Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"What Is A Woman" by Richard Dawkins - in the the New Statesman!!

111 replies

Qbishy · 27/07/2023 14:18

Wow, I can't imagine the New Statesman, of all mags, commissioning this a year ago...

Why biological sex matters - New Statesman

Why biological sex matters

Some argue that lived experience and personal choice trump biology – but they are wrong.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
9
fromorbit · 31/07/2023 02:15

Dawkins has had Helen Joyce on his popular podcast.

Great conversation Joyce gets to explain just how deep the rabbit hole goes to Dawkins.

Getting more of the atheist skeptic crowd peaked via Dawkins is useful. Obviously many will continue to choose misogyny over admitting biology is real. [Always a problem in that crowd.]

The ones that will switch sides though are way more rational and useful.

"Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" - My conversation with Helen Joyce

Here is my conversation with Helen J on 'The Poetry of Reality', tackling the influence of gender ideology on society, the ideological lens, and its implicat...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu72Lu5FqE4

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/07/2023 13:26

I think at one point they say that less than 1% of people changed the sex of their partner, so it really isn't what it's claiming to be.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/07/2023 13:24

But it's about straight people coming out as gay, or vice versa. It doesn't tell you anything about trans people.

When you read the actual data, it includes mainly people moving in and out of "prefer not to say". Hardly a ringing endorsement that their sexual orientation has changed.

https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/60/3/659/373516/Sexual-Orientation-Identity-Mobility-in-the-United

PikesPeaked · 28/07/2023 19:21

And Tyndale and Wycliffe 'nicked' it from an even earlier source: the Torah.

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמֹ֔ו בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃

I don't know whether that displays properly for everyone, but the over 2000 years old Hebrew of the Torah is closer to modern Hebrew than the KJV English is to modern English.

And God created mankind in His image. In God's image He created him. Male and female He created them.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an even earlier text, Hammurabi perhaps, acknowledging the existence of the two sexes.

BTW, there is no neuter pronoun in Hebrew. That 'him' could equally be 'it'. It refers to all of mankind, not specifically Adam.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 28/07/2023 16:56

The King James version was mostly nicked from Tyndale (1535) and Wycliffe (1388).

Wycliffe: And God made of nouyt a man to his ymage and liknesse; God made of nouyt a man, to the ymage of God; God made of nouyt hem, male and female.

Tyndale: And God created man after hys lycknesse after the lycknesse of god created he him: male and female created he them.

Just a little bit before 18th century America.

SinnerBoy · 28/07/2023 15:04

*JustSpeculation · Today 13:45

You can't have a meaningful dialogue. They want precisely this. Not to have a dialogue. That's the point.

Yes, I get that. They've found that they can't have "no debate" and have gone for the next option of waffle, lies and irrelevant points.

JustSpeculation · 28/07/2023 14:15

@Froodwithatowel

No more. Not playing. Go and meet your needs through some other idiot.

I hadn't thought of looking at it from this perspective. Thank you. I have noticed that the gaslighting a pomo approach facilitates is really useful in establishing control by keeping others off balance. Food for thought. Thanks again.

puffyisgood · 28/07/2023 14:12

the TRA piece couldn't have been chosen better if it had been deliberately picked to illustrate the mindless incoherence and evasiveness of that 'school of thought'.

Froodwithatowel · 28/07/2023 14:01

JustSpeculation · 28/07/2023 13:45

You can't have a meaningful dialogue. They want precisely this. Not to have a dialogue. That's the point.

If you look at it in the wider terms of psychology of toxic and abusive relationships, Lundy Bancroft's 'why does he do that' and Issendai's blog on toxic personalities and relationship dynamics, even the Chump Lady covers it well in her famous blog, this is a very, very well known characteristic behaviour often seen a perpetrator of abuse.

A reasonable person will spend years trying to negotiate, explain, discuss, lay out the evidence, because the belief is that if the other party just understood, then a reasonable works-for-all solution can be found. They lavish endless amounts of thought and mental energy on trying to better understand their very difficult relative/ex and what motivates them, without realising that all this effort is about:

  • the one causing all the crisis enjoying further being the constant centre of attention and headspace and focus and feeding off this

  • enjoying the delay of the unhappy party ever getting round to escaping or putting down barriers because another conversation or another strategy or another read book with ideas might yet help sort this out reasonably, and this spares the abusive party having to lose their victim or do anything uncomfortable like changing or coping without their supply (see cake. having cake, eating cake, all the cake.) If she looks like losing the will to continue, they often throw out another round of burble and wild ideas for her to waste a bit more time unpacking while they use her AND crack on with their own plans and need meeting.

  • there is no chance ever of having a reasonable conversation or outcome unless there are two parties with equal capacity for reasonability.

Freedom Programme. Strong boundaries. LC to NC. The relationships board have reams and reams on this.

Local authorities will also tell you about service users who tie up years of staff time and energy and money using their complaints system (often they have multiple running at the same time) as another means of endless attention and drama and engagement to no good purpose. Often multiple phonecalls and multiple huge emails a day, scattergun points, often hard to make sense of or not logical or connected, all of which demanding intensive answers. One service user with these behavioural challenges getting their needs met this way can cost several staff their careers in going off with stress or burn out. And the system has not yet developed the boundaries to identify an unreasonable person to be able to say no. No more. Not playing. Go and meet your needs through some other idiot.

Qbishy · 28/07/2023 13:58

JustSpeculation · 28/07/2023 13:45

You can't have a meaningful dialogue. They want precisely this. Not to have a dialogue. That's the point.

Exacltly. #nodebate, and all that.

Luckily, thanks to all the terven, those days are over!

OP posts:
DeanElderberry · 28/07/2023 13:47

RoyalCorgi · 28/07/2023 13:42

Not stupid at all! My fault for using shorthand. It's postmodernism.

ah, thank you, that makes total sense.

Or no sense at all, taken another way.

JustSpeculation · 28/07/2023 13:45

SinnerBoy · 28/07/2023 11:56

Yes, but it's a conscious and deliberate lie. All of the pro-trans crowd seem to delight in lying, distracting and obfuscation.

How can you have a meaningful dialogue with liars?

You can't have a meaningful dialogue. They want precisely this. Not to have a dialogue. That's the point.

RoyalCorgi · 28/07/2023 13:42

DeanElderberry · 28/07/2023 13:42

sorry to be stupid, but what does pomo stand for?

Not stupid at all! My fault for using shorthand. It's postmodernism.

DeanElderberry · 28/07/2023 13:42

sorry to be stupid, but what does pomo stand for?

viques · 28/07/2023 13:40

loislovesstewie · 28/07/2023 13:23

Genesis 5;2
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
I'm not religious but even the King James Version says that.

Or as the TRAs would say AMAC. Assigned male at creation…….Though you would think god knew exactly what he was assigning and to whom.

Qbishy · 28/07/2023 13:32

Probably Helen or Maya or Kathleen or Dr Em or any number of others would have written a better account of the gender critical position, though of course Dawkins has the authority as a distinguished scientist when it comes to the biological stuff

Plus he has the benefit of being a man. Sad to say that men are listened to more than women, especially in this sphere, and especially in the New Statesman.

OP posts:
loislovesstewie · 28/07/2023 13:23

Genesis 5;2
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
I'm not religious but even the King James Version says that.

RoyalCorgi · 28/07/2023 13:22

I enjoyed reading Dawkins though.

I liked the bit where Dawkins explained the biology. I wasn't that bothered about the rest of it where he describes Jan Morris as true trans, blah blah. I think most of us are past that now. Probably Helen or Maya or Kathleen or Dr Em or any number of others would have written a better account of the gender critical position, though of course Dawkins has the authority as a distinguished scientist when it comes to the biological stuff.

I don't know what to make of Rose's piece. Is she really this stupid? Does she imagine she's making a very clever and sophisticated case? Or has she set herself the task of defending the indefensible as a kind of intellectual game, like proving "black is white" or "two plus two equals five"? I always feel the same way about this PoMo nonsense, like Sally Hines saying "before the Enlightenment the female skeleton didn't exist", or anything at all that Judith Butler writes. Perhaps the true purveyor of PoMo thinks that reality doesn't matter anyway, so you can just write any crap you want.

viques · 28/07/2023 12:57

How very shallow Rose’s article appears when you remember that two of the sources she relies on heavily (Freud and Andrea Long Chu) were both born with a penis and spent their life and career using this fact with very clear bias as to the innnate superiority in almost every way you can think of for all individuals so blessed, even if like Chu they change their minds about their own penis later.

Are the non-scientifically based opinions and observations of people born with a penis really the wisest choice to be used as confirmation in an article to answer the question “what is a woman”. To rely on them to back up an argument hints at a very thin veneer of scholarship and research.

And once again the trope of transphobia being an iteration of racism. It isn’t.

I enjoyed reading Dawkins though.

Qbishy · 28/07/2023 12:32

Nicely written @JustSpeculation

As long as you shout your mantras long and often enough, they will somehow transmogrify into reality

Well they appear to believe that a man can transmogrify into a woman, so...

OP posts:
duc748 · 28/07/2023 12:15

@SinnerBoy To be fair to Rose (yeah, I know, I know), the census measures (or attempts to; the questions in the census on this were very unclear, and comments on MN and elsewhere have made clear) trans people in the whole population, she is surely taking about the current rate of change. Whether her figure is accurate, since she does not provide a source, I have no idea.

Hepwo · 28/07/2023 12:04

PomegranateOfPersephone · 28/07/2023 11:06

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

From the Bible commissioned by King James VI
1604

I mean this is pretty basic, how can an academic not have heard of this text?

Also how can she have so seriously misunderstood Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex?

There is money in it.

Zeugma · 28/07/2023 11:59

Carouselfish · 28/07/2023 09:16

The bit about the word female and slaves was presumably a deliberate repurposing of the idea that prior to that it wasn't applied to humans only other species and was applied to slaves as part of their dehumanisation. She is trying to make it seem as though the actual word wasn't used before.

Approximately 2 seconds of googling would have enabled renowned intellectual JR to have found this:

In the 14th century, female appeared in English with such spellings as femel, femelle, and female. The word comes from the Latin femella, meaning “young woman, girl,” which in turn is based on femina, meaning “woman.”

She really must think people are stupid.