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

[GCinAcademia]

Anyone else watching?

Typical or 'behaviour patterned' real world expressions rather than expectations?

Psychological expressions of agreeability & neuroticism, presentation, study, employment, special interest & consumerist choices that distinguish them from men.

She did.

More of the same batshit crazy, refusing to answer the question nonsense.

But as others have said, her line of attack seemed to be to discredit HJ as a lowly mathematician. Did you see JB’s post on substack today? I’d be interested to hear HJ’s post-debate thoughts. It must have been utterly draining for them both.

Incarceration is not the same as offending of which just like rape there's no accurate method of verification given most violent crimes are not reported & there are all sorts of variables that confound the data that are discussed in the link below that refer to your claim.

People offend at different rates depending on their disposition IE younger, poorer, straight men offend at substantially higher rates than older, wealthier, gay men. Lesbians offend at substantially higher rates than straight women with studies showing Lesbians offend at higher rates than gay men.

It's also important to note that given the trans population is so small (1%) its not considered possible to make any meaningful conclusions because the data is statistically insignificant.

https://medium.com/@davidallsopp/bang-to-rights-d5eab85d9a2

"Not sure you do. Sex patterned behaviour is our mating rituals, who bears children etc. The traits you mention, having interests or inclinations more like those of the opposite sex, are gender expectations."

The study I posted upthread indicates hormones influence gendered childhood play & lets not forget the influence of genes too. That's not to say societal expectations don't have some influence its just not the only one.

There's also an interesting study on Rhesus monkeys that indicates a distinction in gendered interests.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2583786/

With the Helen Joyce interview I think it helped having a host who kept things on track. The guy in Julie's one wasn't as good

Discussing why Bindel's assertions in the interview were or were not flawed is "on topic" Joyce's relevance as yet another non medical expert? Not so much.

Hope that helps.

Well. Audience seems quite clear on who won Bindel v Webberley.

Oh! I saw that upthread and was still on Julie Bindle in my head so it didn't make much sense in that context, but then I didn't expect much sense from HW 😂

Thank you!

No I haven't seen JBs substack post, what did she say please?

I'd be interested in HJ's thoughts after the interview too, and agree dealing with HW (and others like her) must be draining!

https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/i-was-in-the-presence-of-evil

Basically that HW is just as malevolent as she seems, and a total energy vampire.

I think both JB and HJ did extremely well to keep their composure. I couldn’t have managed it.

Absolutely agree. I'm having to make my way though the recordings in small chunks to survive them!

Depends in what sense. Do they belong in the same 'sex' category in terms of reproductive biological characteristics? No. Do they belong in the same sex category in terms of typical behavioural characteristics? Yes.

’typical behavioural characteristics’ is not a sex category. HTH.

Stereotypes are just a descriptor of group level observed behaviours. They change across time and location and are not definitive of anything. The statement above is similar to the sort of slippery disingenuousness of Helen Webberley. I have watched clips of the HW/HJ debate and saw an excellent breakdown of the constant motte and bailey tactic employed by HW. It must have been exhausting to debate with HW who lies like breathing and when she can’t lie, changes definitions mid stream.

I noticed one sentence where she started talking about ‘sex’, then replaced that with ‘gender’ and then ended it with ‘gender identity’ - all purporting to be the same thing. Total dishonesty.

Why does he keep calling Webberley "Doctor Helen" ?

Surely Helen will suffice.

And Youtube highlighted this to me

If HW does not recognise sex categories, then what does ‘trans’ refer to and why does she think certain people need to be prescribed certain hormones?

Anecdotes? Is speaking to actual detransitioners ‘anecdotal’? Surely that’s what research relies on - asking people with actual lived experience of an issue how it impacts them.

I watched both Julie and Helen Joyce’s interview with Weberley. I liked the format with Julie’s but in both “debates” I thought the moderator could have done better. Maybe because I’ve read so much up I just feel they lacked knowledge on the subject. Also, things like Julie mentioned coming back to discuss the census but it wasn’t mentioned again. If I was moderator I would have brought it up again.

I'm on JB's side here. I just felt she was on weaker ground on the issue of detransitioners because she couldn't (or at least she didn't) point to results of studies; she only mentioned conversations with a few individuals. HW spotted that weakness and exploited it. That said, she's not on much firmer ground herself, only able to boast of a self-selected cohort of satisfied customers. And she's probably never even met most of them.

[insert some convoluted circular argument about how they identify different from the sex they were assigned at birth, as if sex is some random, arbitrary thing that can’t be accurately observed 99.98% of cases]

Its all totally illogical and bonkers

By that logic though, all qualitative research would be considered anecdotal because it’s not based on hard science and statistics (which is interesting since HW clearly thinks mathematicians like HJ are beneath her).

And why does HW think her anecdotal evidence is okay (which is likely skewed by the nature of her contact with them), but any anecdotal evidence that contradicts her worldview is immediately discounted?

Yes, she's inconsistent and dishonest. On examination, her arguments crumble. But she seems good at seizing an opportunity to bully and belittle her opponent. She's uncannily like some of our thread derailers.

I couldn’t listen to the Bindel/Webberley one. It was too much like one of those awful Twitter spats where one side, having unilaterally declared that words mean something other than they have traditionally meant, simply talk at cross purposes using their new definition and ignore and sidestep all challenges to push their narrative. Julie Bindel wasn’t really scoring any points because Webberley just bounced them away and countered facts with her own false version. If you didn’t know the outcome of the SC judgment, for example, you wouldn’t know who was right as Webberley was so glib as she lied.

I may try the Joyce/Webberley discussion, if the concensus is that it’s less frustrating.

"typical behavioural characteristics’ is not a sex category. HTH."

'Sex' in essence is about distinctive characteristics between the sexes that you clearly believe hence the demand for single sex spaces. The idea that only the body & not the mind evolved differently for survival & reproductive purposes between the sexes is ludicrous.

"Stereotypes are just a descriptor of group level observed behaviours. They change across time and location and are not definitive of anything."

You seem confused. Stereotypes are societal expectations that are oversimplified, often inaccurate, belief about a group of people, while typical behaviour refers to the common patterns of action observed in a population without being a rigid, fixed assumption, they are observable trends that don't discount individual differences.

"They change across time and location and are not definitive of anything."

'Changes' that aren't evolved are influenced by environmental/societal pressures. Behaviours like 'aggression' can be tempered & managed but they can't be eradicated without evolutionary pressures involved which is unlikely so the idea there are no stable behaviours is false.

In any case, that behaviours change is irrelevant to the point of 'sex' being about characteristic distinctions. Definitions rely on social usage & given societally we usually don't rely on gametes or chromosomes to distinguish men from women in social situations implicates the use of behaviours such as surface level presentation being a definitive sex distinction.

"I noticed one sentence where she started talking about ‘sex’, then replaced that with ‘gender’ and then ended it with ‘gender identity’ - all purporting to be the same thing. Total dishonesty."

Like I said from the start, if the frame of reference is flawed to begin with it's impossible to follow the nuances involved not to mention the obvious bias against doing so. One only need read Bindel's 'reaction' to the debate as "being in the presence of evil" & others enthusiastically nodding along to notice the amount of hyperbolic demonising hysteria of perceiving HW as "evil". If the standard of "evil" is unintended harm of others then one could easily apply that to GC ideology.

That consensus based medical treatments evidenced on data & clinical experience maybe eventually proved as harmful isn't "evil". It's just misguided.

As Bindel showcased, GC ideology relies on appeals to the extreme & dehumanisation & demonisation of not just trans people & their advocates but the medical profession. Always pointing to the extreme perverse rarities to smear & delegitimise. Six foot man following a child into the loos? Seriously?

In evidence-based medicine, clinical experience being used alongside research data to make the best decisions for patients is standard practice & 'self selection' applies broadly as well. The point being either medical experts either notice improvements or they don't.

And herein lies the problem with inserting non medical expert activists as legitimate critics of the medical profession…they have no idea what they are talking about.

I may try the Joyce/Webberley discussion, if the concensus is that it’s less frustrating.

I've not listened to either yet ... how long are each of them?

That sounds about right. Consistently inconsistent!