Munroe Bergdorf in the Observer

[LittleBitofBread]

I was intending to read this article, in the spirit of keeping an open and non-judgemental mind, but couldn’t get past the line ‘On 16 April the UK Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of “sex” is based on biological sex assigned at birth’.

Fuck’s sake. Can they genuinely not help themselves, or are they deliberately trolling people?

https://observer.co.uk/news/profile/article/munroe-bergdorf-meets-the-momentObserver

If you have IVF, it is possible to choose the sex of your baby. It's not legal here in the UK but it is in some parts of the US.

The sex is determined via chromosome testing of the blastocyst at around 7 days after conception.

A NIPT test can be used to determine the sex of the baby very early in pregnancy from a sample of the mother's blood.

CVS and amniocentesis both allow DNA testing of the foetus.

Ultrasound can be used to determine the sex of the baby from around 20 weeks gestation.

The bear is not feeling very poked TBH.

I can think of a number of gifs or memes which would fit the bill, but I suspect MNHQ might take a dim view of.

I naively thought that the SC judgement would put an end to this sycophancy by the media. How much more of this drivel can we take!

The media seem to think that transwomen are all same sex attracted males (Bergdorf, Paris Lees, Juno Dawson, Shon Faye). i.e. they have no sexual attraction to women, so what’s the harm with letting them into women’s spaces?

Should have lost all credibility and been shut out of ever talking about women when he demanded women don't centre their own reproductive rights at a women's march. Even worse were the woman who said yes sir ok sir whatever you say sir.

I'm not sure how it's odd. It seems logical to me precisely because of the chronology you outline.

The article states: "On 16 April the UK Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of “sex” is based on biological sex assigned at birth." This is incorrect. If this were the case, then Imane Khelif, who was "assigned" female at birth, would be "legally defined as" female in the eyes of the Supreme Court. In fact, as we know, they're male. (My understanding is that they would be seen as such by the SC, too, but IANAL and maybe this is something to be tested in future).

Regardless, I agree that the conflation of DSDs and trans status is cynical and exploitative. That's why accuracy and precision are vital. In this particular case, the misreporting of the SC judgement could be cited to support a male boxing against females. This would be wrong.

I'm arguing against the appropriation by trans ideology of the DSD-specific descriptor "assigned at birth". I see the Guardian's misuse of it as disrespectful and damaging.

https://archive.ph/Fd9jk

Bergdorf's now made The Vogue 25 as one of Britain's most influential women 🙄

Idiots 🤦‍♀️

How predictable 🙄

He doesn't influence me.

It is pretty irresponsible for some journalists to throw more fuel onto the trend. Children are influenced by trans and are being harmed by it

The pandering to these men is off the scale!

Unbelievably stupid.

Well, be fair. Bergdorf is influential. I mean, Bergdorf's made a significant contribution to the total redefinition of "woman" to match Bergdorf's perceptions of what a "woman" is.

You really don't get much more influential than that.

A "biological" woman could never achieve it. It's just not within our scope, is it? 🙄😤