I am embracing virtue signalling pronouns in emails

Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’

I suspect wokedom would have something to say if their local cannabis dealer tried to explain that male and female was a human construction... 😂

Thanks Dick. I was mighty bemused by a poster telling women that they are quite safe and to not worry about any male outside their home effectively. Because we shouldn’t ever be worried about those crimes against females outside the home.

Some truly fucked up logic there.

don’t want to do away with sorting and segregation altogether in many cases, they just want to use totally meaningless and nonsensical categories as the basis

I think they get a subversive thrill out of this. It's a power trip.

Yes, the especially weird thing is that the Butlerians don’t want to do away with sorting and segregation altogether in many cases, they just want to use totally meaningless and nonsensical categories as the basis

the whole thing is downright weird. Like it was dreamed up by someone who’d never actually operated in the real world

As if sorting by belly-button type was equally as meaningful a category as sorting by biological sex 🙄

I have to say, if you sorted by genitalia you'd have a high degree of accuracy in terms of two discrete groups of humans with particular needs, and sorting by chromosomes even more so. Leaving the arguments about DSDs aside, they are both much more meaningful categories than either belly-button types or "gender identity".

Procreation isn't solely a "human" construction, though, is it?

Yes, I hate to single out any particular sentence or point made on that article but wow, that was egregious.

But then maybe if they acknowledge that nonhumans also care about biological sex the whole edifice of Butler’s thinking collapses? As summarised there, it does. But it can’t be that stupid, can it?

Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’

I mean, that's just total bollocks isn't it? What about the entire animal kingdom?

From the article:

Bodies do not come presorted by chromosomes or genitalia alone; we could sort them by belly-button type, after all. Their sorting by sex, then, reflects human purposes and interests – those having to do with human procreation. Although these might be crucial human purposes and interests, they are still human ones. To this extent, the primary division of populations into males and females, like the socialisation that creates men and women, is a human ‘construction’

Procreation isn't solely a "human" construction, though, is it? Read any book on evolutionary biology

Sorry I don't mean to suggest that there's anything wrong with posting articles, but if you're going to do that, surely you should be able to express what it is about the article you agree with?

I find the 'here's an article' approach a bit odd to begin with and it's a technique often used when the 'what constitutes gender' question is posed.

Surely if you believe in gender beyond a social construct you would be able to say why? Without recourse to article. Surely you'd be able to define what gender is reasonably clearly/concisely yourself if that is what you genuinely believe?

How can you believe in something that you can't frame in your own words?

The other thing to note is that most of @aseriesofstillimages points are based on people completely passing as the opposite sex through being able to disguise themselves. They are a tiny minority. It's sophistry to then use the fact that a minuscule number of people can deceive their peers into believing the opposite sex to claim that the more meaningful approach is just to accept that males can be women simply by saying they are. As I pointed out a couple of days ago, this is the leap of faith that gender identity ideology proponents take.

Frankly anyone who finds that Aeon article convincing needs to work on their self esteem

it’s bollocks. The reason it makes no sense is that it’s total bollocks, not because the writer is smarter than you, or you’re not educated enough to understand it

Also, what are the names we give to adult and child members of the female sex class, if not "women" or "girls" (because that involves some males)? Do you not think this important group needs a name, and to organise to challenge their own oppression?

have managed to offer a coherent case for why people should prioritise gender identity ideology over sex, or what gender identity means when unmoored from sex and knowing what sex people are and all the stereotype baggage that comes with that.

Still to be answered.

Oh man, that Aoen article

3100 words on continental and analytic philosophy, all to try to avoid saying that a woman is an adult human female. What do you think is the author’s term for such a class of people if not ‘woman’?

and the conclusion being essentially ‘it doesn’t matter because everyone should try to help all marginalised people’

totally unrealistic, written by someone with no interest in achieving anything. The way you make stuff happen is by having tightly defined goals

Its not a question of chucking out articles, but being able to articulate our own beliefs clearly. If this article is in line with your own understanding of gender you should be able to capture that in your own words. Can you do that?

This.

The previous article I posted didn’t cut the mustard, what do you make of this one?

It's a lot of words to ultimately arrive at a confused conclusion. What do you think is particularly compelling? Do you think women should be defined as a subordinate class? Do you understand how the intellectual philosophers in the academy offer very little in terms of actually improving the oppression of female people, which is grounded in sex stereotypes and expectations around our sexed bodies?

The previous article I posted didn’t cut the mustard, what do you make of this one?

What do you think though?

Can you give us a brief summary of what constitutes gender based on what you've read there?

Its not a question of chucking out articles, but being able to articulate our own beliefs clearly. If this article is in line with your own understanding of gender you should be able to capture that in your own words. Can you do that?

They campaigned for their own (via the Ladies' Sanitary Association and the Union of Women’s Liberal and Radical Associations) - and men tried to stop them achieving their aim.

When the first women's toilet facilities were opened men did their best to sabotage them - even driving hansom cabs into them.

Men wanted to keep women out of public life, and stop them going far from the home.

The previous article I posted didn’t cut the mustard, what do you make of this one?
aeon.co/essays/do-analytic-and-continental-philosophy-agree-what-woman-is

Genuine question, do you know the history of sex segregated facilities such as toilets and changing rooms in the UK? When and why were they introduced? Assuming that at some point in time there were many circumstances in which they were only male facilities, which women were not allowed to use - did women campaign for their own separate facilities, or to be allowed to use the existing ones?

Exactly!

It's like the false argument around "gender neutral" toilets.

Only a couple of weeks ago a TRA threw "Do you have separate sex toilets in your house? Because I don't" - to which I replied "No. Do you allow random people to walk in off the street and use your lavatory? Because I don't"

They think these false equivalencies are such a "gotcha" - and they aren't. They just serve to show how desperate they are for valid argument.

I was just thinking about the massive issues we are facing now that crimes are recorded according to gender identity instead of sex.

Will Karen White's sexual assaults while incarcerated in a women's prison be recorded as female crimes?

@aseriesofstillimages it still seems to me that 'living as the opposite sex' means conforming to stereotypes not congruent to your actual sex, if anything I think it demonstrates what nonsense gender (in the modern sense) is.

I like to think both Willner and Billy did what they did because they wanted to pursue a life they loved in music which would have been closed to them as women. I'm more certain of this with Billy, iirc she was refused entry into a school band because she was female.

There's a lot less information on Willner but it's nice there's some recognition, she should be better known. But as a, lately dubbed, transman I'm not surprised she's still a bit niche. TMAM are they, eh?

Anyway, I'll remember their names.

Has there been any research other than the Swedish study on the rates of violence within male population disaggregated by gender identity?

Not that I am aware of.