NBC are quoting a police chief in Nashville...

[FusionChefGeoff]

That's all I'm saying - Google is your friend and it's in the byline.

The BBC article is sooooo careful not to call this murderous woman A Woman. It referenced her being transgender but that could, as we know about twisted reporting, mean she was a trans identified MAN aka a transwomen.

This, tragically, was a woman's crime. The extent to which her healthcare providers let her down, the extent to which lax gun laws let those victims down, we don't yet know. She was a murderer.

Testosterone doesn't just make men more likely to be violent it also makes them more likely to take physical risks on behalf of others.

I find this totally offensive. What do you think KJK and the other women were doing in NZ in trying to speak? The brave women protesting lack of education in Afghanistan? The thousands of women uncovering their heads in Iran? The millions of women who place themselves in front of their children to protect them? And when women do this they do so in the knowledge that they are physically weaker than male opponents.

I dont know how to explain it any simpler than the previous message, but I will try again.

Gender are behaviours that are associated with a particular sex. Examples might be - women have long hair, women wear dresses, women like cleaning, women should not drive. In many countries GENDER is a tool of opression for women, as in the above example if not driving. Of couse there is nothing biological that means that women cannot drive. Of course there is nothing biological that means women cant wear trousers. These are socially constructed associations with sex.

BIOLOGICAL SEX, is a reality, and is immutable. Differences are matters of reality and not social contruct. The fact women are the ones who give birth is not a social construct, but a matter of reality. The fact that men are bigger and stronger (generally) is a matter if biology and reality, and evolution, it is not a social contruct.

If you can't see the difference between 'women wear dresses and have long hair' and 'women are the sex who menstruate and give birth', I don't know how to help you.

I didn't say women aren't brave did I?

I said men are more likely to take physical risks in behalf of others which is just obviously true by general observation, but it's also been shown this is one of the impacts of higher testosterone (rather than necessarily violence.) Good vs negative result of testosterone.

You extrapolated what I said into something I haven't said and took offense. There's no need.

I'm a huge Posie fan. I'm in awe of the brave women being prepared to challenge the aggressive men.

Women are just as brave as men but it often (not always before you take offense again) presents differently. Because we are different.

In terms of physical risks, those face by women are minimised/ignored: childbirth, prostitution, domestic violence, forced marriage, rape, fgm, walking through a city centre at night on the way home from a late shift, being locked up in prison or a mental health ward with violent men, expected to share a hospital ward with male sex offenders…

The 'trans' movement has intentionally attempted to make gender and sex the same thing, by which putting on a dress and painting your nails actually makes you a woman.

It also allows men who perform woman gender sterotypes, can enter female sports, which should be segregated by sex.

Sex and gender are different. It would be good to scrap the idea of gender entirely and just make provisions for difference of sex.

Is violence a gendered behaviour?

Is violence linked to testosterone?

Do men have significantly higher testosterone?

If yes to the above than gender is not a social construct it's linked to biology.

Some gender roles & norms are more socially constructed than others.

But gender is just a social construct seems to be becoming increasingly hard to stand by with recent events.

Only one of those is voluntary risk.

The others are examples of women at risk of higher male violence due to higher testosterone...??

From general observation, no it is not true that men are more likely to take physical risks on behalf of others. You can only come to that conclusion by ignoring the type of physical risks women take because it doesn’t look immediately ‘heroic’? The teachers at the school didn’t have helmets, guns and bullet proof vests but were in the classrooms protecting the children in their charge as best they could.

Women will take extreme risks to protect their children.
Children are at more risk from males.
Men will take extreme risks to protect their wives and children.

All gendered behaviours.

All socially constructed?
Nothing to do with biology?

Men have testosterone due to biology, not due to social construct.

Therefore, testosterone levels are not a gender concept, but a matter of biological reality.

Not ‘voluntary’ so to be discounted?

There have been interesting studies that when there is immediate danger men will more quickly respond.

But when there are no men present women respond equally as quickly.

Providing evidence of brave women here won't prove your point. Surely we are discussing generalities?

Of course women are physically brave, but there is obviously a higher propensity for men to respond physically to threat and take risks in these situations.

Men's higher risk taking is clearly established and linked to testosterone.

These are gendered behaviours linked to biology.
So gender is not just a social construct.

My cockerel is aggressive and fights and is huge beacause he is the male sex, not because he is performing male gender.

My chickens lay eggs because they are of the female sex. Not because they are female gendered.

The concept of gender does not exist within my flock of chickens. But biologican sex does.

Just obviously different to what we're discussing?

Unless you are suggesting women's physical oppression by dangerous men is a gendered behaviour by the women??
Which I think the Taliban doesn't even suggest...

Your cockerel is exhibiting gendered behaviour linked to his sex.

You are right he's not performing it.

You seem to be admitting there are some behaviours linked to sex but not seeing that those behaviours are gender differences.

Sex is just the physical body.

Gender is the behaviour. Some are linked to sex some less so.

You cannot identify the cockerel by his behaviour as not all cockerels exhibit the same behaviour. But more cockerels do because they are male.

His aggressive behaviour is linked to his biology.

It's just logic, not a moral judgement.

Do you view violence as a gendered behaviour?

If you view it as just a marker of sex then your argument works.

And if you view aggression as a marker of sex then aggressive women would be men. See where this logic goes...

Gender is behaviour and roles associated with sex.

Some of which are not purely socially constructed.

You think cockerels and hens have a concept of gender??? HOW?

GC means gender critical, not gonad critical.

Of course GC women understand sex based differences between men and women, and the fact that testosterone affects men’s behaviour, including their propensity to violence.

They don't have to know about gender to exhibit gendered behaviour! 🤣🤣
No body does.

You think women get sociology lessons before they wear makeup??

Behaviour is separate from but linked to biology.
Some behaviour is very closely linked to biology some are more cultural, but once you admit some behaviour is linked to biology you can't claim gender is just a social construct.

All animals exhibit some behaviours linked to their sex, but the behaviour does not define their sex their biology does.

There is a difference between biology and behaviour but they are linked.

The argument that your behaviour defines your sex is used elsewhere...

Gender is only behaviour when you are conscious of the performance (because it is a social contruct, a consciouss behaviour). You are conscious of putting on high heels to appear feminine, you choose to do that. Nothing in your biology means you have to do it.

My cockerel is not thinking 'i am a cockerel therefore I should be aggressive as this is what society expects of me'

He has unconscious behaviours linked to his testosterone, which is due to him being of the male sex. These are sexed behaviours

Some cockerels are less aggressive due to lower levels of testosterone.

So this is the difference, you think gender is innate behaviour, i think gender is conscious behaviour based on societys expectations of your sex.

I think innate behaviours are sexed behaviours.

A woman in a coma - she will still have a period, she will still have oestrogen, hormone cycles.

A male in a coma will still have testosterone in his body, he may get erections.

Are either of these people capable of doing gendered things?

With this example of make up - if a baby girl grew up in a vacuum with np outside influence, would she feel an urge to put on make up
? Would she feel an inate desire to paint her face?

No?

So where does that desire come from? Oh yes, society.

It's illogical to be critical of biology.

There are many feminists (like on here) who continue to insist gender is purely a social construct.
Then also argue yesterday testosterone makes women more violent.
And can't seem to see the flaw in this.

I actually think a more realistic discussion of biological differences on behaviour would benefit women and the insisting it's an insult when differences are mentioned has not helped women.