Intellectual Dishonesty

[MsBeaujangles]

Yesterday, there was an article on the radio where the case of the women being forced to remain married was being discussed. A women MP who used to be a barrister was talking about the legal ins and outs and spoke for a while about intellectual dishonesty.

For me, this resonates with the TWAW argument. Saying TWAW is a form of intellectual dishonesty. People twisting and manipulating concrete facts to suit a particular world view.

In terms of discussions with MPs and responses to the GRA, perhaps discussing the merits of finding ways forward that involve intellectual honesty might be helpful?

Here are some features of intellectual honesty, as stated on Wiki

▪	One's personal faith does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
▪	Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's <a class="break-all" href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">hypothesis</a>;
▪	Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

The intellectual dishonesty in this debate is mainly on the side of the GC feminists I am afraid.

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman. On the contrary saying that trans women are not women on the grounds of chromosomes, but believing intersex women are women is intellectual dishonesty.

What also is intellectual dishonesty is arguing that GRA reform will lead to thousands of men entering women's spaces. There is no competent legally qualified honest person who would entertain this argument.

On the other hand arguing that the EA exceptions should be broadened is an intellectually honest argument. I disagree, but it is a perfectly valid argument to make.

It comes down to how you define a woman.

Define 'woman' then, SarahAr

Can you also define "trans woman", SarahAr?

Definitions are important.

SarahAR

If the accepted definition of 'women' was devoid of any reference to females, trans activists would not be interested in it. They would come after whatever label was given to females. Denial of this relates to ignorance or straight forward dishonesty.

The intellectual dishonesty lays in trying to suggest simultaneously that sex is important and unimportant. If we didn't need to categorise by sex, then fine, let people opt in and out of sex based categorisation. But sex does matter and nobody is saying it doesn't. However, some are saying it matters except when people have issues with their sex, and for those people it doesn't matter. This is the intellectual dishonesty.

SarahAr:

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

Saying TWAW is either dishonest or a sign of acute lack of understanding. (What some call 'stupidity' -- I refrain.) Take your pick, those who think you believe TWAW; there is no other alternative.

If you want to try to understand, have a go at explaining what a woman is -- or try what several others have suggested, go via a definition of the word 'woman'. Then check you explanation or definition for circularity or other forms of senselessness. It will soon become apparent where your mistakes lie.

On the other hand, if you are not prepared to examine your thought in this way, to hold on to your apparent belief that TWAW becomes another form of dishonesty, allied this time to the lack of understanding I mentioned above.

Sorry, but that is how it is.

The intellectual dishonesty is claiming human beings can change sex when biologically speaking they can not.

@SarahAR

It comes down to how you define a woman. On the contrary saying that trans women are not women on the grounds of chromosomes, but believing intersex women are women is intellectual dishonesty.

I'll bite.

Woman already has a definition. Just the one: an adult human female.

How do we know who's a female and who's a male?

Female conveniently also has just one definition: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)

Anyone who has ever produced even a single ova is female, anyone who has ever produced even a single sperm is male. No one has ever produced both or first one then the other. Transwomen are male, they are not and can never be female. That's just a plain fact. Intellectual dishonestly is pretending you didn't already know that or pretending that these words never had a real definition and were just so vague that it's impossible to know if someone is or isn't a woman.

But what about sterile people, chromosomes, intersex, blah blah blah
That doesn't contradict anything and again you know it doesn't, stop lying. Everyone who's ever produced ovum has something in common - they lack the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. This group of people who lack the SRY gene includes X, XX, and XXX genotypes, and every intersex condition that affects anyone with those genes. Those people all may have ovaries and produce ova, they never have testes or produce sperm. They are all female, and all women. It's bloody insulting for you to declare that intersex women aren't women to try to support your fabrications.

Everyone who's ever produced sperm has something in common - the all possess the SRY gene typically located on the Y chromosome. This group also includes XY, XXY, XXXY and XXmale genotypes (the last one being where the SRY gene has joined on to an X chromosome. They do have a Y chromosome it's just hidden in the X) and every intersex condition that affects them. They are all male, they are all men. Regardless of what they say, men don't redefine reality at their say so.

"Anyone who has ever produced even a single ova is female, anyone who has ever produced even a single sperm is male. No one has ever produced both or first one then the other. Transwomen are male, they are not and can never be female. That's just a plain fact. Intellectual dishonestly ispretending you didn't already know thator pretending that these words never had a real definition and were just so vague that it's impossible to know if someone is or isn't a woman."

^This.

What's an SRY gene (if you don't mind explaining)?

SRY (sex determining region of Y) is an area on the Y chromosome which is responsible for the Male developmental pathway starting.

SRY stands for 'sex-determining region Y', Spartacus.

It comes down to how you define a woman. On the contrary saying that trans women are not women on the grounds of chromosomes, but believing intersex women are women is intellectual dishonesty.

Here we go again.

There is a definition of woman. It’s an adult human female where female is the class which bear live young and produce ova

Do you believe humans can change sex, Sarah Ar?

Because unless you do, your definition includes both sexes and we already have a word for that, which is ‘people.’

So do you believe humans can change sex?

Oh thanks! I wish I could memorise all that!

What also is intellectual dishonesty is arguing that GRA reform will lead to thousands of men entering women's spaces. There is no competent legally qualified honest person who would entertain this argument.

I am a competent legally qualified honest person. I have never seen the claim that "thousands" of men will enter women's spaces. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that that GRA reform (especially if there is no strengthening of the Equality Act) will have no impact on women's spaces.

Self ID in the GRA will result in many many more men being able to hold the protected characteristic of sex as a woman. They will literally be able to "self identify" as legal women.

When this is combined with men's propensity towards violence and sexual violence, it is intellectually dishonest not to think some will use this to the detriment of natal women.

It’s estimated that 6% of men are rapists.

So sarahAr a little over one in twenty of those men entering that female space will be a rapist. Are you OK with that? I’m not. Why are you?

For clarity, I am talking about the male population in general.

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

I completely agree.

So go on then, define it.

There is a mechanism in place to deal with and assess intellectual dishonesty when it comes to MPs and public bodies. These are the Nolan Priciples, now more commonly known as the 7 Principles of Public life.

From the government website:
' The 7 principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in:
-the civil service
-local government
-the police
-the courts and probation services
-non-departmental public bodies
-health, education, social and care services
-The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.

The principles are:

1. Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

1. Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

1. Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

1. Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

1. Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

1. Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

1. Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

If you believe that a statement or action has breached the Nolan Principles then these are the steps:

1. Complain to person/body - 2. Formal Complaint, with time limit for response (e.g. 14 working days) -> 3. Report to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Committee on Standards in Public Life
Room GC07
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ
United Kingdom

Email: [email protected]

They are also on Twitter - @PublicStandards ‏- where I suppose the complaints procedure is less formalised, tag them in with evidence of the statement/action and why you interpret it violates the 7 principles. (Explain which principle and why).

Datun - I have missed you, I don't really come on mumsnet anymore because of the censorship and doxxing debacle

Ofew
Self ID in the GRA will result in many many more men being able to hold the protected characteristic of sex as a woman. They will literally be able to "self identify" as legal women.

If we end up with self-ID in the GRA, with everyone free to choose their own legal sex, then won't the protected characteristic of sex effectively cease to exist? If anyone can identify into the sex of their choice, then the category of sex will become meaningless.

It’s estimated that 6% of men are rapists.

That would mean almost two million men in the UK are rapists. Where is that stat from?

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

In that case there's nothing wrong with saying "Transwomen are male". It comes down to how you define a male.

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

In that case there's nothing wrong with saying "Transwomen are men". It comes down to how you define a man.

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

In that case there's nothing wrong with saying "Transwomen are feathers". It comes down to how you define a feather.

It seems to me that all the intellectual dishonesty is on the transactivism side. The gender critical side constantly seeks intellectual rigor and honesty.

It’s from one of the many studies that have been done which ask men if they have done certain things, and doesn’t use the words ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ to describe them even though they meet international definitions of what rape and sexual assault actually are.

It’s actually one of thelower figures reported in similar studies.

This document lists the studies - you can go from there if you want to read them. www.binghamton.edu/counseling/documents/RAPE_FACT_SHEET1.pdf

They make unpleasant reading. I’ve seen one study done somewhere in Asia that had 60% of married men admitting to raping their wives, but as I can’t find it, we can stick to the several documented studies with the figures in the link.

According to the WHO, at least a third of women worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual violence at the hands of a partner (Devries, K. M. et al. Science 340, 1527–1528 (2013) -- and that's intimate partner violence, not between strangers.

1/6 men being rapists sounds more than probable.