Sandi Toksvig "doesn't get it", poor love....

[HootyMcBooby]

Sandi Toksvig slams anti-trans bigots ‘claiming to be radical feminists’ (msn.com)

"I could weep. I don’t get it. It’s beyond me"

Yeah Sandi, I don't get it either.
How is it possible that men can say they are women and have unfettered access to females in their safe spaces?
How is it possible that we are medicating children against puberty?
How it is possible that a woman can be raped on a female hospital ward by a man claiming to be a woman and then gaslighted to be told a man was not on the ward?
How is it possible that men are claiming titles, sponsorships and medals in women's sports?
How is it possible women and females are being literally erased from so many spheres of life, including health/medicine and marketing campaigns? How come the same isn't happening to males?

As a lesbian do you like "lady penis"?
Or do you actually know that men remain men whatever surgeries they may have had, and are just on the "be kind" train?

Have you even THOUGHT about the issues this ideology ushers in?

Actually you don't need to answer that.
It's obvious.

I’ve always been live and live but if a transwoman is declared to be a woman, just the same as a biological woman, then that actually does makes me feel like less of a woman. It confuses me. I’m only a woman because of biology
Well, that just shows how we're all different then, doesn't it as it's not just my biology for me.
There's more.
If I could expand on that and define I'd presumably be a millionaire so don't at me 😬

Ah, Screme - that’s ok, I I won’t tag you. Thanks for providing a nugget of insight. Sounds to me that you have a gender identity. I don’t have one of those, just a sex-based reality.

You can't expand on it because it makes no sense. There is nothing other than biology that makes someone a woman. It's not pink and blue brains, it's not liking stereotypes, biology is it.

Saying there's 'something else' is no different to people being sure there's a god/soul/whatever but not being able to prove it.
I bet you'd soon object if religious people were in charge and making laws that affected everyone based on them believing whatever the bible says.

There is nothing other than biology that makes someone a woman. It's not pink and blue brains, it's not liking stereotypes, biology is it.
Never said it was liking stereotypes, never said it was pink and blue brains (women can like sci fi, space, mud and wrestling, football or whatever.
Just there's clearly something else as it's not just "biology" and what body parts we have for some
I personally find it fascinating

Hypothetical: tutor group of 15. 8 boys, of which 2 are trans (female) & 7 girls, of which 2 are trans (male), and in which the females in this group are all struggling with their hygiene needs & the males aren't (not an entirely unrealistic scenario if there's an issue with break times - ref. theatre queues at intervals!)

Identify as girls / identify as boys question. Results show 75% of boys find break times sufficient for their needs & 29% of girls find break times sufficient for their needs. Conclusion: OK, this is interesting - let's investigate further, & we may take action accordingly (but we don't feel especially obliged to - phew!)

Male / female question. Results show 100% of boys find break times sufficient for their needs & 0% of girls find break times sufficient for their needs. Conclusion: Shit, this is clearly a real issue impacting female students because of their biology, & we must take action immediately (& we really can't avoid doing so - the parents would play hell after seeing these results!!!)

Different outcomes. Girls disadvantaged.

You can argue about degree: it's not by much, the trend is still clear etc. But why would anyone argue about degree? It's still a disadvantage, relative to what used to be. That's, arguably, ethically indefensible.

You can argue about my example: it uses specific, small numbers to make a point etc. But why would anyone argue about an example? There's still a possibility - probability - of data being corrupted to a greater or lesser degree, and that possibility didn't used to exist. That's, arguably, ethically indefensible.

Possible, very simple, solution: include the male/female and an optional gender identity question - all needs addressed, plus the additional benefit of possible insight into whether trans-identified females/males are struggling more (eg. due to toilet avoidance / stigma).

But the key point is that, in just this one example, in this survey, girls were redefined and they did did become less. As less is a relative term, there's simply no argument with this - their data and needs are being treated as less important than they were in recent years, and this inevitably means these needs become less visible.

Great explanation of how easily data can become corrupted in the name of “inclusivity”, putting females at a disadvantage.

But without knowing which answers come.from girls you can't disaggregate the data by sex, so you will miss the pattern.

Some unknown people want a longer break for unknown reasons - maybe they just don't like lessons; maybe they have the classes before and after break a long way from the loos. If you don't know what the problem is you can't put in measures to address it, and might just dismiss it as a few outliers with nothing in common that actually needs dealing with.

Yep. Wondering whether or not to challenge this one. I'm at one remove, making it difficult, but it's infuriated and upset me. Whatever the degree, girls are losing out to some degree - and all in the name of "progress".

And given that there are threads about top NHS hospitals electing to record gender identity instead of sex at the very same time I'm typing this post, it seems more than fair to assume that my example isn't unique, or even unusual.

Sounds to me that you have a gender identity. I don’t have one of those, just a sex-based reality.

I do, I find it interesting how we're all different.
I have "sex based reality" too, and a strong gender identity too, I'm trying to imagine not having that and what it's like, suppose you're the same but the other way round 🙂 (as in trying to imagine having a gender identity as well, that is)

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn Yes. There's so much that can undermine or muddy a survey. I'm not a mathematician or scientist, but would have thought maximising precise and relevant data must be fundamental principles. So, by all means, add on the additional consideration of gender identity - addition is inclusive. But that's not what's happening. Hard-won, desperately needed data collection on the female body (read "Invisible Women") is not only being rejected, but is being posited as being actively damaging to other demographic groups.

That's misogyny on steroids. When the potential impact on female health, safety, wellbeing and quality of life is so substantial, I can see no other explanation. It's just... WOW.

But having a gender identity, whatever that means or is like, can’t change your sex. It doesn’t make you the opposite sex, even if that’s what you “identify” with. Why can’t people just have the gender expression of their choice, while accepting that they will remain male or female? So for example if you’re a feminine man who doesn’t like the gendered expectations placed on men and is drawn to stereotypically feminine things - fine, enjoy those things, as a man. But why on earth should women be expected to accept that such a person is a woman? Stereotypes and feelings do not decide your sex.

Furthermore, people who identify as the opposite sex do not match their “identified’ sex/gender statistically. Males who identify as women continue to commit violent and sexual offences as the same or greater rates as men in general, much much higher rates than women. So why should women be made to share protected spaces with them? It’s makes no sense and obviously the overall outcome is worse for women. They are put at greater risk, lose out in sports etc while the reverse situation doesn’t harm men at all. Ironically, a clear difference on the basis of sex. Not gender.

Mighty = higher, stupid autocorrect

That you cannot see the impact of the categorisation in that scenario doesn’t surprise me. It seems to be either lack of understanding or determined blindness to me. I guess it could be something else but I haven’t worked out what.

The smoothing out of the impact that the female students face when reviewing top line data is pretty fucking obvious. That smoothing obscures the reality of those girls needs.

When did you realise you had a gender identity?

When did you realise you had a gender identity
Earliest I remember being aware of it is around 7 ish

Well, that's less than an hour ago 😁

And what does having this gender identity entail?

How is it 'fascinating' if you can't even explain what it is?

Well, that's less than an hour ago 😁

🙄😁
As in age

How is it 'fascinating' if you can't even explain what it is?
As in fascinating how we're all different

Oh, I see.

Maybe gender is fascinating, in the literal sense.

Perhaps like star signs, it seems complex, mysterious and deeply significant, when in fact it's manufactured, illogical, opaque and ultimately meaningless?

there's clearly something else as it's not just "biology"

Yes, there's societal conventions and stereotypes.

A load of mystical wank.

It surprises me, @Helleofabore. It will never, ever stop surprising me. 😞 Especially because I don't think it's blindness to the impact on girls & women so much as an instinctive attempt to dismiss any impact as unworthy of meaningful consideration.

Less data is OK, simply because there's still data. Less clarity is justifiable, simply because it's all for a good cause. With no further consideration of relative pros and cons or conflicting needs to justify this, it becomes a simple value judgement: less for females is fine in the name of more for a different group on principle. No further reflection required. Self-evident.

And it's that which makes me feel even more strongly that the word "less" is at the very heart of all this: an innate sense of girls & women as "less" that's too deep-seated for many to recognise.

I'm all for people with gendered souls being free to prance about in the nuddy with other people with gendered souls, if that's what floats their Righteous halo-bedecked boats, in a Virtuous Circle-Jerk of Validation of Righteousness and Genderism.

It's when they insist that everybody else partake in the nuddy-prancing, because hashtagBeKind and hashtagInclusive and hashtagValidation, that I object.