Geoff Hoon on 'Biological women'

[ArabellaScott]

g

See discussion from around 5.20.

Geoff Hoon says 'biological is a tricky word in this context'.

Is this why Labour are so happy to talk about 'biological women' without stating the silent assumption that 'transwomen are biological women'?

Judge McCloud describes himself as:
'an anatomical, endocrinological and legal female'.

India Willoughby calls himself a '100% a biological woman and female':
https://x.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1559530487680569344

Robin Moira White :
' what does ‘biological sex’ mean?'
translucent.org.uk/the-tangled-knot-a-commentary-by-robin-moira-white/

I think a lot of people are still approaching this with the idea that it’s just about male people identifying as women, rather than the basis of trans ideology being that these concepts and categories (male/female, man/woman) are themselves up for grabs.

RMW also doesn't seem to have said anything about Starmer's answers of late.

You do wonder if deals have been done behind the scenes

Anatomical - nope! Even ignoring female organs such as uterus and cervix (a woman post hysterectomy is still a woman) judge McCloud has male bone structure (q angle of hips, bone length) and larger lung capacity etc. A man post surgery still a man.

endocrine- nope. Take away his pills/injections and his brain/endocrine system will be producing male hormones. Probably f* up male hormones if he’s been castrated but it’s never going to produce female ones!!

Legal - that’s the bugger:-(

Of course they have.

"Buff" Hoon? this Geoff Hoon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Hoon

There we have it. The Labour politician is wondering what a 'biological woman' is and openly including men in that definition.

hang on

Geoff Hoon thinks that cosmetic surgery can turn a man into a biological woman?

and he was a Labour Defence Secretary?

errr.....that's scary

I secretly love Michelle Dewberry. She's brash and thoughtless and glib, but my goodness, she takes no shit

Prior to 2015, the term natal female/male was widely used in academic publications and in information relating to trans issues (e.g. the Tavi's website). This was replaced by using 'cis' and trans and, wherever possible avoiding referring to sex. Where it was referred to, definitions weren't provided and it was paired with the word 'assigned' (or coercively assigned) - making the need for a clear definition more evident. The narrative at this time was always along the lines of, 'having consulted with the trans community/service users, these are the terms that they have asked us to use'.

Cass used the term 'sex registered at birth', I imagine this was an attempt at compromising as far as she felt appropriate. Not using 'natal sex' or 'assigned at birth' but something in between.

The ongoing battle seems to be between those seeking the terminology used to be clearly defined and as objective as possible and those seeking to create ambiguity on the grounds of reducing distress and/or making it easier to undermine sex as a category.

'Biological sex' is a relatively new entry. I want to know how it differs from 'natal sex', which worked well for a long time. If political parties and other institutions are returning to a definition of sex based on material reality, why was 'biological' needed? Why didn't we return to 'natal'.

We can speculate, but this needs answering. I have zero hope of getting a clear answer from Labour. I think the best way to address this is for the term 'natal sex' to be reclaimed and for GCs to use it consistently and not go along with the 'biological' term that seems to be the terminology politicians seem to have plumped for.

E.g. 'So, Kier, you are saying that natal females will be able to X and not face legal challenge' .

Whatever their game, if there is indeed a game, 2 can play it. We can just use the term natal whenever they use biological. We can check that they agree with our interpretation.

Helen Joyce is absolutely correct that trans ideology is about changing the meaning of our words. They're going after every word we have to describe reality.

IIRC he was absolutely eviscerated by Hutton over Dr Kelly. No idea why he's crawled out from under his stone now.

It's rather Donald Trump / Boris Johnson to be able to sit in front of people calmly saying things that both you and they know to be absolute bollocks (e.g. men can become 'biological women') without turning a hair

a trick that can be done by the pathologically stupid or by sociopaths

I do not want either type of people in power

He's either genuinely confused in which case he should have no place in politics by reason of sheer, mind-boggling stupidity or he does know and is pretending its oh so confusing because it suits the position he wants to take, in which case he should have no place in politics by reason of staggering dishonesty.
Either way, the man is clearly a wally of the first order.

Which is why there always needs to be a counter offensive. No longer using the word 'trans' in an unqualified way - but using 'trans' identified' ( to highlight that it is a concept and not a material reality), as one example.Insisting on adequate definitions of 'woman' even in the face of refusal to provide. A woman is an adult human female.

Post modernistic theories depend on eroding meaning and creating 'fluidity' and a lack of clarity around words and language.

That he was a wally was pretty obvious when he was part of the last Labour govt if you look at wiki. No idea what he does now or why he's wading into the debate, unless he's claiming some 'elder statesman standing above the fray' status.

I have just been reading the guidance from hospice uk on treating trans people, it follows the case study of a trans woman and their daughter and they were complaining that a particular drug was used that has lots of side effects rather than another drug that has far fewer….guess what , the drug with lots of side effects is used on women because the other drug is not meant to be used for biological women of reproductive age …..so in this case the person DID want to have their biological (male) sex acknowledged and the better drug used because they are trans……but in all other ways be treated as a woman. But apparently biological sex doesn’t matter or is somehow interchangeable for us health professionals! As a hospice worker we are trained to take everyone as they are and treat with care and respect but sometimes we HAVE to acknowledge the reality of that persons biological sex in order to provide the best care!

Hoon is an empathy-free moron.

But it shows that many people really do think a woman is a fuckable hole and a pair of tits.

The biology behind that cartoon of a woman, the integrated functional system that is an adult human female, the complexity of a body that evolved to gestate and nourish young with all the amazing biofeedback that involves, the cultiral history that shapes how society treats us and how we think of ourselves, the fight we still have to be seen as complete and fully realised humans of equal value and meaning to men, all that is invisible to them.

We might as well be two plastic tits and a hole stuck on a potato for all they give thought to what's there as well as tits and a hole.