Biology (Bindel) vs Ideology (Webberley) on the Hodge-Cast

https://open.substack.com/pub/thehodgecast/p/my-thoughts-on-the-gender-debate?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Are you suggesting that behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypical feminine manner is the definition of being female and behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypically masculine manner is the definition of being male?

Its typical behaviours not stereotypical behaviours as I explained in the quote you linked.

In terms of self definition as I mentioned upthread that depends what characteristics an individual identifies more with as in their reproductive characteristics or their behavioural inclinations. In the Example Helen Webberley gave of a child observing two distinct groups (males & females) in the playground & categorising themselves according to who they thought they had more in common with pretty much sums up gender identification.

"If so, obviously untrue as behaviours or "presentation" do not define one's sex in "social situations" or any other situation.

Or are you suggesting that stereotypical feminine and masculine behaviours and "presentation" in "social situations" are cues that other people use when they identify someone as female or male?"

You tell me. Can you describe what characteristics/cues you use to distinguish males from females in your day to day interactions with people whose reproductive characteristics you don't know given you usually can't see their gonads or chromosomes?

"If so, true. These cues are generally reliable and are generally correctly interpreted. In very rare instances there may be incorrect identification of sex but, as noted above, that does not change the sex of the person observed."

As I mentioned upthread, given people don't usually 'verify' their categorisations via gonad or chromosomal tests how would you know those 'readings' are generally reliable ? Self evidently, biological variation exists outside of normal ranges not to mention technology has provided for confounding alterations. As far as there being only a minority of cases that are outside the normal ranges its impossible to know the true extent given we haven't tested for billions of people.

As Bindel made the point in the podcast, its impossible to distinguish between the dangerous & non dangerous, the same goes for morphology given the extent of which diversity exists.

"Androgynous people are still male or female and their sex is not dependent on how they are recognised in a social situation, which might anyway differ between the people they encounter."

Certainly not their reproductive sex is dependent on how they are recognised but that's different to whether they or others consider themselves as men/women socially.

In any case, that behaviours change is irrelevant to the point of 'sex' being about characteristic distinctions. Definitions rely on social usage & given societally we usually don't rely on gametes or chromosomes to distinguish men from women in social situations implicates the use of behaviours such as surface level presentation being a definitive sex distinction.

Are you suggesting that behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypical feminine manner is the definition of being female and behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypically masculine manner is the definition of being male?

If so, obviously untrue as behaviours or "presentation" do not define one's sex in "social situations" or any other situation.

Or are you suggesting that stereotypical feminine and masculine behaviours and "presentation" in "social situations" are cues that other people use when they identify someone as female or male?

If so, true. These cues are generally reliable and are generally correctly interpreted. In very rare instances there may be incorrect identification of sex but, as noted above, that does not change the sex of the person observed.

Also rare, when cues are mixed, seem unreliable or are hard to read, people might be unsure of the sex of another person. Androgynous people are still male or female and their sex is not dependent on how they are recognised in a social situation, which might anyway differ between the people they encounter.

Quite. The debate is about her apparent sociopathy. I have just looked up Harold Shipman and he exhibited traits that would be characterised as sociopathic or psychopathic:

• Lack of Remorse and Empathy: Shipman exhibited classic traits often associated with psychopathy/sociopathy, including a profound lack of empathy and remorse for his victims.
• Manipulation: He was known for exploiting his position of trust as a doctor to manipulate patients and the system to avoid detection for decades.
• Debate over Clinical Terminology: While sources often use "sociopath" or "psychopath" interchangeably to describe his cold and heartless actions, it is important to note these are popular rather than formal medical terms.
• Motivation and Complexity: Experts and commentators debate his exact motivations (ranging from a "god complex" to financial gain through forged wills), but many agree he displayed dangerous personality traits that represented a "perfect storm" in combination with his medical knowledge and societal trust.

I would be fascinated to hear a psychologists take on her odd body language and utterly unhinged confidence that she is totally right alongside her readiness to lie and manipulate language to her own ends.

While Webberley professes to feel huge empathy for her clients, and frequently asserts that she is a kind person and a good person (who is she trying to convince?), she acts in a way that disregards all knowledge about their long term health and wellbeing and has a callousness about detransitioners that beggars belief. She has a reckless level of disinterest in the health of the client, putting a mental health condition above all else while denying that it is a mental health condition.

She does not claim the be a doctor (although she still calls herself Dr) so she doesn’t have patients, she has clients who pay her money for drugs. I’m wondering if there is a bit of a ‘god complex’ there?

Fair enough. I didn't mean to criticise her looks, just thought she was a man. Happy to be corrected.

Anyway now all her supporters can say she was called a man on MN.

Lots of women look masculine. I'm sure I don't look adequately feminine enough for some people.
As for "behaving like a man" there is no behaviour that only males can display.

There is a hell of a lot to criticise about HW so no need to go for her looks.

do a google image search and about half of the pictures look like a man. Also it's the way she seems oblivious to what it is actually like to be a woman. At one point she announces, almost as if she herself had temporarily forgotten, 'i am a woman' with no conviction whatsoever. Anyway, either way, her arguments are totally non sensical. She argues for inclusion and that no group of people should be allowed their own spaces. So that would mean no Black therapy centres, no Iranian refugee centres, no Jewish societies etc etc. Because they are not inclusive and being inclusive is being kind and that's what modern people want apparently. On the one hand it's all identity politics, on the other you must include people of all identities. Why do you need an identity so badly if it has no consequences in society whatsoever. It's all absolute drivel. She has such double standards as well. She says that Julie is not allowed to speak on behalf of people she has interviewed but then announces 'i represent trans people'. She is a vicious, dangerous, evil psychopath who i believe is playing out something disturbed from her own history.

wow... not sure I can fully agree with that!

Just instinct - fake voice, very masculine face, masculine neck, masculine shoulders, holds herself as if she is trying to hide, looks like a man in a dress. Behaves like a man. I don't know, it's hard to back fill the details, it was just an instinctive impression as soon as i saw her.

What makes you think she’s male?

Males can never become females. Predators will exploit any loophole they can in order to gain access to potential victims.

Wait, i have got a bit further with the debate and Helen Webberley says at one point that there are no trans people on the panel. Helen is a man, right? Is she seriously suggesting that she is female?

https://substack.com/inbox/post/179708306?utm_medium=ios

This is by the host - some background on the run up and day. Webberley seems to have quite a team behind her.

Every adult who decides to go through any kind of extreme body modifications needs to evaluate the influence it will have on their future life in the society.
It might mean moving from Olympics to Paraolympics (literally or figuratively).

Any adults who perform such extreme body modification on children needs to be jailed.

I agree that in the vast majority of cases, when encountering people in daily life, it’s easy to tell if someone is male or female, regardless of their gender conformity. This can mostly be achieved through looking, and this is easier when seeing someone stand and move around. If that leaves questions, hearing their voice usually clarifies any doubt. Transwomen who have had voice coaching sound like males who have had voice coaching. Females with deep voices sound like females with deep voices!

I also agree that this ability doesn’t involve 💯 accuracy and for the most part, this shouldn’t matter. What difference does it make if the people around me in public settings are male or female. It only matters when using single sex provision and females should not have to second guess. They should rest assured knowing that males will not encroach on female only provision.

Males who use single sex provision for women are violating women’s boundaries and the law. That’s the beginning and end of it.

in the words of JK Rowling: I’ve got this superpower called eyesight.

You are trying to build some alternative definition of sex based on personality. That's impractical at best and dangerous at worst.

I can't build something that already exists. And that something is something Bindel, you, I & everyone maintain when we categorise the sex of people we come into contact with without 'confirmation'.

Yeah, this one. It's interesting, but not the gotcha how some use it.
Yes, if you are struggling to survive, it leads your choices in very practical ways, but more egalitarian in law and some highlevel aspects doesn't mean absence of social gender.

I'm not saying nurture only. I'm saying that the personal variety doesn't make someone the other sex. Or gender in the meaning "which social norm you were subjected to since being a baby". It just makes them an outlier.
Many such outliers acknowledge their sex, recognise that gender sucks but isn't a law and make their lives work as humans, adding their bit to changing the gender norm as they go. Some "go vegan" and base their existence on telling others how they feel wronged by nature, altering the appearance to pretend they are the sex which they are not.

But as I mentioned, socially in practice we usually don't know about those 'shared reproductive parts' so they aren't always relevant when making distinction
Biological sex isn't represented only be internal organs and genitalia. Even your reaction to Aspirin is sex based.

You are trying to build some alternative definition of sex based on personality. That's impractical at best and dangerous at worst.

💯

In line with Webberley, I do believe trans people when they say they are the gender they are! Based on what I understand of gender identity - which is limited because I don’t have lived experience to draw upon - no one other than the gender identity holder can know their gender. My understanding is that the label ‘trans’ only comes in to play when someone’s gender identity is at odds with their natal sex.

Sex, as classification system (with 2 categories within it - male and female), is independent of any constructs beyond sexual reproduction.

Gender identity, as a classification system has many categories, some of which draw upon ideas about the ‘male’ and ‘female’ categories with the sex classification system.

Not everyone human can be classified by gender identity, not everyone has one. The only way to classify people by gender identity is to ask them.

Everyone human can be classified by natal sex. This can be done without asking them, and without reference to anything other than their reproductive system. For over 99% of the population, this is accurately observable at birth.

It really is that simple. Those who struggle to recognise the simplicity tend to be those trying to create a single classification system that combines sex and gender identity. They seek to create Venn diagrams showing overlapping circles linking sex and gender identity. However, the nature of sex classification means the circle for male and the circle for female never overlap - they are mutually exclusive. If you are male, you simply can’t be placed in the female category.

I don't know if I have any difficulty nor do you for that matter given both you & I don't know if we are accurate. How do you know if you are? Do you conduct gonad & chromosome checks on everyone you come into contact with afterwards? Have you conducted these checks on entire populations to prove so?

The 99% 'accuracy' assertion doesn't account for ambiguous cases of which are either genetic & hormonal variants or individuals who never went thru their sex assigned at birth puberty, took hormones & had surgery….like trans people.

Femininity is imposed on women. But that doesn't mean the nature/nurture debate doesn't exist.

Butler isn't a feminist. She seems to hate women. And she most certainly isn't gender critical. She loves gender.

I didn't say you could "always tell". That's your misinterpretation of what I said.

But at least 99% of the time, it's easy for most women to distinguish the sex of another person.

It seems it may be slightly more difficult for men who seem to be more likely to be fooled by superficial appearances, but even most men can correctly sex most people most of the time.

If you have great difficulty with this, you are quite unusual, but you shouldn't assume that others share your disability.

Bindel clearly disagrees when she said in the podcast "femininity was imposed on women" as do many feminists like Butler who claim gender is socially constructed.