The words that have been pulled over your eyes

As I say, they will push back on EVERY thing defined in law and argue black is white to get what that they want.

They aren't interested in definitions or the law or anything else, because nothing is good enough unless it's exactly what they demand because it's abusive behaviour.

They will push and push boundaries because they can. Thats the point.

The only way to react to that is to not allow this to be framed as anything other than the level a toddler tantrum that is to be taken as seriously as that too.

So bored with these idiots saying biological sex hasn't been defined in law.

We only need to define things in law when there is some ambiguity or where their legal meaning is in some way different to their regular meaning.

Biological sex means biological sex. It means the same thing in humans as it does in all other mammals. The people saying it needs to be defined are the same people who don't want it to be defined because they don't like the answer.

I am reminded from watching Wesley Winter's latest video that apparently 'biological sex' still requires definition by law. Yet, I was under the impression from legal experts that Corbett v Corbett (1971) provided a definition.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around.

See 15.33 on.

This male person being interviewed is saying that we need it defined in law. Perhaps they did not read the different legal analyses. Perhaps they are rather entrenched and dismiss the legal experts who have said that Corbett v Corbett has already provided a precedent definition.

What is interesting is that Wesley asked this male person whether breasts and clothes make a woman. Well Wesley Winter's said:

"Do you believe that makes a woman, you know, having a pair of boobs and dressing like a woman. Does that make a woman?"

The reply was:

"It think it's one aspect of womanhood. It is one aspect of being a female-bodied person. You can't just kind of pin it down to an easy simply sound bit. And they have in fact, actively avoided giving a definition of biological sex because they know it's really complicated."

"There was a letter that was signed recently by an enormous number of uh, biologists who are just saying this is completely ridiculous. You cannot define biological sex in such a reductionist fashion because in the real world, reality is much more complex than that."

Said by a male person who really doesn't 'pass' as a female person. To my ears and my eyes, this person doesn't pass. Not in the face or voice. This seems to be someone who needs philosophical theory to support the destabilising of the words 'woman' and 'biological sex' to allow a near enough is good enough definition. But is happy to use breasts and presentation as part of the signalling of who is female and who is male.

And is telling Wesley that in the UK, biological sex has not been defined for use in the EA. Plus that a group of academics who take a philosophical approach to defining sex, not one that is based on material reality for the very purpose of why the two sexes of human exist, reproduction, should be considered the experts in defining what biological sex is.

So saying that presentation is a part of what a woman is not reductionist? I thought presentation is reductionist so I must be confused.

So, I guess 'biological sex' needs to go on the list even though I thought we've had a good legal definition for decades.

Other words that have been 'repurposed':
'Science' - any paper published in a science journal, no matter how contrary to the scientific method, biased and shoddy it might be
'Literature review' - a document produced produced by a bunch of people who have strong views on a topic, relying on papers that support their position and on cherry-picked data from other sources
'Cruel' - any behaviour that gives me hurt feelz

This all started some years ago. I recall arguing with someone well pre-Covid who claimed that a video showed a policeman 'beating' a woman. He obviously wasn't, he was trying to restrain her and remove her from a location, but 'beating' came around again and again and again.

@ButterflyHatched

Forgive me if you have answered this before, but might you tell me what your thoughts are about using a gender-neutral toilet alongside other people, both men and women?

Are you happy to do so?
What do you think about doing so?

Thank you

Add "intersectional" to the list of redefined words. Apparently something can now "intersect" with its opposite.

Quite.

Yes.

Never was the quote "men are afraid women will laugh at them" more clearly illustrated than in that thread

My OBSERVATION of this pattern, is why certain posters said certain things yesterday, because they don't like it. Remembering they already wanted to punish me for laughing at their ridiculous error...

And this is the message this thread should amplify more than any other.

Its not about the meaning of words as such. Its about the abuse and denigration of women to be subserviant to the wants and desires of men and to not have the means to challenge this.

The thing with 'just close enough' is how medicine in general has developed. For obvious reasons medical research is done mainly with young males because the risks for females are too high. This means drugs are developed for male body systems and then given to women. However women with the SAME conditions have different symptoms and react differently to drugs and we are only just beginning to recognise this. Women were less at risk from Covid - I think the reasoning behind this was something to do with estrogen having something of a protective effect.

So this is how the ENTIRE phamacetical and health care industries actually think as a default. Women are invisible.

And one of the driving forces in why women's health care and outcomes is much poorer than men's. It really drives home the point of why we NEED sex based studies for women's health to increase our knowledge where we can, but with 'inclusion' this is actually becoming harder not easier.

Research into women's health care issues is riddled by some absoluetely appalling male bias as it is. Whilst looking into the research for ELCS I strayed across one world health organisation study which looked into the risks of ELCS versus attempted VBs. The conclusion said that VBs were safer. Then you looked at the actual data in the study. The actual data said COMPLETELY the opposite. They had written that VBs were safer because thats how they wanted women to behave, rather than because thats what their data said and thats what the recommendation they made in guidance - to reduce C-Section Rates. Its a shocking example, but sadly not the only one. This particular attitude and lead by the WHO was looked at by the NHS who took this to try and reduce both EMCS and ELCS and has since been massively discredited by subsequent scandals in maternity where women and babies have died unnecessarily because of these attitudes.

The problem with women's health care is its dominated by men's ideology and desire to control women. Once you see it and you start unpicking methodologies you find it all over the place. Its barely concealed, because these people know that no one ever bothered to check these papers for quality. They just read the conclusion at best.

Its a very sore point of mine and one I'm glad that is STARTING to get noticed. But yes Gender Ideology very much feeds into this ignorance and can't be arsed to actually bother to try to understand the female body, because females are just 'not male' and are all about outward superficial observation of 'sexual characteristics' not actual biology and how women's bodies actually FUNCTION.

Any sentences that would be understood with the addition of, "but this isn't really true", would fit the bill of warped language.

• Some men identify as women but this isn't really true.
• Men can breastfeed but this isn't really true.
• Men should have access to women's spaces but this isn't really true.

most definitely

"I can see why that narrative is more appealing psychologically, offering as it does the possibility of a future where female biology is just a passing feature and not a fundamental difference that creates inescapable inequality in some things, where equality is a simpler matter of just treating women the same as men rather than a complex negotiation of what extra or different provisions women need to have the same social/political/financial/cultural power and agency as men."

I liked to believe aspects of this when I was younger. It is an idealistic belief. Partly because I falsely believed that 'equality' was close. But I always was uncomfortable with the whole 'girl power' 'we can be sexualised because we want to be' content that I saw coming in.

Then I had a child and I realised just how sexist the world still was for children. My child grew up in the era where this ridiculous colour coded consumerism hit its peak. Now consumer behaviour is my background and I fully understand how and why this happened. And my husband and I fought it very hard. But it was everywhere and then came the sports issues at school - boys did this sport and girls did this sport. And I realised that children were coding themselves based on the very stereotypes that I had fought against and my child was fighting it.

And then I started to think and do just even a modicum of reading studies and papers and I began to unravel the idealism. I began to understand equity vs equality even though I had also studied discrimination at uni too.

I agree that I think for some women it is fair simpler as you say.

But this is where the 'near enough is good enough' concept fits. To them, it data and conclusion integrity doesn't matter. They read something and see that the results are 'towards' or sometimes as in the breast scan 'similar' and they look no further, they don't want to. They have enough misinformation to keep them in a happy zone.

Not only data and conclusion integrity though - the impact on tiny vulnerable babies.

Fetish-addled men I expect very little of, but women who, effectively, endorse 'making a baby suck drug-induced, untested secretions from a man's chest to make the man feel nice' (and call it breastfeeding) I am genuinely shocked and sickened by.

Yes. Yet, when asked to detail how a male breast becomes the fully interactive feeding system backed by a female endocrine system, there was nothing but crickets.... I asked three or four times.

Maybe they realised that they exposed themselves as fucking ignorant. But I suspect that they simply don't care. Near enough is good enough.

It is like the endless linking to a study that scanned brains. It didn't control for a few significant things such as sexual orientation, and the results were not 'in the female range', they were still in the 'male range' but tended to be grouped skewing to towards female. Like male testosterone levels can skew 'towards' female naturally but there is no overlap, just that male range is huge and female range is narrow.

But this is where the 'near enough is good enough' concept fits. To them, it data and conclusion integrity doesn't matter. They read something and see that the results are 'towards' or sometimes as in the breast scan 'similar' and they look no further, they don't want to. They have enough misinformation to keep them in a happy zone.

💯 this

💯

If a male breast can produce a liquid, then it must be exactly like a female breast. Near enough is good enough right?

Good point. 'Milk' as produced by TIMs = 'drug-induced moob secretion'

Mind you, years ago when I saw Hatched try that definition, if I remember the post started with a condescending 'sigh' at the start too, but I realised that if you can destabilise a definition enough then you can make anyone believe anything. If they are susceptible at the time. And that susceptibility could be due to having a lack of knowledge, or it could be that the person is invested in needing to accept a definition shaped by theory rather than established fact. There are many reasons to being susceptible.

But some people are deliberately susceptible. They need to adopt a belief that is not based on material reality to explain their own demands.

And everyone else can just be dismissed as ignorant, not being open to new theories that expand one's mind, ie. close and/or narrow minded, and outdated.

Well yes

you can spout all the ‘shifting constellation of data points’ guff all you like. But still only one type of human body can get pregnant, with all that comes with that. Reality just keeps going

" yet both were sneering and patronising about how they were the same and I don't realised just how many women would be reading that thinking.... you ignorant men."

and I don't realised = and didn't realise

that was auto predict that I didn't pick up.

We learn to interact with the world and other people by using language as a tool to communicate our thoughts, using words as labels based on observation.

So, we learn there are two human sexes, and what characterises either sex, and how to describe them.

The creed of gender tells us that this is sinful, and instead we must perform a dance of asking and receiving information that is entirely subjective and not based on any observable characteristics. 'Man' means only an indescribably inner feeling. 'Woman', ditto. Body parts are irrelevant, and there is no way to connect the words to material reality. New labels are created - 'cakegender' - 'nonbinary' - 'femboy' - that cannot be used as tools to point to anything, but are holy words created by individuals, with meanings specific to individuals. Contemporaneously, we are berated for suggesting that words should be tied to material reality (they mistakenly call that 'biological essentialism' - that's a sin!). We're condemned for sinning. ('terf', 'transphobe').

Then, we recite catechism.

It has entirely untethered language from the material world. It destroys the point of language, as a means of communication, a tool, and turns it into a means of manipulation, coercion, and control. We have to memorise the creed, recite the mantras, obey the instructions. We can no longer use our own ability to observe or judge to interact with others; it can only be a system of listening to a set of arbitrary and ever changing rules. This is very destabilising.

Gender language floats on the surface and distorts like a marbled pastel hallucination, but meanwhile, in the real world humans continue to live their human, embodied, lives: breathing, eating, shitting, bleeding, breeding, and dying.