Women's rights general conversations - Thread 6

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 5.

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 in the supermarket, grr"- that sort of thing).

Thanks for the article @IcakethereforeIam - she's absolutely right and she has made me furious all over again.

Wotcha, @BezMills! I've missed "seeing" you around, how's it going?

Re the excellent articles above, I also very much recommend Victoria Smith's recent book Hags, on the demonisation of middle aged women. It really made me think.

I recommended it only last weekend to someone who was calling herself a Karen for complaining very mildly about an unreasonable decision which had been made.

Hey guys, going well enough thanks! I've been lurking a lot in FWR mainly in listening/reading mode, and also was until very recently very active in the general Exercise chat thread (long story)

I was up at Soton Uni yesterday, working a stand for my employer. It was really a breath of fresh air to be in university again and I enjoyed chatting to lots of bright young people about my company and the work I, and more generally we, do. I sit on my own in my garden office most of the week, which is quite lonely as you could imagine, so I jumped at the chance to get out of town and go to Uni for the day.

I'd love to be a student again, I just can't afford to take a year off work to do it!

Those 2 articles have made me Very Cross. So, time to dive into the Jo Phoenex thread.

I've been pondering re-studenting. Trouble is, the thing I'd currently be really interested in researching would be a surefire way to end up with a tribunal of my very own.

I'd love to get into the weeds doing some kind of fancy computing research but I'd settle for doing some guest lectures on some of my professional expertise.

Sentencing was this morning -

news.stv.tv/east-central/melrose-paedophile-andrew-george-miller-who-abducted-and-abused-girl-for-27-hours-jailed

'dressed as a woman', so a transwoman then.

20 years is actually a decent length of sentence. Of course, nothing will wipe out what he did to that poor little girl. I think that sex offenders of all stripes should do every day of their sentences, it is the case for terrorists now, if I remember.

'He', 'dressed as', 'also uses the name'.

Just had to share this wee gem by James Dreyfus -

'Oh doooooo put a sock in it, Willoughby. You can huff, & puff, & blow the house down, if you so wish, but I sincerely doubt
@jk_rowling wakes up screaming & clammy-faced at night, because of some hog swilled tweet you sent, under the influence of 17 Babychams & a Diesel chaser..'

twitter.com/DreyfusJames/status/1714704823352746442

I do love James Dreyfus.

The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong - Scientific American

Okay this sounds promising

The beginning of the article was quite interesting, then I got a bit derailed in the following paragraph. I don't agree at all, that sex is a spectrum, I don't think The Science agrees.

"Before getting into the evidence, we need to first talk about sex and gender. “Sex” typically refers to biological sex, which can be defined by myriad characteristics such as chromosomes, hormone levels, gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The terms “female” and “male” are often used in relation to biological sex. “Gender” refers to how an individual identifies—woman, man, nonbinary, and so forth. Much of the scientific literature confuses and conflates female/male and woman/man terminology without providing definitions to clarify what it is referring to and why those terms were chosen. For the purpose of describing anatomical and physiological evidence, most of the literature uses “female” and “male,” so we use those words here when discussing the results of such studies. For ethnographic and archaeological evidence, we are attempting to reconstruct social roles, for which the terms “woman” and “man” are usually used. Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially. Sex and gender both exist as a spectrum, but when citing the work of others, it is difficult to add that nuance."

"Scientific" American went through the looking glass some time ago.

I'd be stopping reading right there...

Generally there was good stuff in there and it was interesting and informative. But my Aut Lobe got stuck on Sex is a Spectrum (oh no it isn't) and I was compelled to come here and share my feelings!

FOR FUCK'S SAKE

"Scientific" my arse

I was just reading about George Orwell, and the publication of Animal Farm.

In his introduction Orwell makes the anti-Stalinist meaning of his fable explicit, claiming that the popularity of the Soviet Union with British intellectuals was to blame for publishers’ refusal to print his work. He argues that during the years of the war the most radical sort of censorship has not been enforced by government bodies but by publishers and editors. According to Orwell’s indignant essay, the liberal press only defends freedom of expression when it doesn’t contradict their views:
The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular - however foolish, even – entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say “Yes”. But give it a concrete shape, and ask, “How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?", and the answer more often than not will be “No”. In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses.

Plus ca change...

https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduction-to-animal-farm

I'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier on this thread but there's currently a petition called 'Do not allow people to have acquired gender listed as sex on Government ID' kicking around on Petitions UK which may interest those on here. I won't link to it as my post will be autoblocked.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/mahsa-amini-awarded-eu-sakharov-human-rights-prize-iran

Labour seem to be coming round to common sense. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/labour-vows-to-modernise-simplify-and-reform-gender-recognition-act?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Hmm. A lot riding on the quesrion of how the single doctor is chosen - could be effectively self-ID with a medical figleaf. But the word 'biological' in conjunction with single sex (rather than the recent fudge of 'safe') spaces is very welcome.

I don't entirely agree, Brit. They are proposing that a single doctor can sign off. There's no reliability in that, and I don't think Labour understand the issue. (Plus, they're fawning and bloody grovelling to bunch of TRA fascists).

@angelico53 - It wasn't so much the "single doctor" I was focusing on (and I agree with you and @BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn on that issue). It was the mention of biological single sex spaces that I found encouraging.