Intersex

Of course they can use it for themself. I draw the line at anyone enforcing the term on someone who does not like it.

The group of people who are 'reclaiming' the word queer are not the same group of people who were queerbashed/gaybashed. It is still very contested as older gays and lesbians have extremely bad associations with it (for very good reason - some of the people who were beaten up were very badly injured and some sadly died). Younger people, especially the spicy straights, have latched onto it as a self descriptor.

I personally find that people who describe themselves as queer or intersex are more likely to be ideologically in step with gender identity ideology. Those who are gay/lesbian or have DSDs and don't use those terms are usually sex realists.

This is a generalisation, but I have found that it holds up IRL.

Personally I think that intersex is inaccurate, which is of course the point for the GII believers.

You can call yourself intersex if you like but that puts you in the same category as the trans-intersex self identifiers and the men who think an extra x makes them less male (it doesn’t).

Whereas if you stick to your specific DSD/VSD diagnosis you aren’t in the same category as them (which is what I thought you wanted? To not be lumped in with those you have nothing in common with?)

Swyers syndrome occurs in XY individuals. It is very rare: 1 in 80,000. As the issue is on the Y chromosome a similar, but even rarer, outcome can occur in those with XXY karyotypes. 1 in 500 males have klinefelters. So XXY with a female phenotype would occur roughly in 1 in 80 million individuals. So on average less than one person in the UK.

That doesn’t really make any sense @Hoardasurass.

Swyer is 46XY with no SRY.

Sayers syndrome is a female dsd that results in xxy
The corresponding male dsd of xxy is kinefelters syndrome
Whilst they both involve xxy chromosome groups the extra x chromosome in males effect the male differently to the added y chromosome to females

Wright's respose wasn't ideal, but he was provoked and the balance of bad behaviour seems to have been in the other side.

This.

I remember feeling very uncomfortable at the time but also fascinated by what was playing out. I had no intention of donating to the fund but it was an interesting way to approach it. It certainly garnered attention to the "academic dispute"**, which is ultimately a good thing.

It's a totally different topic but I imagine that's also how I'd have felt if I'd been around at the time that (some of) the Suffragettes were throwing bricks through shop windows etc as part of their protest.

** that's the kindest way I can describe O'Brien's dismissal of the Cass Report and subsequent ad hominem critique of Wright.

How about if soneone sent a barrage of tweets claiming you were profiteering?
Wright's respose wasn't ideal, but he was provoked and the balance of bad behaviour seems to have been in the other side.

I don’t think it was wise of Wright to engage.
O’Brien’s poor behaviour spoke for itself.
However, the tweets about profiteering came after Wright had suggested giving money to charity in exchange for debate I think? That was a bad idea from the start and he later compounded it with the GoFundMe. It wasn’t profiteering (for himself at least) but it was an attempt to manipulate and coerce. Not nice.

You don't get to say if it's offensive.

How about if soneone sent a barrage of tweets claiming you were profiteering?

Wright's respose wasn't ideal, but he was provoked and the balance of bad behaviour seems to have been in the other side.

I’d be very confident their foolishness and lack of objectivity would become clear to all in the fullness of time. I’d know it was clear to many already.

Was Wright a co-author or something?
It wasn’t his work as far as I’m aware.

Scientific papers disagree with one another all the time. It’s part of the process.
However, O’Brien was well out of order in the manner in which he disagreed with Cass. Calling the review a sham was far from ok, but OP has asked specifically about Wright’s behaviour here and it really wasn’t good either.

And how would you feel if someone very publically condemned all your work as a sham and then refused to explain themselves any further?

Oh I agree regarding no debate. It’s not fair.

But this was ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ imo.

I’ve worked as a scientist and if someone challenged me or a colleague in the manner Wright did then we’d automatically refuse a debate, no matter how confident we were of our thesis. We’d refuse to engage with bullies.
This interaction was very far from the norm in that world, ime anyway.

I do understand Wright was frustrated but that does not excuse his behaviour.

Given he was libelling Cass and all the reveiwers involved in the report, he was lucky not to have to be debating in court.

I dunno, I think people who profess to be speaking in a professional capacity probably deserve a bit of badgering if they are unwilling to explain how their opinion is formed.

No Debate got Bloody Boring circa 2018.

I think the fact that O’Brien wouldn’t engage in debate would have spoken for itself.

The GoFundMe thing was ill-conceived and tawdry in my opinion. Even before that they were trying to bribe O’Brien basically. Dreadful.

It is a bit badgering,, but with no personal threats or accusations beyond quoting O'Briens own tweets. Wheras in reaponse to the original perfectly polite suggestion of a debate, O'Brien appears to have responded with a barrage of personal accusations.

It was right on the edge of my comfort zone in that respect, but I thought it was fair enough overall. O'Brien was criticising a 4 year review but won't defend why in a debate format.

From memory, Wright refunded everyone's donations when it was clear that the debate wouldn't happen.

It’s one thing calling someone out, no problem with asking O’Brien to debate the subject, that’s absolutely appropriate.

But the tweet goes beyond that imho. Not the first invitation, but the one quoted by @NoBinturongsHereMate. It’s badgering, pestering in tone. I mean, launching a GoFundMe for a children’s hospital all contingent on O’Brien’s participation in the debate? Did I read that wrong? If I didn’t that’s definitely harassing behaviour in my book.

Yes, I remember it too.

At the time, I had been keenly waiting for some kind of debate (having only seen the shut down of No Debate) and thought this sounded like a good one.

One key point about the Cass review is that it comes from a position of belief. It assumes that we do all have a gender identity. Obviously lots of people (me included) don't believe this at all, so I'm particularly interested in a document that accepts it as "fact" yet still questions whether social transition and medical interventions are the appropriate approach, given the lack of evidence. In many ways, it's even more powerful as an argument, that even if you believe we all have a gender identity, it's important to have a good evidence base to support changing people's bodies to align with this belief. A debate about it would have been interesting.

It seems cowardice to criticise the Cass Report and not explain why.