Women's rights general conversations - Thread 5

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 4.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

I got so distracted by possible SS I didn't scroll down far enough to see the banana! MN! I'm shook!

In other news, what happened here?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12239043/Bid-ban-social-gender-transitioning-schools-narrowly-killed-MPs.html

'Despicable'? Seems to be the word of the week.

I've had to mostly put sweet stuff behind me. The old body needs TLC now.

That Twitter thread is so encouraging. Please make it so!

How did I end up on the down with the kidz side of history?

I know, right! 😎

So my carefully worded [1] question about why the EDI bit of our staff survey asks for both gender identity and trans status by not sex has been met with a wall of 'we thought this was the best way to be inclusive' waffle.

Have replied with a 'Thanks, but try again.'

[1] Specifc questions about why was the decision made; and how will discrimination or differences in responses be monitored if you don't collect the data?

'But not sex', not 'by not sex'. Oh for an edit button.

Oh my.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/26/kamala-harris-stonewall-inn-visit-pride-month

At least the Stonewall origin story in that article isn't quite the usual flat out lie. It's nice to have some variety.

The MPs who voted against

twitter.com/AbsolutelyVexed/status/1673934433387249665?s=20

and Charlotte Nichols and Cat Smith (both Labour) were the tellers for the no's

Thanks, my MP is on there disappointingly. I have a lot of respect for her generally, I think she’s an excellent constituent MP. She’s also an ex-teacher, which may have informed her position. I’ll email her and ask her why she voted that way.

This is a distressing thread about the realities of prostitution in Germany. Don't read it unless you are feeling strong - it will probably contain triggers.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1673018917109874688.html

The Skeptical Inquirer article I posted earlier

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/06/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology/?fbclid=IwAR0_Hd9l64OT2Zo-sTsniyIeMD_pL6AF6nzN4zKjwi3B7gXIsneGjV9ZfJU

....came up on my fb feed. Some asked the question "what is meant by progressive ideology?"

I replied that this bit gives us a clue:

"And why do people distort the truth? We suspect that some of those whose gender doesn’t correspond to one of the two biological sexes, and their allies, want to redefine sex so that, like gender, it forms more of a continuum. While jettisoning the sex binary is meant well, it also severely distorts scientific fact—and all the evolutionary consequences that flow from that fact."

And went on:

Doesn't sound very "progressive to" me, but that tends to be what it's called. It's a loaded word used to claim a quality, vague and undefined, but which sounds good. I'll give the authors a pass on "meant well", because I don't think the post-modernist cohort means anything at all, sometimes by design. (Butler's chief contribution seems to be the specific destruction (queering) of every boundary in society; she has no idea, expectation or prediction as to the results of queering.)

In fact, gender "ideology" is anything but progressive, since it reinforces damaging masculine and feminine stereotypes. Transwomen are not becoming female, of course, they are merely displaying what they (and prob mosts socieities) believe women should be like: girly, pretty, vulnerable - a very damaging stereotype that women have been trying to shed for generations.

The reason I even bother is because the stance of the big medical scepticism site, Science-Based Medicine, is absolutely TRA. I have found this absolutely astonishing.

I've just filled in a survey from a M&S order telling them off about the plastic when I get to this interesting variation of the sex/gender question. My reply was that I don't associate with any gender and that it was a ridiculous question.

Book review in the Guardian, seems interesting. About motherhood in humans and across the animal kingdom, I think.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/29/matrescence-by-lucy-jones-review-the-birth-of-a-mother

No mention of it in the review but I find I'm reluctant to pick up a recent book on any subject that should be exclusively about female humans. Too often it seems they've shoehorned in a chapter about men. There was a book recently called 'womb'(forget the author) that did that. And, wasn't there one on menstruation?

But this sounds good.

Arf at that! I'd have asked them what exactly they meant by "associate with", because I take that in the sense of spending time with, as it "It is well known than Gonners associates with known terfs and others of dubious character."

As with the Census, a distressing lack of a "I think it's all a load of old bollocks" option.

Yes, 'well, most of my friends are female but I mostly fuck males'.

I now fill in the self describe part with something along the lines of 'I think it's a load of regressive bollocks'.

There was a headline about how children are shorter due to austerity. I wonder if the results have been skewed by girls identifying and being recorded as boys. I actually doubt this. Even if it's happening, it might not have much affect on the results. But, perhaps another reason why recording sex accurately is important, so we know results can be trusted.

It looks like someone reached for the thesaurus to find a synonym for identifies.

And what I always notice with this question is that male is nearly always the first on the list of choices. I mentally cheer when it isn't.

There's been a stabbing in a Gender Studies class in Canada. Three injured, thankfully not life threatening, including the teacher.

https://www.upday.com/uk/gender-issues-class-targetted-by-knifeman-3-injured-at-canadian-university?utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral

That is a horrible read; for me it simply reinforces why I am against prostitution and "sex work."

I would additionally observe that The Right Side of History tends to be just as adamant that Sex Work Is Work, as they are that Trans[Nouns] Are [Nouns].

Now I’m going to be noticing that! You’re right too, and F comes before M alphabetically, if I’m correctly remembering my long-ago schooldays.

NZ reviewing puberty blockers. Unfortunately, I can't read the article because I'm in the wrong region. I think the guy who tweeted it is TWAW. We are not aligned.

https://twitter.com/patrickgowernz/status/1674353167415533568?s=20