Talking to non GC people

I don't think clicking on those links is a good plan tbh...

Wow! Well spotted.
@QuickJadeFinch's response to you doesn’t deny it so presumably she hadn’t even followed the links herself.

Edit; I should have written GC "ideology" indeed
Not that it is an actual ideology as QJF seems to assume in their reply to me

My thoughts exactly!

🤨

Quick is coming across as really creepy in their latest posts.

No. Something being "automatic" (by which I assume you mean you do it without thinking enough about it, rather than your computer does it for you) is not a defence. Context is important, and what is acceptable and correct in academic writing may well be jarring and unnecessarily pedantic and unkind on a forum like this.

@Quickjadefinch could you maybe make the case for the benefit to society in general and women in particular (as this is a feminist board) for allowing people to participate in sport and uses single sex spaces designed for the opposite sex?
Because whether gender identity is a real scientific thing or not, doesn't to me make a great deal of difference to how we manage spaces and activities where biological sex matters.
I think separating people on the grounds of sex for sport, and allowing women to have spaces where they can be away from male people if they choose is important, and I would need to see a very strong argument that dispensing with such was more beneficial to women than not.
Do you have one?

What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links.

I clicked on a handful of those links. Quite a few led to "Page not found". One was titled "How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity". Another was about lack of grief counselling during the pandemic. What on earth are you up to?

GC ideology indeed.

Indeed.

I've tried to figure out what this paper is about, but that's too advanced mouse biology for me! I'm not sure why @QuickJadeFinch included it in the list.

As far as I know, mice don't have genders. Are there cases of female mice acting like male mice, or vice versa? Now that would be interesting to me!

I think this poster is familiar; I am sure I've read this style of posting before, with the same arguments

GC ideology indeed.

You are in error, which you'd know if you'd read my response to her.

I stated very clearly that "My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody" and that "whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant."

That she misinterpreted it as an attack is an understandable mistake and one that required the clarification I gave. The fact that, even with that clarification, you have continued to assert the same reflects badly on you, not on me.

Some studies on AGP in those links too. Seems like a bit of an obsession for some.

No she pointing out that your pointing out my grammatical mistakes due to my dyslexia in the way you have makes you look like a complete condescending dick.
Hope that helps

One of those links agrees with the GC position that treating sex and gender as synonymous is unhelpful.

Oh joy, new year new visitor to turn up with a load of stuff that's been taken apart a 1000 times before

i couldn't give a fuck whether a man reeeeeaaaaly believes he's a woman , he's not and he never will be. The idea that womanhood can be a set of stereotypes that can be performed by men is utterly insulting and fucking ridiculous

I'm infertile, can I go around insisting I'm a mother because I reeeeeaalky feel like one? How about if I stuff a cushion up my jumper? Or carry a doll about and pretend to feed it? What about if I go on maternity wards and insist they allow me to 'give birth' even though im not and can never give birth? Abd then call them infertilephobic if they say no? After all I reaaaaally believe I'm pregnant/a mother? What about if I get a certificate saying I'm a mother even though I'm not?

or would that be really mad/ridiculious/fucking insulting?

@Seethlaw thanks for contributing from a trans viewpoint.

And of course, if you can shed any light on how the findings of
"Sex-specific mouse liver gene expression: genome-wide analysis of developmental changes from pre-pubertal period to young adulthood" have revolutionised your life, I'd love to hear it

🤣
I dont have confirmation bias on this subject, I have lived experience that has informed my opinions on this subject. I have read and understood many pro and anti gender ideology research papers. The anti gender ideology papers have minimal confirmation bias however every single pro gender ideology papers are riddled with it, you many not like this fact or the fact that they all seem to cite previous unevidenced papers to shore up their conclusions. When you dig down through all their links conclusions and "peer reviews" each and every paper falls down because there is no evidence for anyone having a gender identity

As for the original topic of this thread:

I don't get to discuss my GC views much. It's just not a topic that comes up. Then again, I have very few friends and relatives to discuss stuff with to begin with, and there's an understanding that too-political topics should be avoided at my place of work.

But interestingly, the one relative I talk to about GC stuff has turned, not so slowly and very steadily, into a full-blown "terf" herself, both from what I shared of my opinions, and from watching detransitioners' videos online. She's someone who ponders her opinions A LOT, and tries to be as kind and fair as she can to as many people as possible; yet, she can't agree with what's being done to the so-called "trans kids", and she's getting more and more fed up with transwomen trying to steal everything and every space from women. Yet another case of someone educating herself and becoming firmly GC.

Utterly irrelevant. My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody. It is the correct use when quoting text that contains an error.

As to whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that a wrong opinion should never be challenged simply because of a characteristic of the person espousing it? Do you?

Your “science” is nonsense, as those of us with relevant knowledge, training and experience are well aware.

I think that poster is dyslexic?
I imagine it made you feel better to correct her though.

So, some people believe they have a gender identity that is usually associated with the opposite sex, or that is associated with both sexes? Fair enough.
How does that justify allowing male bodied people into spaces designed for the protection and privacy of female bodied people?
Because women's single sex spaces are not there so we can all get together and express our female gender identity together.
They are there because our bodies mean we need certain protections. Whether this be a space that bans all males to ensure harmful ones can be excluded, or a sport where to compete alongside males means we don't stand a chance and may be badly hurt.
The right to express a particular gender identity cannot supercede sex based rights and protections.