Batshit biologists

We have all the eggs we are ever going to have when we are still inside our own mothers. Some of those eggs will ripen during our fertile years but we never make more.

Side note, but there is now some reinvestigation of this. As with most aspects of female health it seems conclusions may have been jumped to instead of properly tested. We're definitely born with most of our eggs, but there's a possibility that we can add a bit to the stock later.

It’s the academic equivalent of social media influencing.
Exactly.

Looking at their list, I can see a couple of terms concepts that I agree (as someone with a background in ecology) are problematical or where the term they suggest is more accurate - although not for the reasons of 'triggering' that they are tending to raise.

But, but, sperm producing/egg producing and xx/xy individual are both binary terms.

Please someone make it make sense.

It is incredibly easy for a group of academic with grandiose ambitions to decide to give their clique a fancy sounding name, build a website and write a ‘position paper’.

It doesn’t mean what they’re saying is of any importance.

This isn’t ‘science’ at all.

I think that goes without saying.

Can we just recognise that the EEB language project is just a self selecting group of academics who’ve got a bit of money from somewhere (and I suspect money for this kind of activity is not hard to find in North America) and have decided to make pronouncements about what kind of language people are allowed to use.

It’s the academic equivalent of social media influencing.

This isn’t ‘science’ at all.

The Telegraph have blown a dog whistle and got everyone's hackles up/eyes rolling. The 'experts' it refers to are the EEB Language Project, it is by no means all biologists and ecologists.

This is them, www.eeblanguageproject.com/

And these are some of the terms they're raising as problematical, www.eeblanguageproject.com/repository

And what happens to the intersex male and females, they're no longer human I take it.

And those of us females that do not produce eggs, maybe pre-menarche and post-menopause, do we suddenly only come into existence when our periods start and cease to exist when they end.

And what of the chaps who no longer produce sperm, say retained testes, or needed an op to remove them, I'm sure they love no longer being called men.

Jesus christ, the mental gymnastics when we could just use the words male and female.

Circuses reply on bodily strength and sex differences for performances. But are totally captured. Last time I looked at a discussion in a group on fb they were calling women XX people and men XY people to deal with the conundrum that sex matters but feelz and menz too. 🙄

Nice attempt at Poe’s Law!

twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1293556090895032322?

They’ve fully colonised the word “woman” and now they’re coming for “female”. This is why the argument that “man” and “woman” are social categories and “male” and “female” are biological categories is a dangerous position. TRAs want all of the words to define feelings rather than fact. Soon the only way women will be able to define themselves separately from men is to use AFAB but this will not be a category that is protected in law from discrimination.

I am wondering what the point of any science is any more. If they follow this to its logical conclusion, Y will ID as X and so everyone will be XX and the whole basis of science ceases to be relevant to humans.

They are woke wanking themselves out of a job/career/future.

This is exactly it.

"Progress" has no end.

It's not the actual words that bother them, it's the fact those words define separate things. We arent allowed to have a word that only applies to us.

So if these suggestions were accepted you will see men 'identifying as' XX. They didn't stop at 'woman' and have now come for 'female'. Just ask India Willougby's cervix.

Does anyone have an archive link so I can read this? Ta!

The excessive use of reason is offensive.

Yes. It does seem to be so.

I do remember an extreme activist poster trying to frame one of my posts this way a couple of years ago. That brings back memories.

Most science is not interested in human identities. Marginalised or not.

The sage McGrath should maybe read more science.

‘It has been decided’.

By one project focusing on ‘inclusive language’. And anyone questioning this - totally undemocratic - decision is ‘phobic’.

Reality does matter. Even if some people aren’t happy about it.

But that argument makes no logical sense.

egg producing and sperm
producing are a binary too… they’re mutually exclusive categories in humans.

it’s just using less common language to express the same binary.

Sperm producers cannot identify into egg producing.

So whose interests is this ridiculous suggestion supposed to help?

The words “male” and “female” should be phased out in science because they reinforce ideas that sex is binary, scientists have suggested.

Dear me, it's not an idea, it's a fact. Come on, Telegraph, FFS!

This thread is nothing but a display of rationality deliberately oppressing margnalised identities. It's not what things are which is important. It's how we talk about them. It has been decided that male and female are terms that will not used, and any attempt to question this decision is, well, generally phobic. Sort of panphobic, I suppose. The excessive use of reason is offensive. As the sage McGrath so eloquently put it:

"Science is an irredeemably white, patriarchal, cisnormative fiction that exists only to disempower marginalised identities."

Shelefttheweb · Yesterday 22:59

It wasn’t written by any sort of biologist if they think xx/xy can replace female/male.

And what about birds, with their ZW chromosomes? Why do they want to cancel birds?

I also find the use of the phrase "hetero normative" enraging, outside of gay people describing their personal experience.

Heterosexuality is a fucked up system where women are sexually attracted to the class which opresses them. To simplistically assume "hetero normative" is good for women, bad for trans people, is to be wilfully ignorant of the history of female opression.

Hang on. If I don't produce eggs any more, and I never produced sperm...what am I?

The biologists are deluded if they think this will placate TRAs. If we'd adopted this approach, or wholeheartedly accepted "vulva havers" when they first appropriated the word "woman", TRAs would not have stayed happy. I've already seen males whining that young women were using "AFAB" as a way of excluding transwomen.

Researchers studying ecology and evolutionary biology should be encouraged to use terms such as “sperm-producing” or “egg producing” or “XY/XX individual” to avoid “emphasising hetero-normative views”, experts say.

Extraordinary to see it, isn’t it? It is like they barely understand what inclusion is .