3 questions for GC women

[ChirpyFinch]

As the title says, three questions for the women in this chat.

1. Do you think the majority of people are gender critical, and why/why not?

2. Globally, the right wing is more vocally gender critical than the left. They are also far more likely to be regressive on a range of women’s issues like abortion and anti-gay. Why do you think they agree with GCs on this one issue but disagree on so much else (if you think they do?)

3. How many trans people do you estimate there are globally?

Just reconsidering the original post and refining my answers:

1. if you boil GC down to the very basics so that it means ‘people who do not believe humans can change sex because sex is innate and immutable’, then yes I think most people are GC. Some, nonetheless, feel they should (for multiple reasons) play along, or are less worried about the impact of playing along upon the erosion of women’s rights, but are nonetheless fully cognisant of biological realism.

2. It’s not a global right wing movement: in the US, the right wing is vocally GC, yes. However outside the US it is very evident that people from all across the political spectrum have concerns about the implications of gender ideology. That MSM and activists try to spin those people’s concerns as being due to their right wing bias is lazy media spin and shows a level of disingenuousness at best or lack of critical thinking at worst.

3. On the basis I don’t believe anyone is ‘born in the wrong body’, I’d say there are 0 trans people in the world globally. I believe there are many vulnerable people with MH issues that have an element of gender ideology-related distress, but the profiles of teen girls identifying as trans varies so significantly from middle-aged men doing the same that it seems clear (to me, at least) that several distinct psychological phenomena have become conflated. I’m increasingly less convinced that even gender dysphoria, as an actual differential diagnosis, truly exists outside this moment in time (see recent thread on whether GD exists, and my posts above), so I’d still be hard-pushed to quantify the number of trans persons due to GD as being above 0% either.

My on-the-roads driving instructor was an ex RAF instructor, and much given to strong comment about other drivers. A habit I picked up.

My very first driving lessons - off the road - were coincidentally from a former army driving instructor. But as they were on a farm involved less commentary on the other idiots in the way. Which is a shame really - he was French and I could probably have picked up some useful vocabulary that school language lessons omitted.

To drag myself back on topic to avoid deletions, as well as military driving instructors France also gives us some excellent examples of gender sterotypes being unstable across time and place. Louis XIV for example: loved interior design, serious ballet dancer, very long hair, silk stockings, high heels (often embroidered with flowers) - you'd have to have been incredibly brave or foolhardy to question his manliness.

OMG you can get a Bero book for a doll's house.

www.hobbies.co.uk/be-ro-recipe-book-for-12th-scale-dolls-house?srsltid=AfmBOooQ5Ct57AmyrOunMGjcmosXdSix44oTmTXyqR6V8p2UW8jHyse2z3A

😍

When I bought a doll’s house for my daughter (when she was small, never played with it) I spent far too long googling doll’s house accessories in delight. I probably bought her more bits than she would have wanted due to the adorable factor.

I still have some pieces from mine and although they’re crude in comparison I still think they’re fantastic.

It is entirely possible to order furniture from ebay that looks like real furniture but is delivered in a shoebox and turns out to be 1/12th scale doll's house furniture. I hear.

Just returning to the thread - a cup is 250ml, the potato is in a Polish cheesecake and it is the best cheesecake I have ever had in my life, also Polish is a chocolate wafer cake (basically just wafers sandwiched together with chocolate), and I have just finished making ANZAC biscuits.

I am gutted to have derailed the OPs genuine and sincere thread, and shall not continue to do so as it would not be in the spirit…

oh come on sspinachy, I need the cheesecake recipe.

I saw this tweet today. I think it sums it up quite well. A psychotherapist left a comment on the new Richard Dawkins Triggernometry interview.

https://x.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1829237230377812307

"Dawkins is a great example of institutional conservatism. He is an expert in biology, but not an expert in any of the social sciences. This lack of knowledge is why he is quoting out of date information about gender."

(I recommend people listen to this if they need to hear Richard Dawkins define female and male and the sex binary at around 5 mins)

I think that this is a really important point, and most of us know this already. This is, to my mind, the source of deep disconnect between people declaring that any male person can be 'women' and established and provable science. It is that they try to elevate social sciences to be more important than physical science, or to somehow prove or disprove the physical science.

I expect, and I know many of us have discussed this before too, that at the root of this is 'Gender Studies' and underwritten by 'queer theory'. And some posters who are the most passionate about giving their opinion, not discussing it or supporting it with evidence mind you, just giving their opinion, declare they have qualifications / direct work experience with issues surrounding this topic. I expect that there are many social scientists who fully accept these philosophical beliefs. They are indeed welcome to do so.

However, if they cannot produce evidence to support their claims, then I don't find their academic / career backgrounds relevant. If they cannot produce evidence to support their claims, they are effectively proselytising and hoping that some readers will empathise with their position. Particularly if they can claim to be not allowed to give their opinion and claim an emotional position.

Ancarana's comment about Dawkins being 'out of date' and 'conservative' is just based on such fucking lazy accusations. Perhaps what he, and posters who post comments that are similar, are missing is that long after this particular theory has been shown to be unsupportable, it will disappear. Sex will remain binary and provable and abiding.

Because that is the fucker about material reality, it couldn't give a flying fuck whether someone is offended by it, it will just keep on going until the end of time. And social sciences will still be trying to conceptualise something that they think explains material reality when in practice some of their concepts defy material reality.

You know Stealth, I have found that my Australian spoon measures are different to the UK spoon measures. I never considered it before until some of my flavourings started to taste rather bland when using a UK tablespoon measure.

And 'genuine and sincere' got a laugh from me.

Sorry, that was confusing wasn't it.

The tweet from Konstantin was an image of the comment that I quoted. The tweet from Konstantin said

'The combination of arrogance and stupidity is so lethal'.

The thing that I don't get about all of this is simply, why would any regular punter sign up to this switcheroo?

Why would we agree to scientific principles being overruled by the gender studies department?

I have found that my Australian spoon measures are different to the UK spoon measures.

I have an Australian cookbook with a set of conversion tables in the back for Australian-Imperial, Australian-US and Australian-metric. It was especially useful before the internet allowed you to do such things, and I ended up converting quite a few US recipes via Australian measures to something I actually had the right scales & spoons for.

"Why would we agree to scientific principles being overruled by the gender studies department"?

Such a good question @TheKeatingFive . Yet that's what's happened world wide with politicians and every organisation going, having handed over reality to those in the grip of a delusion. 🙄

Why would we agree to scientific principles being overruled by the gender studies department?

I think a lot of people are fooled by the inclusion of the word 'science' in social science. They think it is an actual science, with the same rigorous method (which can very occasionally be true, but usually isn't - and ethics prevent a lot of the experimental options).

I'm not here to dis social sciences. Done right it's a worthy discipline. But it's not the same thing as biological fact.

I don't think I'll ever get my head around this ask. That we prioritise some feeling in people's heads that they can't even articulate - over the physical reality of our bodies.

Feelings/fantasy trump facts it seems. I genuinely don't know how that happened.

That is especially pertinent when considering definitions of, say, gender dysphoria.

I read the difference between BIID and BDD yesterday and it looks like semantics to me.

I do worry that the field of mental health is subject to a lot of quasi scientific work.

Yeah maybe this has all been going on/becoming normalised in the background and I just haven't noticed because I'm nothing to do with those disciplines.

I do wonder about the lack of pushback from actual medical doctors dealing with the body. Surely it's really offensive to them all this nonsense about 'assigned female at birth' like they could get that wrong?

I'm talking about uk here where there isn't the same profit motive for drs to buy into it.

The issue is that we seem to be, as a society, splitting things that ought naturally to go together.

Example - that a male body should be treated as a female body in ALL respects because the mind and soul of the occupant of that male body has a particular feeling that their body ought to be a female body. It's not, it will never be.

Without the body, that mind and soul would not exist. The body is the HOME of the mind and soul. Until science fiction becomes reality and the brain in the jar of formaldehyde CAN actually remain a sentient being, the body is MORE important than anything else.

I wonder how many people are lying in hospital beds worldwide, right now, with absolutely no brain activity yet the body is (with medical intervention) still going. The heart is still beating, the lungs are still inflating, the blood still flows. Families sit beside them, willing the mind and soul to awaken, to animate and fill the body. Until they accept that it won't happen. The body can be here, visible and functioning, much longer than the mind and soul.

So how many people are lying in hospital beds worldwide, right now, with absolutely no body functions, yet the mind and soul are communicating and joining in with life?

The answer to that last one is ZERO because there's no mind and soul without the body.

We ARE our bodies. There's no other home for the mind and soul. Not yet. And I hope to all the deities and their angels that it never comes to pass.

I agree. There is a place for that discipline stream.

However, I think that in this particular instance it really has shown how much it lacks credibility. It has become completely disconnected from what it is attempting to explain and in this it is now a 'pseudoscience'.

I think that it has now become a discipline that those who have degrees 'in this topic' are so heavily invested in that some of those have no option but to continue this dishonest path of declaring that someone is what they say they are because .... reasons. And I believe that they also may consider any negative criticism as abuse because they may realise that they cannot produce robust evidence that supports these pseudo scientific claims.

Hence I have seen some posters (or maybe they are one who name changes), and I am saying this generally, claim that any release of 'evidence' will be outing. And I feel that this is really a dishonest claim. Because if they cannot fucking produce the evidence that originally convinced them or any other evidence from credible and original sources that will support their opinion, then who the fuck are they? Do they honestly think they are the only unique and original thinker on this topic that they have produced some definitive work that will 'out' them?

Seriously WTAF? No. In that case, I would expect that they just cannot produce evidence because they know it cannot withstand scrutiny from non-believers of their philosophical stance.

Yes, I can neither confirm nor deny that the size of things purchased on the internet can sometimes be quite surprising when they drop through one’s letterbox

Exactly. I've never ordered Christmas gift bags that turned out to be very very small wedding favours bags.

@Helleofabore Yes, I know people whose whole academic career is studying and publishing absolute nonsense. Fashionable nonsense, but still nonsense.

We had an interesting discussion about the DSM and the ICM on this thread - unfortunately looks like video in the OP has been deleted, but there are worthwhile posts on there anyway.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5066580-we-need-to-talk-about-the-dsm

I’m hearing that in a Hattie Jaques voice.

im sorry. I’m childish.