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

Indeed!

Can you give examples of the typical behavioural characterstics of female people? Because your example of a butch lesbian gives the impression you are thinking of gender stereotypes.

My oppression as a woman, the expectations that society puts on me because they read me as a woman are due to my sex. It has no basis in reality, I'm just as capable as my husband of throwing hale bales around. I do a manual and physically hard job. I don't wear makeup, dh has longer hair than I do. However that doesn't stop people constantly looking at dh for approval if I'm making a purchase of equipment, it doesn't stop people handing things to dh if they think strength is required.

Men and women have intrinsic differences strength being the main one, I'm strong simply because my life involves handling heavy stuff - that doesn't make me a man. Transwomen are born male and stay male through their lives no matter how they present, they are in 99% of cases read as men so are treated as such.

Women need single sex spaces based on their biology not on how they present.

"If an individual rejects the gender norms and gender role stereotypes associated with their biological sex, they might be more likely to identify more with the opposite biological sex. That doesn’t mean they are the opposite sex though, does it?"

Depends in what sense. Do they belong in the same 'sex' category in terms of reproductive biological characteristics? No. Do they belong in the same sex category in terms of typical behavioural characteristics? Yes.

Hence depending on an individuals subjective values & characteristics they could identify with either category. For example a butch female bodied person might identify as female or male depending on what aspects of their disposition they most feel defines them.

How on earth do you have medicine without statistical analysis? Or, y'know, counting?

You've hit the nail on the head with that. I guess it's a consequence of your belief system being based on slogans and soundbites rather than consistent principles that have been given more than 5 seconds' consideration.

Right, yet seems like your argument intentionally conflates sex-patterned behaviour and gender role stereotypes, which are two very different things.

No, just the opposite.

"Sex-patterned behaviour means statistical, population-level behavioural tendencies associated with biological sex."

The point is if an individual has more in common with the opposite sex patterned behaviour of one group in terms of inclinations & interests they might be more likely to associate/identify more with them hence gender identification. Being more 'like' one group organically that the other rather than 'copying' another group because of a cultural imposition.

Do you understand the difference?

I think Webberley has spent a lot of time with people with trans identities. She has adopted the position of believing they are the only experts on trans identities that should be listened to and by dint of her spending a lot of time with them, she has acquired expertise.

Hilary Cass pointed out that this position is not appropriate in medicine and that no other area of medicine operates from this position. Webberley is entitled to her view, but her failure to acknowledge or defend within the context of standard clinical protocols makes debate futile. The meme of the pigeon on the chess board comes to mind.

Similarly, she refuses to accept that humans can be divided into males and females, and that a key difference between the two groups is strength - it’s easy for males to inflict harm and overpower females, and they can rape. Here, the refusal to accept universal physiological differences between males and females is strategic. This is the fundamental basis upon which all arguments for single sex provision exists.

If/ where people don’t accept that there are two sexes and there are physiological differences which make females vulnerable, debate is futile.

We see this on this board where contributors disagree with that facts that form this foundational aspect of the GC argument. Discussion is futile and unedifying when this is someone’s starting point. The MO of drawing posters in with a ridiculous and easily refuted claim and then proceeding with obfuscation adds no value to discussions.

If/ where people arguing for males with trans identities to be included in female only provision have a starting point of recognising there are 2 sexes and that males as a class have physiological capability to overpower women as a class, we have a reasonable starting point from which to debate different views.

How would that work for transgender people then when they feel the need to transition prior to taking cross sex hormones? Male transwomen don't have female levels of female hormones so how can that determine their behaviour?

Sounds like a chicken and egg situation.

Typical in terms of the category it emanates from which is aggression.

The point is the difference between stereotypes & sex typical behaviours. Bindel's whole argument is that gendered behaviour is a learned & imposed 'stereotype' rather than an organic phenomena shared by the sexes that implicates interchangebility & by extension legitimises trans people.

Hormones influencing sex distinctions in behaviour isn't in the least scientifically controversial as in for example testosterone influencing increased sex drive & aggression & estrogen influencing mood, sensitivity & caring.

That variations from hormone exposure exist in a minority of cases implicates sexed behaviour non conformity rooted in biological influences.

it turned out to be a weak position

I was almost cringing for HW when she said (I paraphrase from memory and gut reaction) "You're only a mathematician, and mathematicians don't play any role in medicine." What a numpty.

I felt she actually did better against Julie Bindel with her "I'm a scientist so I'm not impressed by your anecdotal evidence."

ETA I felt HW fared better than JB on the issue of detransitioners, because JB relied on anecdotes.On the issue of male violence, Julie has all the evidence she needs.

doesn’t Bindel mean rape as male violence? Which is definitely based on sex. Similar to pregnancy being a female behaviour?

I don’t understand your comments, Howsitgoin, about how there is a biological component to transwomen behaviour. There is nothing from behaviours based on the female sex that transwomen can have.

Bindel makes it clear violence is a male problem & in fact goes to great lengths to refute that females are anywhere comparable when HW claims they too engage in violence which by implication means its more associated with males.

IGNORE HOWSEITGOING.

Just ignore him.

I mean, would anyone with half a brain cell need to consult AI given the obvious weakness in Bindel was she wasn't a medical expert?

That Bindel felt justified in using anecdotal evidence of individual fringe & theoretical cases rather peer reviewed data to make generalisations about an entire group ought to spell out the problem without help surely?

What's to expand? Do you think male violence should be allowed? It's a simple question.