares that with Dolezal. Do these trans people identify as having different chromosomes than they have in reality? If not, what on earth is he talking about?

None of these are rhetorical questions, I'm hoping for an answer because you found what he said obvious while I didn't see the relevance at all.
Click to expand...
It's a shame Dawkins is on with Piers Morgan tbh. I tend to completely ignore anything he says! The prompt I haven't seen the context, presumably there are some that have made some sort of statements in support of degendering language in some way. However small a minority, these groups do exist, and I really don't agree with their outlook on things.

The stuff Dawkins said that pointed out the obvious for me is the existence of two sexes - male and female. He then fairly points out you can talk about gender which is subjective. I thought that was pretty fair.

I think a lot of the hate Rowling has had is for tweets based around the idea that sex is binary - but whatever she's said in the past she really has been the victim of bullying, it's forever printed on twitter for all to see. I don't know anything about Kathleen Stock so can't comment on her.

With the tweet he's referring to gender presumably, which is stated was subjective.
 

dumbo

Don't Just Fly…Soar!
Scout
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
9,362
Location
Thucydides nuts
It's fitting, given that Dawkins was probably the first case of privileged boomer brain meltdown, under the weight of social media. Glinner, Peterson, JayKay Rowling all lemminged themselves in his wake. If it can happen to someone as accomplished in his field as Dick, then no surprise the intellectual minnows were susceptible.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,769
fergieisold said:
It's a shame Dawkins is on with Piers Morgan tbh. I tend to completely ignore anything he says! The prompt I haven't seen the context, presumably there are some that have made some sort of statements in support of degendering language in some way. However small a minority, these groups do exist, and I really don't agree with their outlook on things.

The stuff Dawkins said that pointed out the obvious for me is the existence of two sexes - male and female. He then fairly points out you can talk about gender which is subjective. I thought that was pretty fair.

I think a lot of the hate Rowling has had is for tweets based around the idea that sex is binary - but whatever she's said in the past she really has been the victim of bullying, it's forever printed on twitter for all to see. I don't know anything about Kathleen Stock so can't comment on her.

With the tweet he's referring to gender presumably, which is stated was subjective.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Is the obvious thing that you thought was nice of Dawkins to point out just that sex is a binary? Because degendering language has absolutely nothing to do with that, so why would it be nice to see? He could just as well have said that as a response to "how old are you?".
 

fergieisold

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
7,122
Location
Saddleworth (home) Manchester (work)
NotThatSoph said:
I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Is the obvious thing that you thought was nice of Dawkins to point out just that sex is a binary? Because degendering language has absolutely nothing to do with that, so why would it be nice to see? He could just as well have said that as a response to "how old are you?".
Click to expand...
In my opinion de-gendering language does have a lot to do with it. The overwhelming majority of people see their gender as aligned with their biological sex. I don't agree with neutralising language surrounding the existence of man and women.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,769
fergieisold said:
In my opinion de-gendering language does have a lot to do with it. The overwhelming majority of people see their gender as aligned with their biological sex. I don't agree with neutralising language surrounding the existence of man and women.
Click to expand...
If I say 'parents' instead of 'mom and dad', you think that's because I think sex isn't real?
 

fergieisold

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
7,122
Location
Saddleworth (home) Manchester (work)
NotThatSoph said:
Ok, which forms of degendering langauge does have to do with the denial of biological sex, then?
Click to expand...
Denial is a strong way to put it - and Dawkins certainly didn't say that in the interview, although Piers probably alluded to it.

I feel degendered language devalues a persons identity in some situations. The 'birthing person' terminology for example would be one instance that has clearly upset many women. I don't think it's about the language being used to deny biological sex, rather it's being used in a misplaced attempt to appease a minority of people who are seeking to make neutralised language standard.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,769
fergieisold said:
Denial is a strong way to put it - and Dawkins certainly didn't say that in the interview, although Piers probably alluded to it.

I feel degendered language devalues a persons identity in some situations. The 'birthing person' terminology for example would be one instance that has clearly upset many women. I don't think it's about the language being used to deny biological sex, rather it's being used in a misplaced attempt to appease a minority of people who are seeking to make neutralised language standard.
Click to expand...
In this instance it's a very small group of scientists who has started an initiative about scientific language. They have 200 followers on Twitter, and on their website anyone can send in suggestions. They have a repository, and their goal is to start a conversation about if they can improve scientific writing in their own fields.

This is what has set Dawkins off for over a month, to the applause of you, Piers Morgan, the Daily Mail and and Telegraph. Just typing it out... I'm sorry, it's some through the looking glass shit.
 

maniak

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
9,938
Location
Lisboa
Supports
Arsenal
fergieisold said:
Denial is a strong way to put it - and Dawkins certainly didn't say that in the interview, although Piers probably alluded to it.

I feel degendered language devalues a persons identity in some situations. The 'birthing person' terminology for example would be one instance that has clearly upset many women. I don't think it's about the language being used to deny biological sex, rather it's being used in a misplaced attempt to appease a minority of people who are seeking to make neutralised language standard.
Click to expand...
Is it appeasement or just adapting to necessary changes? Imagine a law saying a woman has the right to x days of when they have a child. Does this mean a transgender men doesn't have that same right? How do you put this into rules or laws without a more encompassing expression?
 

fergieisold

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
7,122
Location
Saddleworth (home) Manchester (work)
maniak said:
Is it appeasement or just adapting to necessary changes? Imagine a law saying a woman has the right to x days of when they have a child. Does this mean a transgender men doesn't have that same right? How do you put this into rules or laws without a more encompassing expression?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessary in all walks of life no. The maternity leave is based on pregnancy - so yes, a transgender man would potentially have the same right as he would be a biological women able to carry children. God that's a sentence I never thought I'd write :lol:.

Also rules and laws are a bit different, not involved in the law but gender neutral language is pretty standard I think.
 

Boycott

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,306
At what point and for what reason did transgender discrimination and the subsequent debate over policy explode like this? For example this thread was created in 2020 and has 55 pages of discussion. However we all know transgender individuals existed long before.
 

Scandi Red

Hates Music.
Joined
Sep 25, 2022
Messages
4,686
Boycott said:
At what point and for what reason did transgender discrimination and the subsequent debate over policy explode like this? For example this thread was created in 2020 and has 55 pages of discussion. However we all know transgender individuals existed long before.
Click to expand...
Because it was next on the docket.

Of course we are not done with sexism, racism or homophobia but it makes sense to tackle trans issues next. These things should have been tackled long ago but you know... Humans and religion etc.
 

HTG

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
5,952
Supports
Bayern
Boycott said:
At what point and for what reason did transgender discrimination and the subsequent debate over policy explode like this? For example this thread was created in 2020 and has 55 pages of discussion. However we all know transgender individuals existed long before.
Click to expand...
I think after more and more countries created legislation to protect the rights of lgb people in ways that are not easy to roll back, the international right needed another target. Trans people were the one target that worked. Which makes kind of sense, given that you can easily play the they-are-trying-to-mess-with-your-kids-game. It’s a very simple and sadly effective way to emotionalise people and create hysteria over nothing. It also helps that trans folk aren’t as big a group as lgb people. Makes it harder for them to defend themselves. Another factor might be that hormone therapy provides an easy way to play into peoples mistrust of the pharma industry and modern medicine in general.
 

BEST No7

New Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
1,344
In 1000 years when you die they will find two skeletons. Either male or female.
 

Ekkie Thump

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
3,884
Supports
Leeds United
I have long thought that it was my skeleton alone which defined me and that everything else was mere window dressing and vanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.