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

Is that in reply to my post at 09.42? I hope not. You have been very forthcoming with your responses to other posters so far, Howseitgoin, so I look forward to seeing how you respond to the points I made in my post.

I’m still trying to understand how we decide who gets to take a dump in the ladies lavs. It’s sounding like some sort of test to measure neuroticism and agreeableness is now in order

Like fuck has Howse ever read a Germaine Greer book from cover to cover.

Stand by for more links about sex and behaviour as per all the other threads. Incoming in 3, 2,1…

It seems like there are no observable verifiable facts because the terms of reference are "feelings" when in fact there are observable facts in terms of behaviour. Personality traits are a biologically driven phenomena that manifest in behaviours that are sexed in terms of averages. IE men tend to be more violent than women, women tend to be more agreeable & neurotic than men These averages can be measured in terms of offending rates, job choices, hobbies, consumerist & life choices etc.

Now I'm not suggesting an average behaviour denotes sex of an individual but here's where societal expectations come in that drive self categorisations. 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 & as such identify their own behavioural characteristics with the social expectations of the opposite sex.

Can we 'prove' an individual is a better fit with the opposite sex? I don't think we need to unless competing rights clash like sports & housing that can & is being managed so women's & trans rights aren't mutually exclusive.

Most major sports organisations have made rule adjustments, gender affirming care is under much stricter access, some countries have changed laws & policies on private spaces & housing where there has been a public demand.

I think you are confused about what feminism is.

Feminism is about women's equal participation in society.

I'm not sure how you define 'self determination', but it usually refers to forming a government which isn't relevant here, or the ability to control your own life, which is obviously limited by both the laws of time and space and the laws of society.

Maybe you are confusing feminism and anarchy.

Most major sports organisations have made rule adjustments, gender affirming care is under much stricter access, some countries have changed laws & policies on private spaces & housing where there has been a public demand.

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.

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.

It seems like there are no observable verifiable facts because the terms of reference are "feelings" when in fact there are observable facts in terms of behaviour. Personality traits are a biologically driven phenomena that manifest in behaviours that are sexed in terms of averages. IE men tend to be more violent than women, women tend to be more agreeable & neurotic than men These averages can be measured in terms of offending rates, job choices, hobbies, consumerist & life choices etc.

Now I'm not suggesting an average behaviour denotes sex of an individual but here's where societal expectations come in that drive self categorisations. 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 & as such identify their own behavioural characteristics with the social expectations of the opposite sex.

Can we 'prove' an individual is a better fit with the opposite sex? I don't think we need to unless competing rights clash like sports & housing that can & is being managed so women's & trans rights aren't mutually exclusive.

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.

It's not clear what your argument is here. Many individuals consider gardening to be a defining aspect of their identity and want to embrace it to its full capacity, but they still aren't allowed to steal flowers.

Your response doesn't answer Bernard's question at all.

What do you define as "progress" @Howseitgoin ?

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.