Are mumsneters TERFs

[ChedderGorgeous]

I started a thread on the new taskmaster line up here. This greatly angered a taskmaster fb group who screenshot the conversation and agreed all mumsnetters were TERFs. AIBU to suggest this isn't the general perception of others when you have mentioned mumsnet ? Ps. I still haven't heard of John Robins !

Agree

That's a different conversation. You asked who was rejecting trans identity (implying no-one was) and I answered that there are some on the previous pages.

Thanks for posting Sir Robert Winston. Seems pretty clear. I'm a TERF like him.

Sex is in every cell of your body. And if you're a woman you don't need to be silenced and marginalised, your safe spaces put at risk because other people believe vehemently otherwise.

If a trans person died and their bodies was found some time later after the make up had wiped away and the clothes rotted. The DNA would say irrefutably what their sex was. It's not the wrapper it's your DNA and every single cell.

And I don’t think Helle’s statement is proven. How could it be

If you have evidence that anyone, in the history of the world, has produced both gametes, do post it.

The rest of us will use our rational brains to draw our conclusions.

I didn’t say I had evidence of that. I said I liked her description of biological sex as a body organised around the production of smaller or larger gametes. I said I felt that her statement that “no body in the history of the world has produced both gametes”, was too absolute, and I haven’t seen any scientific validation of that. I also said thar we do know , very well, at least, that there are bodies That do not produce one or other but rather produce gametes that have both testicular and ova elements, this is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that bodies (and sex) are not as simple or binary as that statement was trying to imply. I also said that none of this provides a very accurate definition of gender .

I said I felt that her statement that “no body in the history of the world has produced both gametes”, was too absolute, and I haven’t seen any scientific validation of that.

If you're not prepared to take a lesson from millions of years of observed human experience, I don't think anyone can help you there Tandora 🙄

I said I felt that her statement that “no body in the history of the world has produced both gametes”, was too absolute

That's what the evidence suggests. Is the statement "there isn't a teapot orbiting the moon" too absolute?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Tandora, I don't think you know what a gamete is...

Just because the definition of sex in humans (and mammals!) is slightly more complex than the simplified XX/XY chromosome definition (which although simplified, in fact is correct for ~99% of the population) does not mean it is not possible to observe it or that it is not binary. Nor that it is real and meaningful in specific situations. Or transphobic.

( I liked her description of biological sex “as a body organised around the production of smaller and larger gametes”, as it captures well, that biological sex is a dynamic and complex developmental process, that has multiple parts).

The presence of a ‘streak’ gamete does not mean that that gamete is working. There have been cases of very very rare (I believe 500 people thereabouts) of ovotestes conditions. These are more difficult to categorise. But no, not even there does their bodies produce both.

So, if you want to discredit what I have said, I suggest you find the papers that state that a human has produced both ova and sperm.

I have read quite a lot of opinion from various developmental and evolutionary biologists on this topic and have taken this description on after robust discussion on MN about people with differences of sex development. A great many DSDs are particular to the sex the person is. And again, people with DSDs do not wish to be used to destabilise known science about sex categorisation.

So, if you want to discredit what I have said, I suggest you find the papers that state that a human has produced both ova and sperm.

Yes.

Gonads can be "streak", not gametes. Gametes are egg or sperm cells.

As someone who would have gladly transitioned as an early teen and made the worst mistake of my life, I’m a TERF.

Sorry. I am typing on my phone and was interrupted with a work call.

Yes. Streak gonads. You are absolutely right.

The presence of a ‘streak’ gamete does not mean that that gamete is working

I didn’t say those gonads were “working”. What is the relevance here? Are you suggesting that having “working gonads” is a precondition for defining one’s biological sex?

And again, people with DSDs do not wish to be used to destabilise known science about sex categorisation

And again, “people with DSDs” are not a monolith with a collective opinion on this topic, and even if they were, you would not speak for them

Oh Tandora.
we didn’t even know about germs and bacteria until last century either.

Sex is determined at conception. The ova (egg) always carries an X, the sperm carries an X or a Y. Permutations exist, in very small Numbers.
XX is a girl. XY is a boy.

Sex is observed and recorded at birth.

Yes, there is a very small number of humans born where the genitals are underdeveloped - now the dr can test them for their chromosomes. Wonders of the modern world, innit.

Transexuals are either men who wants to be women OR women who wants to be men. Therefore TW cannot be women, or they would completely cease to be trans(sexual). Ditto for TM. It is simply not possible.

‘Trans’ means ‘on the other side of’.

SEX segregated spaces are not for the other sex. Regardless of how they perceive themselves. That may seem harsh to them, but it’s just one of those things.
Third space is your friend here.

Anyways have to dash to look after the kids. Perhaps catch some of you later if I have the resilience 🤪

Describing the sex of a person as having a body formed around producing a particular gamete does not make sex a spectrum or in doubt or anything like that. It removes this whole discussion of ‘whatabout’ scenarios.

Even though sex is complex and has different elements to be considered, it IS categorizable and medical staff do this as necessary by looking at the different elements, I believe. Some conditions can be more difficult than others but bodies are ultimately either male or female.

I didn’t say those gonads were “working”. What is the relevance here? Are you suggesting that having “working gonads” is a precondition for defining one’s biological sex?

It's all just sophistry, @Tandora. You know there are only two sexes. Having working gonads is not a prerequisite to being male or female but we know that no one has both functioning sets. Humans are sexually dimorphic. Being unable to reproduce doesn't constitute a different sex to male or female.

Many of them, yes. I expect to get deleted/suspended/banned post haste, because they sure as hell don't like this being pointed out and HQ have made it clear that they don't like it either. Fine with nasty bigoted remarks and dogwhistle hints though.
Still needs saying.

"Circular argument" like a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, for instance? Figures

Many of them, yes.

Care to be more specific? What transphobia have you seen?

Go on @Circularargument have a go at justifying why women shouldn't be able to have single sex spaces when they need them for their safety, privacy and dignity. Do your bit for your cause.

I do not speak for them at all. I convey the message I have been told directly people with DSDs.

The ‘relevance’ comes down to that a body ‘may’ be successful in producing one gamete or the other while still having a streak gonad of the other sex, but not both. And I am talking about in specific cases where streak gonads are present. Not in any other case. I expect it becomes relevant for that final categorisation of the difficult cases.

And to be doubly clear; NO sex categorisation does not require the production of gametes. Hence my very clear statement that it is regardless of whether a body has, is or will produce gametes.

biological sex is a complex, dynamic ,
developmental process with multiple parts. It is not a single , unitary , measure, into which all bodies can be meaningfully categorised into one of two mutually exclusive options.
Yes, there is a powerful binary which underlies sex-development processes , and this can be used as an approximation for classifying the majority of bodies, but this is not an absolute.

Nor would I say that sex is a “spectrum”. Assuming that everything can be classified either as a “binary” or a “spectrum” is another over simplification/ example of binary, black and white thinking.

Biological sex is complex, and just as there is not one single , unitary measure that can defined biological sex, biological sex does not absolutely define gender.

Yes biological sex is an important part of the picture, and for most people gender identity will develop as predicted by biological sex, (just as , for most people , biological sex will develop as predicted by karyotype). For some people, however, this is not the case.

We do not yet understand the aetiology of gender variant development, current science and scientific technologies have not taken us that far. That does not mean that gender is “not real” or a “personal belief” etc. we dont know the aetiology of many many conditions, that we also can’t objective test
for or externally “observe” , that doesn’t mean they aren’t real. ASC for example.