Richard Dawkin's new book warns against denial of scientific truth by ‘astonishingly vicious’ trans activists and other threats on science

Trans acceptance is a relative new social phenomena so we are still in the process of 'ironing out' wrinkles so I don't think its accurate to say there hasn't been any progress.

You claimed stereotypes were a problem:

"which argues that women have been unjustly confined by a society in which sex status (i.e. man or woman) is held to require or entail conformity with a narrow stereotypical range of gender presentations and roles."

Which suggested stereotypes shouldn’t be maintained (that you seem to hold trans people responsible for when in fact it's the broader population that enthusiastically do). Your comment implied it's wrong to adhere to stereotypes hence the the logical conclusion being you were taking prescriptivist conformative approach on gender presentation.

"It is only the genderists who take any of those presentational/attitudinal variables and call them markers of womanhood, who tell young girls that they are "really boys" if they find it hard to cohere with gender stereotypes, particularly the male-gaze and/or porn-saturated box that our sexist society drags them towards."

The problem with this analysis is that regardless of what trans people do its the broader population that would continue to maintain limited gendered stereotypes. Gendered stereotypes have been around a lot longer than trans visibility so its patently false to hold them responsible.

The other problem with your analysis is that you seem to b under the false impression that gendered stereotypes are a monkey see monkey do phenomena. That there's no organic inclination influencing choices that maintain those stereotypes. You seem to be implying that embracing femininity or masculinity is a 'copying'/learned phenomena rather than there being any independent internal connection with that choice. It's as good as saying 'if I see gay people I will become gay'. But our choices often have deep evolutionary roots or genetic ones.

Embracing gendered stereotypes is more likely an extension of an evolutionary psychological drive to appear more attractive to the opposite sex so it's unlikely that stereotypes are changing anytime soon regardless how egalitarian society has become.

"It is only the genderists who take any of those presentational/attitudinal variables and call them markers of womanhood, who tell young girls that they are "really boys" if they find it hard to cohere with gender stereotypes, particularly the male-gaze and/or porn-saturated box that our sexist society drags them towards."

Again, no one is 'telling' anyone anything. It's simply a matter of a minority of individuals who consider their femininity or masculinity a defining aspect of their identity & want to embrace it to its capacity.

"Bloody hell. It is incredible, the degree of stubborn persistence in motivated misunderstanding."

Well, if you perceive the world thru the limited lens of contagion & monkey see monkey do it can certainly seem that way.

It's only scientifically false by reproductive standards, not social ones.

when it comes to determining sex, reproductive capability is all that’s relevant (please save your stupid and offensive gotchas relating to infertility and hysterectomies)

As far as infringing on the rights of women go, to suggest competing rights can't be managed is patently false. As we have already seen in both sports & gendered spaces, compromises that are workable have been made.

🤣🤣🤣

can you please describe these workable compromises? Do they involve women ignoring their feelings and taking their clothes off in front of men like Sandie Peggy was supposed to until she malfunctioned and said ‘no’?

And it's not even clear how gender roles are relevant when talking about 'trans' because so many people who now identify as trans don't identify as either male or female, and there is no evidence that people who identify as trans don't retain social behaviours associated with their sex.

Perhaps 20 years ago it was possible to make objective statements about transsexuals, although we know that even then Jan Morris's behaviour was not 'feminine', but that ship has sailed and the trans umbrella now encompasses anyone who wants to be under it.

Feminism is specifically about self determination for women, in the context of an unequal society with structural sexism embedded.

You simply can’t ‘self determine’ into a category you don’t objectively belong to. ‘Woman’ is a sex category. ‘Feminine’ is a social one. ‘Gender’ roles and stereotypes are culturally variable and malleable; sex isn’t. All the words you throw at it cannot alter this.

Thank you Howseitgoin [I like your username, it makes me want to reply 'Grand thanks, and how's yourself?😁] for this from an article you quote

• Genetic sex
• Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
• Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
• Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
• Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)

It is quite a useful 'Naming of Parts' for discussions around sex and gender.
It's not perfect - 'Gender identity' and 'gender expression' are both defined in terms of 'gender', which is not defined, so it's circular and not very helpful.

But overall it is still quite useful, in that 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are both defined as feelings, not facts, one being an 'understanding' and the other an 'expression'.

This separation between observable, verifiable facts, and some people's feelings about those facts, is crucial. Feelings, though important, are individual and varied, and can sometimes be totally irrational, or limited to small sections of the population.

For instance, a tiny 0.5% of the population of the UK - that's about quarter of a million people out of over 45 million people - reported on the Census form that the gender they identify with is not the same as their sex as registered at birth. That's an expression of a feeling about their biological sex, whereas their sex as registered at birth is based on observable and verifiable facts, and can be determined by more detailed examination if simple observation is unclear.

So we know how this very small number of people feel about their biological sex. That's very interesting to them and those around them, but there's no justification for using their feelings as a basis for profound legislative or social change.

Self determination for women, which is an objectively real category. ‘Trans women are women’ is a lie, however many words you try to hide it in.

To expect societal acceptance of self determination as a principle it kinda has to apply to everybody including men & trans people. After all feminism was part of the civil rights movement that was about equality.

“I draw the line at the belligerent slogan ‘trans women are women’ because it is scientifically false,” he said. “When taken literally, it can infringe the rights of other people, especially women.

It's only scientifically false by reproductive standards, not social ones. As far as infringing on the rights of women go, to suggest competing rights can't be managed is patently false. As we have already seen in both sports & gendered spaces, compromises that are workable have been made.

Someone upthread said Dawkins seems very angry. Yes he is at the anti science movement which is being perpetrated in our highest seats of learning. For example, the people on University campuses who say we should reject science and mathematics because they are the inventions of "dead white males."

Jesus Christ, way to completely reverse what I have just said! 'Dictating standards of conformity? I have spoken in every post about diversity within the category 'woman' and criticised the implied conformity that transwomen rely on when they claim that they are women in virtue of the imagined monolithic 'inner experience' of being a woman or in virtue of dressing a certain way or adopting whatever mannerisms, or simply in virtue of making the claim to be a woman.

Retaining the ordinary sense of what women is (i.e. a sex category) provides for infinite variety in ways of being a woman. For one thing, there is the biological variation outlined in the post I originally responded to; there are also many other biological variations. For another thing, regardless of biological variations, women can conform or not conform to every one of the many socially prescribed gender stereotypes associated with sex - the butch lesbian firefighter is as much a woman as the fake-eyelash-wearing wannabe princess.
It is only the genderists who take any of those presentational/attitudinal variables and call them markers of womanhood, who tell young girls that they are "really boys" if they find it hard to cohere with gender stereotypes, particularly the male-gaze and/or porn-saturated box that our sexist society drags them towards.

Bloody hell. It is incredible, the degree of stubborn persistence in motivated misunderstanding.

Self determination for women, which is an objectively real category. ‘Trans women are women’ is a lie, however many words you try to hide it in.

“I draw the line at the belligerent slogan ‘trans women are women’ because it is scientifically false,” he said. “When taken literally, it can infringe the rights of other people, especially women.

I admire your consistency! But given the essence of feminism is self determination, dictating standards of conformism is hardly aligning with it in fact that's what The Patriarchy were all about.

Thanks for that excellent and clear explanation @RoseAndGeranium
It's oddly soothing to read a bit of sanity for a change!

Basically, until it started affecting them due to the authoritarian nature of TWAW impacting their freedom of speech, plenty of men, Dawkins among them, firmly thought women should put up, shut up, and offer themselves as a resource to the sad men with the lady brains

He seemed, like many men, to have respect and admiration for James/Jan Morris, though....not seing through the facade.

Yes it was fascist bullshit. It's good to understand things though in order to protect yourself from it.

I did the unthinkable and quoted from it the other day whilst talking about how Farage lies and why people believe him.

The quote was about the concept of The Big Lie and how you use the state to uphold The Big Lie and how you repeat The Big Lie means that people believe The Big Lie.

I also talked about how Big Lies don't just come from the right. They can come from all political quarters or even for marketing purposes.

TWAW is a good example of a Big Lie that could only be maintained by authoritarian methods.

Thus it is useful to know and understand things and it is idiotic and dangerous to dismiss what fascists said as something we should avoid reading because of a crazy notion that if we read it we somehow will become contaminated by it and being tainted or become fascists. This mentality assumes that people only become fascists because they read certain things rather than understanding that these propaganda techniques are far more widespread than that and actually it's quite useful to know how they work. For our own protection against such forces.

The reality is that the truth can only be hidden for so long. We handicap ourselves though, if we decide to adhere to purity spirals of approved and non approved reading because we create political blind spots and unwittingly make ourselves ignorant to how others think.

Your attitude is fucking nuts and ridiculous. You don't have a desire to stop fascism. You have a desire to virtue signal.

If you had a desire to stop fascism you would try to understand the enemy so you could defeat it.

I remember well his craven tweet.

Yup. And he's still banned from the women's changing rooms.

Aw, is chappie treating us to yet another helping of his super feminine logic and rationale?

kudos to the women responding to him with scientifically literate factual posts, but he ain’t never gonna hear you. He can’t. The lady fantasy is too important to him

Of course. That is what feminism is.

You also don't understand how discussion boards work. LOL. And multiplying your word salad by 100 doesn't change biology. Men can NEVER be women.

As earlier you didn't understand caps. The word 'never' in the sentence above in in caps. And in case that's unclear to you, given your comprehensive skills, caps means capitals.

Come on howseitgoin, what have we said about repeating the same old boring arguments. We’re looking for something original!

“Intersex = sex is complicated”

Are you really this uninventive?!

Will you be maintaining that energy for the majority of the population too?

’Metal traps for burglars’ 😂

... trans people are only abiding by them as most of us do.

Well, no. Most feminists are challenging them, while many trans people are straightforwardly relying on them.

"The tiny minority of people whose sex categorisation is complex (complex rather than 'ambiguous') are not identical with (or even mostly overlapping with) people who have a trans identity. Trans and DSD conditions are different things."

Yes I have made that point already. Their commonality lies in both are products of biological variation.

"Feminism (real feminism) has always insisted on diversity within the sex category 'woman'. It is the genderists who look for uniformity. The ineffable inner sense of being a woman, or the trappings of 'living as a woman' are held by them to be both clear and sufficient markers for 'womanhood' despite the fact that there is, in fact, no uniformity in these respects for actual women."

Some people's natural inclinations don't necessarily align with societal expectations and norms dictating how individuals should act, think, and behave based on their reproductive sex category. Society as whole has constructed gender categorisations, trans people are only abiding by them as most of us do.