Katy Montgomerie

[niadainud]

Just wondering what people think about her. I was sent a link by someone, and I do occasionally try to watch the views of pro-trans people for "balance", but I really struggled with this one.

I find her excessively pleased with herself, incoherent, ageist and of course prone to flinging around insults such as "TERF", "transphone" and "bigot" every few minutes.

I'm not quite sure what gives her the confidence to "diss" people like Helen Joyce, Richard Dawkins et al, as if they're idiots and she is some sort of intellectual giant.

She says things like this: "The UK's Supreme Court ruled on "biological sex", but they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. The "Gender Critical" position on biology is just factually wrong. Finally hundreds of experts in the field come together to call out all this anti-science rubbish"

Other than being trans herself, does she have any justifiable claim to the superior knowledge she purports to have?

I'm not a biologist, but I think if they are described as streak gonads that's because it's not possible to tell. They are streaks of fibrous tissue that would otherwise have developed to become one or the other.

You wouldn't want to masculinise a body that has a womb and a vagina, but obviously it wouldn't go through female puberty either without ovaries to produce the appropriate hormones, so these would have to be administered artificially.

I don't think variations of sexual development, either individually or en masse, should be used politically, no. Some intersex people (as they call themselves) as determined to be outside the sex binary - or even to be proof that it doesn't exist, whereas others feel the exact opposite.

I believe that it is possible to work out which type of gonad that tissue is destined to be.

I have read numerous studies and papers referring to ‘streak ovary’ or streak testis tissue.

I completely agree, but I have already addressed this issue a few pages up-thread. I've explained why I did it and have also said that, in retrospect, I should have used male pronouns from the beginning.

Same here! Blast from the past... (In my head, I hear the name in Glinner's voice 😂).

Yep

In that case - i.e. if it's not just a question of them having the potential to become either - my hunch would be they would match the chromosomes.

Either way, one thing I am fairly confident about is that if the chain of events set in motion by the chromosomes (i.e. that a group of cells will become a male foetus/baby) is interrupted by some malfunction/mutation it won't then lead automatically to the expected result. In other words, XY chromosomes without a functioning SRY gene on the Y chromosome will not result in a baby that has a penis and testes.

I didn't intend it to sound like I was claiming to have no comprehension of the arguments, it's more that I am not totally confident that my slightly shaky knowledge of biology means I've understood as well as I think I have - if that makes sense.

As an XY woman, I would not enjoy being plotted on that graph at all!

Sorry, I misread your reference to body parts and thought you were just referring to internal organs. My mistake.

There was this classic a couple of years ago - KM talking at Edinburgh Uni about why "gender critical is a hate movement". See, for instance, the section on dogwhistles: "gender criticals" as KM calls them are entirely motivated by wanting to ruin trans people's lives and any apparently reasonable concerns are simply codes for transphobia. He can't seem to conceive of any universe in which women don't want men in our spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity and safet and he appears obsessed with getting access to women's toilets. https://media.ed.ac.uk/media/Katy+MontgomerieA+On+combating+online+hate+and+the+gender-critical+movement/1_494hoevq

And the audience consisted of all the worst of the Scottish TRA's, including Big Beth who likes to threat women with violence.

As an XY woman, I would not enjoy being plotted on that graph at all!

🤔

Not read the full thread so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this. Prior to about 7 or 8 years ago KM was fairly reasonable as far as TRAs go. Not very extreme and open to other ideas. I'd only noticed him because he's local to me.

Then he went to Europe for surgery. Since then he has changed, hardened, become more militant. I don't know if he's disappointed by the surgery, or by the fact that it doesn't change anything in how he moves through the world or is perceived by others. He's still not a woman.

I think his illusions were shattered once there was no way back.

He posted about going for surgery on Twitter at the time, so this isn't confidential info.

No, I'm not trans, I'm one of Fausto-Sterling's debunked 1.7%.

Yes, please stop referring to him as ‘she/ her’ OP.

FFS. Please RTFT, or at least my posts.

He's a chonking great unit who does still look very much the strapping death metaller he was pre all this. Not a bad guitarist, apparently.

Tbf, he used to be genuinely funny a couple of years ago; I used to chuckle at his nonsense.

He's too cross post SC to be entertaining anymore.

He’s an idiot. And a misogynistic pig

I like to listen to a range of arguments. Unfortunately KMs youtube discussion after the SC ruling had so many factual errors - eg confidently declared that based on the SC ruling TW would not be legally protected from discriminatory treatment regarding pay, and also that it was irrelevant to toilets - that it seemed a waste of time. I assume KM didn't bother to watch/read the ruling, yet is confidently telling trans viewers what the ruling means for their legal rights and how to respond to it - a disservice to them.

😂

Bergdorff did that too. I saw a clip of him on Loose Women - who incidentally needs to take a long hard look at themselves - and he was saying how some protections of trans people had been removed after the SC ruling.
I don't understand why they want to lie. Why would they want to whip up hysteria? Or are they just so thick that's what they think? Either way it makes them seem more important so that's probably the reason.

I think that there are thought leaders such as ex-judge McCloud who have fed a whole lot of fear and given a whole lot of misinformation to people who are now repeating the soundbites.

And those repeating the soundbites may or may not realise that what they are repeating is misinformation.

It is hard to know who knows this is misinformation and who doesn't understand that it is misinformation, because so many people will use pseudoscientific theory to distort reality to fit their needs.

"Do their arguments hold any weight"

None whatsoever. This isn't about performing a test to see if sex means biological sex. This is what the word means.

Doctors and biologists are as qualified to comment on that as supermarket trolley stackers.

We have seen quite a few 'trans' identifying people subsequently claim 'intersex' conditions.

In some cases it may be true.

In others, such as cases where men have fathered children and then claim to have chromosomal abnormalities that would mean it would be almost impossible for them to have fathered children, I am less convinced.

But then, up until yesterday, we had NHS Fife calling 'Intersex' a 'gender identity', so the powers that be have aided and abetted this situation, suggesting that 'intersex' is something one can identify into in accordance with an inner feeling.

And of course, we have some people with DSDs who are claiming they are the opposite sex - typically, we see this in sportspeople, namely males with DSDs claiming to be women and going on to make very lucrative careers in female sports.

I'm now predicting a rush of mathematicians claiming that 2+2 does not equal 4.

"That is a binary answer and doesn't take into account personal preference"