Even Lord Winston is pulling punches now

[flyingbuttress43]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuLt3x8tbEc

Lord Winston has been praised e.g. on Question Times for pulling no punches re changing sex e.g. sex is immutable.

But in this interview he seems he is pulling back from answering straight questions and changing the narrative. Weird. He demurred from answering 'what is a woman' by saying it was the wrong question to ask and went off at a tangent....

What's going on?

Gargh! I have no sound at the moment. Hopefully someone kind will supply a transcript... But that doesn't sound right, does it?

Can you not click on the CC button to bring up subtitles?

It is an area of some complexity. I don’t think he pulls back. You cannot change your sex. He still says that.

Can I? Really?

Every day is learning day! Thanks.

Happily even a quick scan show him going right back to basics.

He does say that there hasn't been a huge amount of research into the magnitude of change that occurs at puberty, but that doesn't matter because, biology.

And more biology.

And then some more

Watching this I'm finding what Lord Winston is saying to be very unlike how the OP described it.

After making the T**F-y comments he made in that interview, he might be hoping trans activists don't get hold of his address.

I don't think defining anybody is quite the right question to ask. I think what we need to ask is what is the fundemental difference between men and women, boys and girls, or between the two sexes. And there are fundemental differences which are quite clear.

With regard to ... I think there's a confusion here between ones sex and ones gender. Gender reassignment is possible to have organs removed or other mutilations including for example giving drugs which might change the way you feel and how your body behaves but that's not the same as changing your sex, you can't change your sex, because your sex is defined it quite a different way.

I didn't feel he pulled any punches to be honest. He was not emotional, came across well I think. It was a sensible interview from both parties. He looks quite down trodden though. I hope he is ok.

I may be agreeing with him that it is the wrong question, in my view because it's a media game to catch people out, which is trivialising but also a distraction from asking important other questions about women's rights, for example, and the mess that the law and our administrative processes are in.
But it depends on what else he is saying. Maybe he wants to avoid the trivialising tendency of the media.

I think he just wants to talk about biological reality. Seems alright to me.

There are five ways we can define sex, one of course is basically how we look, for example having sex organs like breasts, a penis, a uterus and so on. That's one ... now of course you can remove breasts, you can remove a uterus, you can actually change the morphology, that is, the shape, of the human body by doing that but it is of course a form of mutilation when doing that.

I understood his responses to be Lord Winston operating within his competences. He's a scientist/doctor, not a politician or a media talking head.

I thought he was quite clear. He just said that what we should be looking at is how the sexes are different and not to confused sex with gender.

Seriously? He could hardly be clearer. And used the m-word (correctly), which will absolutely infuriate many.

I feel like he was very clear, spoke really quite unemotionally and didn't pull any punches - he just spoke about biological facts.

Did I watch a different interview to you OP?

He points out that the differing characteristics of male and female bodies develop from the foetus being in utero. Even if you change the hormones, it’s probable that the differences will remain.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

@ZaraSizeMedium

I don't think defining anybody is quite the right question to ask. I think what we need to ask is what is the fundemental difference between men and women, boys and girls, or between the two sexes. And there are fundemental differences which are quite clear.

With regard to ... I think there's a confusion here between ones sex and ones gender. Gender reassignment is possible to have organs removed or other mutilations including for example giving drugs which might change the way you feel and how your body behaves but that's not the same as changing your sex, you can't change your sex, because your sex is defined it quite a different way.

That seems very clear. And interesting that he said mutilation. People have had strikes on here for using that word.

I thought he was very clear on what a woman is and what a man is. I don't think he went off topic - he said there are differences and went on to explain them. A good, unarguable response- I hope some of his Labour colleagues were listening.

And interesting that he said mutilation. People have had strikes on here for using that word.

I thought so, which was why I avoided it.

Top man. And I’m so glad he dared to say mutilation, which is absolutely correct.

I think it is good he said that. Surgery of any form is a fairly violent procedure towards a body. Often it is necessary to support a person continuing to live. But it has always seemed to me to be something to take very seriously and not lightly. I've had several surgeries, all of them "necessary to support normal living". But I am of the age that I remember when cosmetic surgery became "a thing". Prior to that explosion of people getting "work" done, it would have been considered very ill advised and foolish. I am still not convinced to this day. Surgery is a "mutilation" even if sometimes it is necessary.

I think what went on with the OP is that they watched the start in which it appeared to be Lord Winston stepping away from the "woman question", an alarm went off, and the OP started the thread. That's understandable in the current climate but fortunately not relevant here, what followed was very much in the vein of Lord Winston not being confused over the material reality of sex.

@JoodyBlue

I didn't feel he pulled any punches to be honest. He was not emotional, came across well I think. It was a sensible interview from both parties. He looks quite down trodden though. I hope he is ok.

He didn't look downtrodden to me, he looked weary. Maybe he's wondering how we've got to the point where so many humans are unable to distinguish between the sexes of their own species.

Ooooooh, the ‘M’ word.
I agree with PPs, he was very clear.

How has he ‘changed narrative’? Has he ever said anything different?

He couldn't have been clearer imo.

And he's right, "What is a woman" is the wrong question.