Biology (Bindel) vs Ideology (Webberley) on the Hodge-Cast

[GCinAcademia]

Anyone else watching?

The most interesting bit was the end when Bindel agreed with Webberley there shouldn't be any gendered typical behavioural categories but then walked it back immediately on "male violence".

No Julie, you can't have it both ways….

Each sentence seemingly needs to be taken in isolation. That way, it doesn’t matter if they are contradictory….. I honestly wonder if she is actually a sociopath/psychopath, is delusional or is just money hungry.

Do you think male violence should exist?

I think it's more reminiscent of when I used to speak to people who were experiencing mental health crises.

When someone is that unwell, that divorced from rational, logical and stable thoughts and that alone in a reality only they can grasp, there's no reaching them.

It's actually wrong and exploitative for us all to be given such an opportunity to point and laugh really.

She needs to be taken home, looked after and helped.

She certainly doesn't need us to even attempt to join her in her illness.

Are you calling her a liar?

I'm saying Bindel's story can't be blindly accepted as reliable given the differences in category & outcomes. And to be fair, she's not a reliable interlocutor given the extent of oversimplifications, tropes & bad faith arguments she offered.

Can you expand on your point?

comparing the two debates is interesting. Someone has sat down with HW and worked out a strategy for each, I think.

For JB, it was ‘attack the feminist idea that men are more likely to be aggressive’
For HJ it was. ‘Refute her right to debate at all because she isn’t a medical doctor’

What they hadn’t done is say ‘and try not to sound bat shit crazy.

oh and there are several papers published on pelvic floor problems linked to women taking testosterone. You’d think that the medic would be familiar with them so she can properly inform her patients.

Well, how is saying that gendered behavioural categories shouldn’t exist, and talking about male violence (which undisputedly does exist) contradictory?

Word to the wise - Howseitgoin is a regular disrupter on threads and will run out of steam at some point but best not to engage TBH. Whatever you say they will contradict.

For lurkers.

Julie Bindel states that there should not be gendered behaviour expectations such as women having to have babies or women staying at home or changing your name after marriage - pretty much any other behavioural expectation that is put on women.

A previous poster is making out that means we should not document and address the male behaviours which are not expected, but do seem to spill out. Behaviours such as harassment, rape, stalking, murder.

These are not the same things.

Honestly though, if this is the woman that you are defending, explain why you are so invested in her rather than have a go at the woman on the other side of the debate.

Explain why stopping kids from growing into adults through puberty is your bag.

Explain why making men look like little girls is part of your argument.

Just explain why women should be subject to menopause in their 20s and osteoporosis is such a good thing.

It should be an easy explanation if you are so keen on it.

Let's face it Webberly boils down to but they are women. They say they are women and because they arevmen saying it they deserve to be acknowledged more than those silly cis women who don't matter.

I think listening to her that she's just a very middle class woman who genuinely can not see how women and girls are still oppressed and discriminated against in this world. She reminds me of someone i know who gets fixated on someone that she thinks needs and deserves help, but she doesn't actually listen, so would for example if someone couldn't feed their family due to lack of money she'd buy them a top of the range pan set cos you need decent pans to cook but ignore the fact there's no food to cook in them. Its doing good on their own terms, it's about being completely selfish about wanting to feel charitable.

I think the point both were attempting to agree on is that as behaviours aren't exclusive to one sex they shouldn't be gendered but Bindel then walked that back by saying male violence is gendered as in typical to the male sex. I'm not suggesting it's not, in fact I agree it is.

My point is it's not the only typical behaviour that distinguishes the sexes & yet Bindel refuses to acknowledge this because to do so would be to invalidate her argument that trans people rely on stereotypes rather than are inclined towards opposite sex behaviours that legitimise their association with them.

It is quite possible.

Although I’m not sure anyone has sat her down. I’m convinced she’s asked AI to come up with her best strategy for both.

I had a hunch when I was watching, so I went to Chat GPT and prompted it as if I was HW preparing to debate HJ. The strategy it came up with entirely centred on the fact HW is a medical doctor and HJ isn’t.

You’re right though. It turned out to be a weak position, since HJ came armed with research that HW hasn’t even heard of, but should be familiar with if she’s serious about providing evidence-based care.

How is Webberley saying the EA2010 says that 'gender reassignment' means 'sex reassignment' when the SC has just said that it does not and that for purposes of the EA (and all legislation affected) sex means biological sex, which means that TiMs are biological males?

As JB said throughout the interview, male violence isn’t a ‘typical behaviour that distinguishes the sexes’.

Male violence is a problem perpetrated by a minority of males - the problem is, we can’t tell by looking at them which ones, hence the need for single sex spaces, especially to protect women who have experienced male violence.

Nowhere in the interview does she say that all males are violent, or that is a behaviour typical of all males.

What's to expand? Do you think male violence should be allowed? It's a simple question.

I mean, would anyone with half a brain cell need to consult AI given the obvious weakness in Bindel was she wasn't a medical expert?

That Bindel felt justified in using anecdotal evidence of individual fringe & theoretical cases rather peer reviewed data to make generalisations about an entire group ought to spell out the problem without help surely?

IGNORE HOWSEITGOING.

Just ignore him.

Quite.

Also I’m not sure she even understands what the EA means.

It means people cannot be discriminated against because they are transgender.

People also cannot be discriminated against because of their biological sex.

It is also clear that it is not discriminatory to have single sex spaces.

It couldn’t be clearer, especially since the SC ruling. So why is she even bringing it up?

Bindel makes it clear violence is a male problem & in fact goes to great lengths to refute that females are anywhere comparable when HW claims they too engage in violence which by implication means its more associated with males.

doesn’t Bindel mean rape as male violence? Which is definitely based on sex. Similar to pregnancy being a female behaviour?

I don’t understand your comments, Howsitgoin, about how there is a biological component to transwomen behaviour. There is nothing from behaviours based on the female sex that transwomen can have.

it turned out to be a weak position

I was almost cringing for HW when she said (I paraphrase from memory and gut reaction) "You're only a mathematician, and mathematicians don't play any role in medicine." What a numpty.

I felt she actually did better against Julie Bindel with her "I'm a scientist so I'm not impressed by your anecdotal evidence."

ETA I felt HW fared better than JB on the issue of detransitioners, because JB relied on anecdotes.On the issue of male violence, Julie has all the evidence she needs.

Hormones influencing sex distinctions in behaviour isn't in the least scientifically controversial as in for example testosterone influencing increased sex drive & aggression & estrogen influencing mood, sensitivity & caring.

That variations from hormone exposure exist in a minority of cases implicates sexed behaviour non conformity rooted in biological influences.

She does, because violence is a male problem.

That’s not even close to saying that it’s a “typical male behaviour”, which implies that all males are inherently violent.

I’m not sure you’re making the point you think you’re making here?