Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

[myles]

Well, "expert" is a bit strong. I'm not an expert in the biochemistry of sexual development after all. I do have a degree that amply equips me to understand developments, of which there will be a few, it has after all been 35 years since I did my degree. However the fundamentals are unchanged wrt the biological definitions of male and female.

Gender is in my opinion more fluid, but as I said earlier this is an opinion. It has no bearing on the biology and any developments in the biology don't have any bearing on other people's opinions because none of the developments are going to overturn the basic fact that XX is female and XY is male. This basic fact is never going to change, it's proven millions of times (over a billion, in fact, the population of the Earth) over that in the absence of any anomaly XX will always generate a female and XY a male. There has never been an XX human male or an XY human female, and there never will be unless there is some bizarre genetic/hormonal anomaly. Said anomaly would never be fully functional even if they arose. We could at this point discuss chromosome abnormalities such as Xo (Turner's), XXY (intersex), XYY (so-called supermale) etc but the point here is that they are abnormalities.

It's similar to Down's syndrome, in that a chromosome abnormality generates an individual having certain characteristics, but the whole point is that this is an abnormality, and it has no bearing on the scientific reality of the 99.x% of the population that are genetically normal.

And as you say, gender is fluid as we can see in current times but science is science. Sadly, some use the science to discount the gender fluidity, rather than taking a pragmatic view of the whole picture - others will do the opposite, ignoring the science in pursuit of 'winning' the argument.

I wish I'd done my degree in something infinitely more interesting than Engineering Management!

 

[klfrs]

Nope - my 'inference' was that the definitive XX/XY divide is not cut and dried and is in fact an outdated concept.

This inference is correct based on the observations of scientists who actually work in the area - rather than just some grumbly bloke on the internet with an axe to grind.

Your inference is based on one article by one scientist, but it's clear you've not comprehended it.
The article is four years old and the opinion you are echoing is considered outdated and incorrect in mainstream biology today. Your passive aggression is underwhelming.

 

[miktec]

Well, "expert" is a bit strong. I'm not an expert in the biochemistry of sexual development after all. I do have a degree that amply equips me to understand developments, of which there will be a few, it has after all been 35 years since I did my degree. However the fundamentals are unchanged wrt the biological definitions of male and female.

Gender is in my opinion more fluid, but as I said earlier this is an opinion. It has no bearing on the biology and any developments in the biology don't have any bearing on other people's opinions because none of the developments are going to overturn the basic fact that XX is female and XY is male. This basic fact is never going to change, it's proven millions of times (over a billion, in fact, the population of the Earth) over that in the absence of any anomaly XX will always generate a female and XY a male. There has never been an XX human male or an XY human female, and there never will be unless there is some bizarre genetic/hormonal anomaly. Said anomaly would never be fully functional even if they arose. We could at this point discuss chromosome abnormalities such as Xo (Turner's), XXY (intersex), XYY (so-called supermale) etc but the point here is that they are abnormalities.

It's similar to Down's syndrome, in that a chromosome abnormality generates an individual having certain characteristics, but the whole point is that this is an abnormality, and it has no bearing on the scientific reality of the 99.x% of the population that are genetically normal.

99.x% is not 'all' - your own post actually acknowledges that ... as did my post earlier where I included the words 'at least' for a reason.

 

[miktec]

Is she? Who did JKR go "after"?

Note the dates of the tweets - 2020

Rowlings attempt to claw back some of her followers and reputation - probably under pressure from her various publishers (books, TV and film)

 

[klfrs]

Note the dates of the tweets - 2020

Rowlings attempt to claw back some of her followers and reputation - probably under pressure from her various publishers (books, TV and film)

JK posted similar before, and has continued to do so ever since.

 

[Tony L]

We are getting dangerously close to the tired Ben Shapiro “science doesn’t care about your feelings” biology as a weapon trope. Not a good look.

 

[klfrs]

Not familiar with that specific trope, but can imagine. Who is getting dangerously close and where?

 

[stevec67]

99.x% is not 'all' - your own post actually acknowledges that ... as did my post earlier where I included the words 'at least' for a reason.

I never said 99.x5 was "all", hence my use of the word "normal".

 

[stevec67]

And as you say, gender is fluid as we can see in current times but science is science. Sadly, some use the science to discount the gender fluidity, rather than taking a pragmatic view of the whole picture - others will do the opposite, ignoring the science in pursuit of 'winning' the argument.

I wish I'd done my degree in something infinitely more interesting than Engineering Management!

I'm glad I did a science degree. Where I did it, less so, but that's a 30-odd year old regret that I can't change. I did my time, got the badge, never going back. I think the point that you are making is that sex is determined by biology, and it's inescapable. Gender is different from sex, this point is debatable.

 

[myles]

We are getting dangerously close to the tired Ben Shapiro “science doesn’t care about your feelings” biology as a weapon trope. Not a good look.

I think it's more a case that neither science or reality are there to throw all your chips in on. The answer is in the middle somewhere. But science is the tangible bit - not sure about it being weaponized.

 

[myles]

I'm glad I did a science degree. Where I did it, less so, but that's a 30-odd year old regret that I can't change. I did my time, got the badge, never going back. I think the point that you are making is that sex is determined by biology, and it's inescapable. Gender is different from sex, this point is debatable.

I'm trying to, yes.

 

[miktec]

Your inference is based on one article by one scientist, but it's clear you've not comprehended it.

Ah - that explains a lot.
You only read the first paragraph and skipped the rest

Don't blame you, it was a long and very thorough piece and took some time to read properly and understand the ramifications.

Never mind - better luck next time

 

[Tony L]

Not familiar with that specific trope, but can imagine. Who is getting dangerously close and where?

I misremembered the Ben Shapiro phrase, it is “facts don’t care about your feelings”. I don’t want to link content here, but it is well worth googling and watching some videos to get an example of the systemic demonisation the trans community is under at present. Just incomprehensible levels of cruelty and bullying served up as mainstream “news” on Fox etc. It will also help contextualise the fire the likes of Rowling are playing with.

 

[klfrs]

Now I get it. Yes, familiar with the “facts don’t care about your feelings” BS, and what a military grade sh*thead Shapiro is. I'm aware and horrified at what is happening to trans people. But also women and other marginalised groups. I still think you've been mislead about JKR.

I believe harm reduction, and avoiding trampling marginalised groups in a well meaning but ill conceived attempt to lift a marginalised group, should be prioritised. This cuts both ways.

By "this cuts both ways" I mean it makes no difference which marginalised group(s) are being trampled. geddit?
istm "the likes of Rowling" is verging on othering, and as male to female punching down.

 

[miktec]

The article is four years old and the opinion you are echoing is considered outdated and incorrect in mainstream biology today.

If you have actual evidence that refutes the findings cited in the article I linked to please do post it here for all to access.
Alternatively, if you yourself are an active researcher in a relevant area please do spell out what the latest position is in 'mainstream biology today'

Otherwise it just sounds like more empty rhetoric...

 

[DonQuixote99]

I agree that it’s a complex issue. The reason I used public restrooms as an example was because it was one of the more inflammatory things that Rowling tweeted, and you had asked who she was going after.

For me, your last sentence is key. There may be some women who believe that allowing trans women to share their spaces is trampling. There may be some men who agree. I believe they are both a very small minority, and polling could show that. Personally, I have yet to meet a woman who would fall in that minority. If they did, I doubt we’d be close enough friends to discuss something like this.

I am doing an informal poll. So far the results are:
Object to sharing restroom with trans person transitioning to female: 0
Do not object: 1

 

[stevec67]

If you have actual evidence that refutes the findings cited in the article I linked to please do post it here for all to access.
Alternatively, if you yourself are an active researcher in a relevant area please do spell out what the latest position is in 'mainstream biology today'

Otherwise it just sounds like more empty rhetoric...

There's no need to refute the findings. What there is a need for is to interpret them accordingly. They reflect what happens in a vanishingly small number of abnormal, chromosome defect, situations. As such they are abnormal and besides being a matter of scientific curiosity they can give us information, as described in the article, about how sex develops. However they do not overturn the current understanding and facts of how sex is determined in the 99.x% of the population that are normal.

 

[DonQuixote99]

I know the science well enough, my degree is biochemistry. My point is that if you maintain that gender = sex then that's a non disprovable opinion.
Attempting to disprove or alter the basic science with genetic abnormalities is bound to failure. If I were to take the opinion stated then "but XYZ genetic abnormality" is a " so what" issue.

Definitions. By 'gender' you mean culturally-defined reproductive-type category, and by 'sex' you mean genetically-determined reproductive type? Then I agree gender = sex is non-disprovable. So the attempts to use the authority of science to support any belief about the relationship of the two fail. And it is not a failure of science for a scientist to tacitly say so.

 

[Cheese]

Hang on guys. As far as I know, none of the members currently involved in this thread consider themselves being something else than cis-man or cis-woman. In other words, there are neither any trans nor non-binary people among us at the mo.

So I guess that none of us actually has the slightest clue how it actually feels to be something else than cisgender. All our 'knowledge' comes from what we hear or read somewhere, like in fora like this one. And the subject is complex.

Therefore I guess we could just as well view the subject from a little more distance. There is so much trench warfare around these questions, usually done by people who are not directly involved. Except, of course, all those who have 'numerous trans friends'. I guess it must be possible for us to have different views without heating up the debate even more.

 

[Hook]

In the article you linked JKR was speaking on her rights as a women, so I disagree with a 'going after' characterisation. Isn't it right and proper all women get a say about their spaces and places? I think it would be better for all if us men no longer did. I know - it's another crazy idea! Instead of us men being mostly in charge, hand over full control of womens' spaces and places to them.
There are many trans women, as well as women, who believe women (and other marginalised groups) are being trampled in the gender zeitgeist. Who would get a vote in this poll? Sorry to repeat - to increase understanding you'll have to spend time listening to a wide range of women and trans women.

Heard you both times.

I am 65, heterosexual, married and retired. I also have heart issues, as does Mrs. Hook, so we both have had our social lives restricted by COVID. I'm afraid my days of spending "time listening to a wide range of women and trans women" are in the past. I engage with family, friends and with friendly neighbors, about half of whom are minority members. From them, and from what I've read, I feel well-enough informed. If you are saying I must engage with people who find sharing a bathroom with a trans person distressful, then I definitely choose not to. Not my sort of person, and never will be. I'll occasionally read what such people write, but that's all I am willing to do.

As far as polling, it can be everyone or a subset (e.g., only women). That's the beauty of polls. We can look at the data in multiple ways. My hope would be a better understanding of the issues, leading eventually to local referendums where everyone votes. I think every community should provide bathroom facilities for the public, and that everyone should feel free to use those facilities in peace. If most women feel that sharing a bathroom is a problem, then there should be a law requiring public bathrooms to offer a gender non-specific alternative. It would be very expensive, but if that's what's needed I would support it. But as I said before, nobody I know feels threatened by a trans person using their restroom. Hell, guys never make eye contact, so how would they even know?

I agree that fairly accommodating trans people in sports and jail poses even more complex issues. No great ideas for solutions, only that fairness to all involved should be the guiding principle. To my thinking, this will inevitably lead to messy compromises (as we are starting to see in women's sports).

That's all from me on this subject. Feel free to have the last word if you choose.