3 Friends- News is getting out

I think that they meant that physiology is about the body only, and obviously you can't change the underlying reality of your body (eg chromosomes), but that is irrelevant because biology includes the mind as well as body. Therefore the term "biological sex" is about the inner feelings of the mind as much as it's about the body.

Obviously if one accepts this then in 3 weeks time we'll be asked to make it clear that trans people can also change physiological sex.

Bottleneck, what did your friend mean? It sounds a bit like they mean the brain can change (presumably true?) but how does that relate to sex? Do they mean some ppl end up with a male brain and female physiology?

Ask them what they mean by biological sex.

This seems a good place to post this oft shared piece:

fondofbeetles.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/from-humans-to-asparagus-females-are-females/

The writer is Dr Emma Hilton, a Developmental Biologist and co-founder of:

sex-matters.org/

Biological sex is all about physiology surely?

I make the "biological sex is real" argument.

Friend seemed to think that "physiology" is immutable, but "biological sex" (which includes the brain) is more flexible. Has anyone come across this idea before? What is the simplest and clearest way to debunk it?

I had The Conversation with two female friends of the same age at the weekend. It arose because one mentioned breastfeeding, and the other (mum of two boys) said derisively "oh no it's chestfeeding now don't you know?" Males in women's prisons, Hubbard at the Olympics and the difficulty of being a lesbian, and mastectomies for unhappy young girls were all news to them.

Lying by omission is what the BBC does best. It does sadden me because this gives the impression they think we are daft enough not to notice. They all seem to be a bit anti-Brit. I watched Al Jazeera because of the world coverage but unfortunately their representation of the UK is very biased. I also think Sky News has a tendency to be anti, so along with the BBC we really don't stand a chance

It's not just a matter of affection. It's one of trust, and as a result it affects not just the one issue, but all.

If you discover the Guardian or the BBC are being dishonest on one issue, you start looking to see if they are dishonest on others. And in my experience it is rarely just one thing. All of a sudden you can't trust them on any issue where you yourself don't know enough to spot bad reporting, lies, and dissimulation.

Oh I'm not suggesting we all move over to Fox News/ The Sun/ Daily Mail.

Just that I no longer feel an emotional loyalty to any of the media outlets I used to. I no longer feel a personal investment in them. I no longer feel like they're talking to me.

I don't feel like fighting for organisations which are shafting me.

Screamingbeans, as someone living in the US, I can't agree with you. It's a mistake, I feel, to accept or reject a media outlet because of its position on one issue. I am not going to start watching Fox because they call out gender woo. They peddle lies about the "stolen" election, about vaccination, about QAnon, in short they peddle lies—except on one issue, and they do that because their viewers like it, NOT because anyone at Fox thinks it right. (I bet every last person employed by Fox is vaccinated, including Fucker Carlson.) We must fight to get the BBC to start recognizing the truth, not abandon it to Rupert Murdoch. Do you really think he will generally support women's rights? And he won't be open to rational persuasion, either.

I say all this for the same reason that I am not going to start supporting the Republicans because I disagree with (some of) the Dems on gender or on a couple of other social or political issues. There's a baby/bathwater interface here that has to be avoided.

Just thinking some more about this, the way the liberal media have responded to the trans issue has really changed my outlook. I've become so angry with the BBC about their refusal to cover the trans issue honestly that I no longer give a shit about keeping the licence fee. 20 years ago I'd have written letters, gone on demos, done everything I could to preserve it if it was under threat. Now? Meh, if the Tories want to get rid of it I don't give a shit. If I want to hear interesting programmes, there's plenty of stuff on Netflix and Youtube now. I no longer feel any loyalty at all to the BBC. Or the Guardian. And I think a lot of people feel that way.

The Guardian is interesting, when you see stories come up on FB, you can tell they're trying to capture the young American market and I wonder how much of that is because they've lost so much of their home market. I used to buy it every day. I wouldn't pay money for it now.

But the problem for them, is that if they are pandering to an American readership, they lose credibility as a media source here. It's a dilemma.

Sorry just meandering around.

foolish media people ignore at their peril because once something gets out there, the impact is at a very deep emotional and preservation level.

Yep. And that emotional level extends to the media as well.

The very fact that the media has failed to represent your views at all. except to denigrate them, mock them or condemn them, turns people against the media. There is a reason the acronym "MSM" has come into being. There is a reason people no longer believe MSM on things even when they are true. If they feel that they've been lied to or betrayed or ignored, why should they trust the media which has done that to them? This is one of the reasons why Trump supporters are so entrenched; it doesn't matter what the media tells them Trump has done or said now, they either don't believe them (because they've got into the habit of not believing them) or they don't care because if it upsets the respectable media, it's probably a Good Thing.

This is not a good position to be in, for the fourth estate.

I mentioned TP as I remember he talked about it in a tv show about the Labour party. I'm sure he isn't the only one to have made this point.

Not that I'm saying immigration is wrong, but it needs to be managed properly, and importantly, when people have concerns about it, it doesn't automatically make them right wing bigots!

Well Mulletsaremisunderstood , I recall Trevor saying - during Blairs pomp - that people who talk about class are living in a 70s time warp. That worked out well didn't it?

I couldn't agree more, Mullets. I remember it well. It was 'racist' to even mention that the vast, vast numbers of Eastern Europeans that came to make a better life for themselves (doing nothing wrong, they were well within their rights) but changed the face of some communities for ever. The government expected 13,000 and got half a million or so. Never mind the concentration of certain Asian populations in certain areas - Gordon Brown's Bigotgate was due to the changed face of Rochdale. I see so many parallels with cries of 'bigot' and the shutting down of legitimate questions. The then Labour government were quoted as saying 'rub the Right's nose in diversity'.

In a similar way, Trump did much better than expected because the media in the US is Democrat, it was a shock that they lost seats but emphasis has been put on the (almost win) of the Senate - not enough if you think media is the driver of public opinion Isn't that partly due to 'media' having changed and more people seek out 'niche' media online or social media, that reflect their views, rather than the mainstream media?

Anyway, my experience is that even the avid fans I know of this gender ideology don't actually understand what it stands for and make blatantly ' transphobic' statements whilst trying to convince me of it. So a friend told me that there is no need to misgender someone, as you can just call them 'they' (Transphobic, under your ideology that is misgendering) or patiently started to explain the difference between sexual orientation and gender to me by saying, 'sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, so homosexual people are same sex attracted but gender is..' At that point I cut her off and said, ' no, under the ideology you are defending gay and lesbian people are same gender attracted, not same sex attracted' She said ' 'What?' I explained further, and explained this was also Stonewall's position and then there was a silence before she said ' but that's absolutely crazy.'

Those people were told they were racist and bigoted (sound familiar?) even if they just had legitimate questions to ask. they were told that their concerns made them hateful (also familiar).

And lo 15 years later Brexit happened. I'm not saying that was the only reason for Brexit, but the point he made is that if you ignore and shout down people with genuine questions to ask and issues to raise, it doesn't just make those issues or legitimate concerns go away.

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]I should say, my two good friends (one male, one female) that I have spoken to about all this are both chatty and well connected people so I have no doubt word is getting round their circles.

One very smart move by Sex Matters and their book sponsorship programme is to ask people to consider nominating well connected people with good 'social stickiness and influence' (I paraphrase) to receive a copy of Helen Joyce's book.

sex-matters.org/take-action/sponsor-a-gift-copy-of-helen-joyces-book-trans/[/quote]
Yes, definitely a good strategy. I sponsored 2 books, one for my MP and one for Sex Matters to choose - hoping that they know of some suitably ‘social sticky and influential’ people!

I see the book is number 7 in best sellers this week, excellent.

I should say, my two good friends (one male, one female) that I have spoken to about all this are both chatty and well connected people so I have no doubt word is getting round their circles.

One very smart move by Sex Matters and their book sponsorship programme is to ask people to consider nominating well connected people with good 'social stickiness and influence' (I paraphrase) to receive a copy of Helen Joyce's book.

sex-matters.org/take-action/sponsor-a-gift-copy-of-helen-joyces-book-trans/

Thanks for sharing OP. I am gradually speaking up more, and having the same experience as you - a) it becoming a more mainstream discussion, and b) most people are indeed on the so called ‘GC’ side.

I should say, my two good friends (one male, one female) that I have spoken to about all this are both chatty and well connected people so I have no doubt word is getting round their circles.

It gives me hope too.

I didn't answer did I Perhaps we are inherently dishonest, maybe it's part of the human condition but only exerts itself when triggered and then slides back to oblivion. Covid has thrown up some really strange things. I have found lots of people have become much more strident in their likes and dislikes, so does that imply that under threat we become much more tribal?

Thanks for the link Embarrassing Interesting but I would argue that short term effects of media stories are not the same as our fundamental feelings of self preservation. I don't think these feelings assert themselves until and unless we feel there is a threat and that threat doesn't have to be life and limb. It can be that societal cohesion is just as important to self preservation. I have a view that the silent majority are unconcerned in the main, which is why they don't feature until something hits a tipping point. I also like the idea of pack mentality which means people wake up at a certain point and they do this in large enough groups to (in stages) send something higher up the agenda.