The Guardian, on Trump's EO re: gender ideology

And I would like to amplify your message and applaud your usage.

Fatuous piffle.

I may name change…

I know we're discouraged from spamming, but I used the words 'fatuous piffle' on the other thread and I'd like (with your indulgence) to use them again here.

Fatuous piffle

They assume we all agree with this stuff. It is like a school magazine article imo, written by one of the in crowd for the in crowd.

Mind blowing and blood boiling that The Graun is back in the school yard using "girl" as an insult

Exactly.

Oh I loved that insertion of "non-binary" as though it's a type of sex.

Can you imagine - "so kids, to get pregnant you need two non-binary people. One with a penis and one with a vagina. "
"Miss, don't we call those men and women?"
"Oh no, those are just self-chosen identities, nothing to do with physical bodies".

Arwa Mahdami has been writing this sort of tripe for years.

I'm happy to agree we are all nonbinary.

the term is meaningless.

Which means we can all agree that it's sex that matters.

And we can all go home.

Well. It starts off weapons-grade batshit, and then manages to attempt a sober clarification. And comes up with this:

'...the more accurate answer is: No, although there is room to argue that the executive order decrees all humans, including Trump, are non-binary.'

😁

It’s a total embarrassment of an article. I despise Trump but it’s particularly pathetic to think tittering over calling Trump female is a feminist position. Female is a fact, not an insult.

No, an ornithologist who studies animal sexual behaviour, apparently.

Scientists ourselves cannot agree on how to define the two sexes,” Rachel Levin, a Pomona College neuroscientist who studies the development of sex, told me over the phone. “To say that sex is simple and easily defined – and defined at conception – is factually incorrect.”

Is that the same Rachel Levine the former US Assistant Secretary for Health?

‘Explain the purpose of the seam in your ballsack’ is one of the posts on that X thread. Is that where they are going next? 😆

This is beyond embarrassing for the Guardian.

Maybe they don't bother subbing 'opinion pieces', where you can say any old bollocks.

It’s so depressing. It’s not just that someone wrote something this scientifically illiterate, without any checking, but that none of the subs at the Guardian spotted the factual errors either. After all, to quote a great Guardian editor, Comment is free, but facts are sacred.

I thought the G had shown some signs of walking back its lunacy lately, but this? As noted, this is National Enquirer level stuff.

Most scientists now reject the idea that sex is strictly binary

Do they? Do they really? Try asking someone who knows what they are talking about. Plus, the pathetic and infantile implication that Trump (the orange fool) actually wrote the document personally. The sort of 'journalism' that the G rightly used to excoriate other papers for.

As for 'leaving the Left', it's the G and those like it that have done that AFAIC.

You've lost this war, Viner, you fucking loon!

‘ ..how complex sex is and why it’s hard to reduce it into a neat binary’

😂🙈 Stop it Guardian people. It is not hard to reduce sex into a ‘neat binary’. In fact, it is probably the easiest concept to ‘reduce’ into a neat binary.

Sex is at the front of the queue right before 0 and 1.

Jesus wept.

This is why people like me left the Left. I just couldn't be associated with this sort of deliberate stupidity. This article is a living example of that many replicated research finding that intelligent people are more likely to believe ludicrous things as they use their intelligence to persuade themselves the ludicrous things are true.

These people have divorced the word sex from its meaning. Our sex categories define our role in sexual reproduction. That's it. Yes you get disorders in sex development but no sensible person could say that disorders of sex development undermine the sex binary. If there is not a sex binary, what is the third sex and what is its role in sexual reproduction? No-one ever answers this.

We. like all other sex binary species, have evolved to recognise on sight who is male and who is female as that enables us to reproduce. Its remarkable that people who have lived their whole lives doing this every day, pretend that they cannot spot on sight which adult is male and which is female in nearly every case.

Mind you, that McBride made the inane statement should tell us all we need for credibility in the first place.

I think a lot of people have herd the claim over the years that we all start off as female.

Though - you used to also hear how all species start off looking the same, so are we now going to hear we are all cats, and cats are all monkeys, and monkeys are all dolphins?

Honestly, the Guardian is now the kind of publication that convinces American conservatives that obviously liberals must be morons if this is the best of their mainstream press.

Basically the author is an idiot who has believed nonsense like this doing the rounds:

https://x.com/fawfulfan/status/1881732562042982817

Under Trump's executive order, every single person in America is now legally classified as female. All embryos begin by developing female sex organs, with male sex organs only replacing them at around 6 weeks of gestation.

when the actual answer is this reply:

https://x.com/zaelefty/status/1881787730910470353

All embryos begin by developing undifferentiated gonads, undifferentiated genitalia, and a cloaca, before genetics differentiate our gonads into testes or ovaries, and our genitalia down the male or female path based on the gonad type.

There is no transforming of female anatomy into male anatomy. Being female is a specific path of differentiation just like being male.

Your claim makes no sense unless you want to argue that undifferentiated gonads, undifferentiated genitalia, and a cloaca are “female anatomy” which would be dumb.

But I would expect nothing less from a two bit opinion writer who had to find something wrong with it simply because it’s Trump who signed it.

And to think people genuinely believe the left wing media doesn’t partake in misinformation and propaganda 🙄

Truly astonishing they published that garbage. Well maybe not, given the direction the Guardian has gone in.

This properly made me lol https://x.com/berk_hamstead/status/1883217974896775347

Just to head off the ‘well we DO all start out as female’, I think this is helpful:

https://x.com/zaelefty/status/1883151425196458015?s=46

What is fucked up is that people genuinely believe that embryo that are undeveloped and don’t have testes yet formed = female. So again female people are simply co considered the ‘not male’ fall back position.