Town Vs Country and believing in GI.

There is no such thing as a 'lesbian' cow. And frankly, anyone destroying a bull for not impregnating cows in the herd has money to burn and little sense.

I seem to have failed in my name change.... (I just read on the comment (?) thing that it will only work in a new post... anyway, hi from polypostwonder!)

I've lived in both towns and more rural environments. Smaller communities tend, in my view, to tolerate other opinions/ behaviours because they may need to call upon your help in an emergency. You try not to piss people off too much. In a town or city there isnt always the same opportunity to trade favours. So while you may get trans people in rural areas you probably dont get the same "everybody hates me/ you are all bigots" type comments because you may need help from those you've just been offensive to.

Yes, in that farm animals (and farmers!) are too worried about the survival of the flock to worry about gender expression. If a ewe acts dominant or a ram acts passive, who gives a fuck, UNLESS it screws up the ability of the herd to survive. That humans (male, female, people who identify as a trans of either type) spend so much time, effort, and money on gender expression, and it has such an oversized effect on how society treats you, is a huge part of the whole problem. It’s starting to get to the point where acting out gender expression is more important than an actual gender. How absolutely fucked.

Do I think “ugly,” “older” women are treated just as disrespectfully by society as trans-women who don’t “pass”? Yes, I do. Because society is, at its core, judgmental of anyone who doesn’t “spend enough” expressing their chosen gender, and for humans, the connection to sex has gotten completely lost under costumes.

I think it’ll get “easier” to have less debate over this as AI progresses. You cannot pretend the answer to “is this likely to be breast cancer” when asking ChatGPT will NOT be affected by your biological sex (whatever it is). And if you put in that your sex is female when it’s actually male, you will be wasting technological advancements that could contribute to human survival (spotting early cancers based on data input).

I'll say this much for you, TransRuralLife, if you're still around, you're a fast learner!

At 17:24 10/05 you posted
I'm not familiar enough with the intimacies of Imane Khelif's biology or life history to make an educated comment.

But by 18:17 you confidently stated that
While the discredited IBA claimed she has XY chromosomes, they never disclosed the exact test results. There has been speculation that it could be 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), but no specific condition has ever been confirmed by Khelif or the IOC or any other source.

Maybe that was just a direct quote that you found quickly and copied straight off the internet - but surely not, because you didn't put it in quotation marks or provide a link to the source, which is the way we do things on this board, we like to be able to check things out for ourselves from primary sources, and form opinions based on as many verifiable facts we can muster.

TheHereticalOne's post at 21:49 10/05 is a good example, with links to not one but three sources.

edited to remove those random asterisks that make you look like you're swearing at someone😦

Ah ok sorry - I thought you were ButterflyHatched under a name change.

Just a reminder that the poster was AidaP and I’m pretty sure he’s still about. He has a very distinctive, wordy, posting style which manages to be simultaneously threatening and condescending.

In my experience the link between people with DSDs and those who consider themselves "trans" is rarely made explicit by those seeking to align the two but, the most coherent interpretation possible seems to go something like:

"Sometimes sex development of humans does not follow the entire usual path for the person's sex (see DSDs) and the expected primary and secondary characteristics for one sex may . Therefore it is possible that those who consider themselves trans have a type of DSD as yet undiscovered by science, despite the fact we've found no scientific evidence of that whatsoever. Therfore they should be grouped and considered together."

I think homosexuality is brought into it on a similar basis, and because people like to say, "human sexual development" rather than "sex development" (I changed my own wording above for clarity) and then get confused between sexuality and sex.

In short, I agree with you, but I also found the DSD rabbit hole very interesing and as a rule I think is generally important to spread accurate information to counter the volume of misinformation that floats around unchallenged.

Polypostwonder gets my vote.

@onepostwonder as you're clearly no longer just plopping one post on a thread and then disappearing off, a name change does seem sensible.

Will you be staying around on here and contributing constructively to the thread, or is it still early days on engaging with the points that people raise?

Although I've disagreed with TransRuralLife above, I do appreciate the actual engagement with the points within the OP. It would be good to see more of that. We don't all have to agree, but plopping is pointless. It's akin to a child sticking their fingers in their ears and running away.

There are some that stay for a while & change their names, like Onepostwonder...

I've never changed my name. I've thought about it though. There's probably a better one waiting out there for me, I've just not found it.

To be fair, I don’t think all of them believe they can actually change sex. But as far as I’m concerned the biggest red line is when they use women’s toilets, changing rooms etc.

It’s all very well saying they’re ’just living their lives’ and ‘be kind’ but if they truly respect & identify with women, they’ll be kind to us by using male spaces.

*by "ploppers" you mean "person who doesn't agree with me" (rude, but ok)

A plopper is someone who posits an argument on a thread - often a shit one with no substance - but never comes back when challenged on it. Generally, they are putting forward TRA points.*

I’ve wondered if there’s some kind of rota. There are some that stay for a while & change their names, like Onepostwonder & the psycho who wanted to rape women with a splintery rolling pin, and others who plop onto a thread, post once or twice & then disappear.

Honestly? In the rural community I live and move in, but also local town, my experience is that no one would really believe this. But I’d say we’re also very tolerant and live and let live.
I would think people are perfectly safe to be who they want to be but in terms of believing people can change sex? Not a chance.

Gender identity - the idea that whether you’re a woman or a man is about feelings rather than biology.

Rural here - what is GI? (Serious Question)

The farmer still using their ‘dead name’ was literal violence and they died. Poor sheep.

I appreciate your post is directed at the OP and you've already had a response to it. I was on the Guardian thread that inspired this exploration of "what world do you live in?" (perhaps you were too?) - but I'm back to my normal bonfirey self on this thread**

Firstly, I think it was a great opening question/theory posed by the OP so I'll give my own thoughts on it before picking up on your points below. @CassOle I personally don't think it makes a difference whether someone is exposed to lambing (or similar) or has always lived in the town/city. Gender identity belief seems to be the default setting in centre or centre left circles regardless, perhaps because most people don't really think about these things much and take things like "sex change operation" at face value. I'm a centre left (probably liberal TBH) type and it was my exposure to the impact of gender identity belief that made me realise I no longer believe that everyone has a gender identity. I think it takes some level of impact exposure in a way that feels personal (it doesn't have to be personal e.g. a non-sporty woman can feel pissed off that women's sports are being destroyed without being impacted herself) for people to question whether they believe in it or not. I suspect exposure to its impact is not directly related to town v country. Also on the lambing point, plenty of medical professionals seem to be fully signed up to gender identity belief, despite its cognitive dissonance with biological fact... so I don't think that it helps to have a first hand experience of animal biology any more than human biology.

Anyway to the points on this comment:

by "ploppers" you mean "person who doesn't agree with me" (rude, but ok)

A plopper is someone who posits an argument on a thread - often a shit one with no substance - but never comes back when challenged on it. Generally, they are putting forward TRA points.

You wondered for some reason if this person who didn't agree with you had ever done any lambing or whether they lived in a town/city (never mind that the two aren't mutually exclusive, or that many rural people have never done any lambing either)

Yes. It was a reasonable point to wonder, as per my comment to CassOle above. You're right that the two aren't mutually exclusive, but that doesn't stop it being a reasonable thought to test out.

You then talked about fashion choices. I'd love it if you could explain this one because it was baffling - how are the clothes one might need to wear when working with animals relevant to a belief in "gender ideology" or trans status or anything related? Do you think there's something in the wellies that would cause an allergy or something?

I took the fashion point to be about whether exposure to the reality of sex differences in a farm setting (and the reality that fashion is pointless in this regard) means someone is less likely to be invested in a belief that everyone has a gender identity. It's a reasonable idea, as the more grounded someone is in reality, the less likely it is that they will look to a belief to explain the many mysteries of life. However, I think you're right that fashion is probably a red herring here: as you said in your next point, there are some very glam farmers who wear all sorts of things when not working on the farm.

You then announced for some bizarre reason that the bimodality of sex is irrelevant when separating breeding stock - in fact it couldn't be more relevant to this activity.

Sex is not bimodal. Therefore, its "bimodality" is completely irrelevant because its bimodality doesn't exist. This video debunks the bimodality point very well: https://theparadoxinstitute.org/videos/is-sex-bimodal

You wondered whether where you live has an impact on belief in "gender ideology". I assume you would include anyone who is trans in your bucket of people who believe in "gender ideology" which is why I inferred from this you thought there weren't any trans people in rural locations or industries.

I would assume the same thing, because if someone says that they are trans, they would have to believe that they have a gender identity. Specifically, they would have to believe that they have a gender identity that differs from their sex (whereas those who describe themselves as "cis" would believe that they have one that matches their sex).

Admittedly, this is a tricky one - personally I don't actually think there is any such thing as "gender ideology", I think it's become a buzzword like "gay agenda" in the 90s intended to make the existence of a group of humans sound more sinister or organised than it actually is.

Perhaps you don't think "gender ideology" is a thing because to you (as a believer that everyone has a gender identity), it's just how you view reality. Similar to how a Christian's reality is that god exists. The main difference here is that Christians recognise that not everyone shares their belief, so they accept that other people's reality doesn't include god existing - and they don't force people to say he does. If you don't see your belief as a belief - if instead you see it as true, provable fact - this could explain why you find the OP's position tricky. It could also explain why you might find non-believers like me annoying or unkind when we say no to society organising itself around your belief e.g. allowing anyone who "identifies as" a woman into women's sports and spaces. That "identity" holds no meaning whatsoever for people who don't believe that everyone has a gender identity, so I'm not going to be forced (or more likely coerced through shaming, like being called a bigot etc) into accepting that it does. By all means live according to your own belief, and it's great that we live in a country where people can, just don't expect me to pretend that I believe it too. And yes, it is sinister and organised when enforced/coerced belief is pushed in schools, hospitals and other institutions as if it's factual. As for a "gay agenda", if that means equal rights for gay people that's good with me. If it means more rights or the taking away of others' rights, no thank you.

But I accept that you believe there's such a thing, so perhaps you could explain what you meant by this category of people and who you'd include in it, if not trans people?

As above. The category of people who believe in "gender ideology" is those who believe themselves to have a gender identity.

** to anyone else who was on the Guardian thread, I'm tempted to call this a detransition 🙃

Edited for typo

I live in a tiny village half an hour from any larger center. It is a lovely village so many of the houses are second homes or now permanent homes of London escapees. Of the ones I know, most of the moneyed incomers believe or nod towards GI. Believe it or 'just be kind'.

Of course I don't go about canvassing opinions but where I do know, most others have no time for it. Many are farmers but there are a variety of jobs, education, backgrounds.

We are a tiny village but we do have some council housing. We have had two cases of men who claim to be women housed here by the council -- not locals. I mean...what are the chances?

As far as I could work it out while I lurked, it was like believing that the sun would come up and set in the evening. Men were men, women were women. What was there to debate about it? One interesting viewpoint from a mum was that it was cruel to let people pretend to be something they weren't because reality wouldn't change.

Surely the existence of homosexuality and disorders of sexual development is irrelevant to any argument about gender identity, regardless of whether in humans or animals?

Doh! And I completely fell for it. So hard to pick up tone online.