Stonewall and Kelley at it again - "Modern culture has a vested interest in pretending that only female and male exist" 🙄

[Fenlandia]

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1560163238129680385

""Modern culture has a vested interest in pretending that only female and male exist because enemies of LGBT people recognise it’s important to erase intersex people in order to uphold homophobia"

Links to this article www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/it-s-hard-to-come-out-as-intersex-people-still-don-t-know-what-it-means-1.4073377

Even if this were true, it still doesn't make any sense whatsoever, it's just a word salad to me and I'm probably better informed than the general public on what "intersex", aka VSDs or variations of sexual development, are.

As always I feel for that community who are being dragged into the pseudoscience and queer theory bollocks being spouted by a major, well-respected (not be me) charity.

@BoredofthisCrap7 thanks for this

"It is always worth noting in threads about DSDs, that the trans population have no more incidence of DSD diagnosis than the rest of the population at large.
There is no link."

THIS needs to be highlighted EACH and EVERY time this conversation comes up.

The Irish Times article says:

[...] I can understand why straight intersex people might not feel that way ["super grateful" to be included by the LGBTQIA+ community] as being intersex is obviously not a sexual orientation. But neither is being trans and it's obvious how positive their inclusion in the community has been given how much progress the trans community has made despite being a smaller population, statistically, than intersex people.

Not so positive for LGB people though...! The "progress the trans community has made" has been at a terrible price for others.

From that Helen Joyce thread, there’s this fascinating document, written by a DSD charity in Scotland and presented to the Scottish Government, that puts actual numbers into context:

130 children born in the UK each year with a DSD
Of these, only 7 or 8 will be considered ambiguous enough to warrant further investigations to establish their sex.

archive2021.parliament.scot/S5_European/Inquiries/CensusBill_DSDFamilies_CTEEAS518CB33.pdf

ok, but those numbers exclude the much less rare turner/xyy type DSD's, where sex is in no way ambiguous but does come with a few modest, apologies if this word is offensive, abnormalities.

Those figures are interesting. I've read things lately suggesting that DSDs are really not very rare which doesn't chime with my experience. I've never knowingly met anyone with one nor met anyone who knew of anyone.

TRAs like to quote a figure of 1.7% for intersex. This, as usual, is arrived at by redefining terms and dodgy statistics. The actual figure is 0.018%, almost 100 times lower.
Here is the story pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

Bit of a boo boo there about 'intersex' being included under the 'trans umbrella' in the Scottish census. Someone has egg on their face. Very cogently written document. Best information I've managed to fund about people with DSDs. They certainly deserve our support and respect.

130 children born in the UK each year with a DSD

Out of 680,000+ live births in a year (2020 figure).

However, that material is not written clearly. I had to burrow through a number of references to make something of the figures.

The 1.7% is Fausto-Sterling. Sax is the primary source of the challenge to that claim and provides the ca 0.02% and should have been used as the footnote reference.

Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

Sax L. How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. J Sex Res. 2002 Aug;39(3):174-8. doi: 10.1080/00224490209552139. PMID: 12476264.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

the much less rare turner/xyy type DSD's, where sex is in no way ambiguous

This paper is a reasonable discussion of the history of both Turner and Klinefelter Syndrome (amongst others) being included or excluded from DSD/VSD.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5808814/

The claims about DSDs being more common are rooted in the false narrative that conditions like PCOS (which I’ve got) and hypospaedia are DSDs.

Thjs is the latest from UK Biobank, estimating that 1 in 500 males do not have a simple XY genotype. Some are XXY and other XYY, the majority did not know, were unambiguously male and had never had to seek medical attention as a result.

unherd.com/thepost/is-the-trans-lobby-manipulating-science/

Even more reason to stop force teaming DSDs with the T and certainly a very strong argument to stop using the term of intersex.

I was "told" by a rampant TRA on another forum (when discussing Caster Semenya who, they had mistakenly asserted, was a biological female who just had high testosterone, a "fact" which I put them straight on much to their embarrassment), that PCOS was just the same thing, that Caster was just the same as a woman with PCOS.
When I went on to say that I myself have PCOS and am very much a woman, the TRA suggested that I am only "considered" a woman, that I have a DSD, and from there the conversation very much deteriorated lets say!

So there you have it.
Men who say they are women, actually ARE women, but women (who ARE women) are only "considered" women.

All very clear and sensible.

Again, all feeding into their narrative.
Practically EVERYONE has a DSD, therefore there is no "real" sex, male and female don't exist and if they do they are interchangeable, you can be whatever you want, whenever you want to.

The key word is "development". Disorders (or variations) of sexual DEVELOPMENT. As in, being born with the condition.
"Disorders of sexual development (DSD) encompass a group of congenital conditions associated with atypical development of internal and external genital structures."
Not something you acquire like PCOS.

I was told the same by a TRA on Twitter @BoredofthisCrap7. My pointing out that I’ve conceived (with NHS assistance), gestated and birthed 2 offspring is apparently not conclusive proof that I am a woman 🧐

When it comes to idiots spouting that sort of inanity re PCOS (yes, me too) there really is no arguing with stupid.

For some reason this thread has me humming
'Don't know much about history,
Don't know much biology
(Also don't know much about anthropology)
Don't know much about a science book
Don't give a shit about the rights we took...

Carrying on from ErrolTheDragon's lyrics....

But I do know I'm X and X
and it makes me of the female sex

What a wonderful thing to be me!

And the B.

I am bisexual because I like having sex with males and females.

Don't know much about spectrography
Don't know much immunology
Don't know much about karyotypes
Don't know what a sequencer's for

The extraordinary contortions these people need to go through to make an argument, that is essentially unmakeable, never ceases to amaze me.

The extraordinary contortions these people need to go through to make an argument, that is essentially unmakeable, never ceases to amaze me.

I think this happens because they are terrified of being the baddie. People who do this think of themselves as left-wing and therefore inherently fair-minded and on the moral high ground. They have been conned, and have absorbed, that they must defend all gender ideology and trans identity because to not do so is to be the same kind of bigot as a homophone, racist, or even worse, Tory. They must defend it or they're basically Tommy Robinson. Instead of thinking it through and wondering how and why they've been made to feel this way and looking at the evidence, they scramble up the purity spiral using whatever daft arguments they can grasp at.

They don't even wonder how it is that feminists and same-sex attracted people wanting their rights, and those who want to safeguard kids, according to the actual letter of the law, are the "baddies" they have been instructed to hate.

If sex is a spectrum you can be homosexual. Because its bigoted to say you are only attracted to one sex. Because there isn't a binary sex.

Stonewall are playing to form with this. Proper DARVO.

Its more grifting to try and keep their cash cow alive. Its cynical and deliberate exploitation of a marginalised group for the benefit of a separate group. It feeds on public ignorance of DSD. It isn't the line for those who actually in this group. Its the removal of agency and self determination and advocacy of another minority.

Everything about it stinks to high heaven.

Stonewall are the high priests of trojan horse ideology and deniers of reality.

But yes. The earth is 100% flat. Let's hope Stonewall fall off the edge of it.

Sorry that should read.
If sex is a spectrum you can't be homosexual

When you look at some of the long threads where the conversations go on long enough, you actually start to find the mask slips and what you have is someone who actually is homophobic, is in essence a believer in male supremacism, etc, and has just had to dress it up in a whole lot of burble and language layers to be able to admit to it. Which demonstrates that they know in essence they're holding unacceptable views and feel shame about them, and are managing a complex mental juggling act to hold those views anyway. As one poster told me having explained that being homosexual was morally wrong and lesbians learning to cope with straight sex was ok, they identified as being liberal and not believing in coercion. Basically they identified as being nice while holding wholly conflicting beliefs.

Also a whole lot of belief expression about 'rights and privileges are for me and mine, and anyone Not Like Me/Us is subhuman and should have none of my entitlements while at the same time they should meet my entitlement without resistance'. The double standards are often plain to see. Lundy Bancroft's written a lot about the personality types that believe in double standards of entitlement to service without reciprocation and the dynamic of abusive relationships.

… because if not everyone is male or female then obviously it’s natural that not everyone is straight.

Eh?? Is that what they call a non-sequitur? 🤔

This recent thread is quite interesting.

Concept of ‘exclusively same sex attracted’ www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4606346-concept-of-exclusively-same-sex-attracted

Artichoke yes I agree, there's a lot of that too – but I think there are also a lot of genuinely well-meaning lefties on board, who are reluctant (or unable) to think deeply and analyse, and don't see that their main motive is actually a selfish one – needing to be seen as good people who are making up for their shameful (generally) white MC privilege.

And maybe also those - often lefty blokes - who have repressed their misogyny and really think they are the good guys, but find it very satisfying to slag off and bully feminists and lesbians because deep down they resent women. But are not self-knowing enough to see this. I see my ex firmly in this category! It's always been extremely important to him to be thought of as mr nice guy. He'll prioritise anyone and anything that gives him a warm glow of righteousness. The more he does, the more he thinks he really is mr nice guy. He's actually quite chauvinist and conservative, but unconsciously and would be horrified if anyone said that.

I think gender ideology has been so successful because it gives a lot of different groups of people things they want, and this is one of the groups.

Yes. Sadly what has also become more visible is that we swim in patriarchal, misogny-based value systems without even realising them.

It's astonishing to find out how much women are automatically seen as lesser than males. Just slightly less important. Less worthy of consideration.

I think it's only because of this deeply rooted sexism/misogyny that so many of the gender arguments have been able to take hold.

How else could we explain the fact that people say transwomen should use women's facilities because it's safer for them, while completely ignoring that this would render the facilities less safe for women?