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

[GCinAcademia]

Anyone else watching?

The Helen Joyce one is 50 mins, Julie Bindel was longer

1)How do you differentiate the sex-based patterns from gender-based patterns?
The nature vs nurture question isn't really answered yet and it's known that many things which were explained as probably natural (like cohort based difference in spatial awareness) are society induced or at least amplified (starting with adults behaving differently to male and female children in toddler phase).

Many of your examples sounded like society induced differences to me.

2)Even if there were such a difference, what about it?
It's absolutely ok that someone doesn't fit the behavioural pattern of their sex/gender. It's fine that people value things they consider the opposite sex/gender typical. We should support it everywhere where we think about people as individuals. It should be safe to be a male person in skirt, or tough looking female person.

But when you legally divide the people, you need some objective reality, otherwise you are denying the purpose of the division (or introducing thought crimes, evaluating whether people were honest enough in describing their subjective position).

Yeah right. You are Helen Webberley and I claim my five quid.

Thanks v much. Might need a large Baileys for all of that!

I do agree there were some weaker moments from JB in terms of evidence, however she drove home seriously poignant arguments overall. Certainly enough to annihilate HW in the online vote. She did some fantastic work in communicating and defending the gc viewpoint. I thought she was amazing, all things considered - I loved her debating style, so respectful and every sentence deeply considered. HJ too, was fabulous. HW came across as self important and patronising, with a psychopathic smile.

Two very different but equally important interviews. Very grateful for both these women's strength and fortitude.

1)How do you differentiate the sex-based patterns from gender-based patterns?
The nature vs nurture question isn't really answered yet and it's known that many things which were explained as probably natural (like cohort based difference in spatial awareness) are society induced or at least amplified (starting with adults behaving differently to male and female children in toddler phase).

Comparing differences in more egalitarian countries to ones that aren't has been a method with the findings being that the differences are even wider with less cultural pressures as the research on employment differences shows done in Scandinavian countries.

Another method is how hormonal difference influence child play which indicates there are prenatal endocrine influences on sexually differentiated childhood behaviour.

And let's not forget animal studies like the one on Rhesus Monkeys & ty selection.

"It's absolutely ok that someone doesn't fit the behavioural pattern of their sex/gender. It's fine that people value things they consider the opposite sex/gender typical. We should support it everywhere where we think about people as individuals. It should be safe to be a male person in skirt, or tough looking female person.

But you could say that transpeople are the epitome of this idea given they are essentially saying their reproductive sex doesn't have to be congruent to their gender.

But when you legally divide the people, you need some objective reality, otherwise you are denying the purpose of the division (or introducing thought crimes, evaluating whether people were honest enough in describing their subjective position)."

Not sure what you mean here. Could you expand?

Urgh sorry i am a bit late to the discussion. I can't get through the julie bindel one, helen webberley is so ghoulish and it's absolutely disgusting that she compares keeping female spaces safe with the holocaust. She should be in prison. She is the one carrying out irreversible medical experiments on children a la joseph mengele. The Helen Joyce one was a joy to listen to, she absolutely destroyed Helen Webberley - and it was much better hosted. I don't know who the guy was who hosted the Bindel one but he looked like a deer in headlights for most of it. I can see why because Helen was allowed to speak more and the level of her disturbance became much more apparent than in the other interview. I think her disturbance/psychopathy was really affecting Julie in a way that it didn't affect Helen at all.

More egalitarian in some aspects doesn't mean that the gender norms don't influence them.

But you could say that transpeople are the epitome of this idea given they are essentially saying their reproductive sex doesn't have to be congruent to their gender.

I'm saying that the whole gender identity is subjective and irrelevant for anyone outside of the holder.

A woman is a female person who was raised in gendered society. She can be conforming or not conforming in many aspects, but the shared part is female and being subjected to a specific social norm based on her sex.

I understand that many people don't like the gender norm associated with their sex. Gender norms suck in general. However, no matter how strongly they express this dislike, it just doesn't change their sex.

Once there is a biological or legal reason to separate by sex, gender identity becomes irrelevant.

But you could say that transpeople are the epitome of this idea given they are essentially saying their reproductive sex doesn't have to be congruent to their gender.

That's actually the opposite of what transpeople are doing. A man who identifies as a "transwoman" is saying that his "gender" makes him a woman. That is, he believes that his "gender" should align with his sex and his womanly gender identity (gender) means that he is actually a woman (sex). Obviously to any rational person, he is still a man.

It's actually feminists who say that you can have any gender/gender identity/ personality, regardless of your sex. There is no gender/gender identity/ personality which is only acceptable for one sex or the other. But you can't change sex.

"More egalitarian in some aspects doesn't mean that the gender norms don't influence them."

Of course. But being freer to choose once there are more opportunities shouldn't be making the gap even wider. How would you explain that?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899

"I'm saying that the whole gender identity is subjective and irrelevant for anyone outside of the holder."

Not really because as I already mentioned we don't socially usually use reproductive traits to distinguish men from women. We use other typical associations to cis people.

And whilst gender identity is personally subjective so is the decision to identify with sexual identity. It's all a matter of what an individual perceives as their defining characteristics.

"A woman is a female person who was raised in gendered society. She can be conforming or not conforming in many aspects, but the shared part is female and being subjected to a specific social norm based on her sex."

But as I mentioned, socially in practice we usually don't know about those 'shared reproductive parts' so they aren't always relevant when making distinctions.

"I understand that many people don't like the gender norm associated with their sex. Gender norms suck in general.

Yes, as both Bindel & Webberley agreed with but the problem is as they & you & I disagree on is how those gender norms come into being. Nurture only for GC's & Nature & Nurture for the rest.

"However, no matter how strongly they express this dislike, it just doesn't change their sex."

Reproductive sex? At least we agree on one thing. 😁

Not really because as I already mentioned we don't socially usually use reproductive traits to distinguish men from women.

We absolutely do. Men and women have different body shapes. These are a result of our different reproductive roles. Most people can recognise the sex of another person even from a distance, from behind, or only from a quick glance. If you struggle with this, it's you that's unusual.

I'm starting to think that you must have a condition similar to prosopagnosia (face blindness), but concerned with sex differences. This must make life quite difficult for you in some respects, but you shouldn't assume that we all share this condition.

The idea biological variation from the norm doesn't exist points to scientific illiteracy.

Yes, as both Bindel & Webberley agreed with but the problem is as they & you & I disagree on is how those gender norms come into being. Nurture only for GC's & Nature & Nurture for the rest.

The nurture/nature debate is an ongoing topic of discussion and I'm sure you'll find plenty of earlier threads on here if you look.

Nurture only for GC's

This is incorrect (and I'm not just talking about the misplaced apostrophe). Have a look at some earlier threads discussing this.

Did you mean to quote a different post? I didn't mention anything about biological variation from the norm and whether it exists.

Yeah you did because you explicitly stated you could 'always tell' a male from a female when that isn't accurate given biological variation from the norms exist.

Bindel clearly disagrees when she said in the podcast "femininity was imposed on women" as do many feminists like Butler who claim gender is socially constructed.

I didn't say you could "always tell". That's your misinterpretation of what I said.

But at least 99% of the time, it's easy for most women to distinguish the sex of another person.

It seems it may be slightly more difficult for men who seem to be more likely to be fooled by superficial appearances, but even most men can correctly sex most people most of the time.

If you have great difficulty with this, you are quite unusual, but you shouldn't assume that others share your disability.

Femininity is imposed on women. But that doesn't mean the nature/nurture debate doesn't exist.

Butler isn't a feminist. She seems to hate women. And she most certainly isn't gender critical. She loves gender.

I don't know if I have any difficulty nor do you for that matter given both you & I don't know if we are accurate. How do you know if you are? Do you conduct gonad & chromosome checks on everyone you come into contact with afterwards? Have you conducted these checks on entire populations to prove so?

The 99% 'accuracy' assertion doesn't account for ambiguous cases of which are either genetic & hormonal variants or individuals who never went thru their sex assigned at birth puberty, took hormones & had surgery….like trans people.

💯

In line with Webberley, I do believe trans people when they say they are the gender they are! Based on what I understand of gender identity - which is limited because I don’t have lived experience to draw upon - no one other than the gender identity holder can know their gender. My understanding is that the label ‘trans’ only comes in to play when someone’s gender identity is at odds with their natal sex.

Sex, as classification system (with 2 categories within it - male and female), is independent of any constructs beyond sexual reproduction.

Gender identity, as a classification system has many categories, some of which draw upon ideas about the ‘male’ and ‘female’ categories with the sex classification system.

Not everyone human can be classified by gender identity, not everyone has one. The only way to classify people by gender identity is to ask them.

Everyone human can be classified by natal sex. This can be done without asking them, and without reference to anything other than their reproductive system. For over 99% of the population, this is accurately observable at birth.

It really is that simple. Those who struggle to recognise the simplicity tend to be those trying to create a single classification system that combines sex and gender identity. They seek to create Venn diagrams showing overlapping circles linking sex and gender identity. However, the nature of sex classification means the circle for male and the circle for female never overlap - they are mutually exclusive. If you are male, you simply can’t be placed in the female category.

Yeah, this one. It's interesting, but not the gotcha how some use it.
Yes, if you are struggling to survive, it leads your choices in very practical ways, but more egalitarian in law and some highlevel aspects doesn't mean absence of social gender.

I'm not saying nurture only. I'm saying that the personal variety doesn't make someone the other sex. Or gender in the meaning "which social norm you were subjected to since being a baby". It just makes them an outlier.
Many such outliers acknowledge their sex, recognise that gender sucks but isn't a law and make their lives work as humans, adding their bit to changing the gender norm as they go. Some "go vegan" and base their existence on telling others how they feel wronged by nature, altering the appearance to pretend they are the sex which they are not.

But as I mentioned, socially in practice we usually don't know about those 'shared reproductive parts' so they aren't always relevant when making distinction
Biological sex isn't represented only be internal organs and genitalia. Even your reaction to Aspirin is sex based.

You are trying to build some alternative definition of sex based on personality. That's impractical at best and dangerous at worst.

You are trying to build some alternative definition of sex based on personality. That's impractical at best and dangerous at worst.

I can't build something that already exists. And that something is something Bindel, you, I & everyone maintain when we categorise the sex of people we come into contact with without 'confirmation'.

in the words of JK Rowling: I’ve got this superpower called eyesight.

I agree that in the vast majority of cases, when encountering people in daily life, it’s easy to tell if someone is male or female, regardless of their gender conformity. This can mostly be achieved through looking, and this is easier when seeing someone stand and move around. If that leaves questions, hearing their voice usually clarifies any doubt. Transwomen who have had voice coaching sound like males who have had voice coaching. Females with deep voices sound like females with deep voices!

I also agree that this ability doesn’t involve 💯 accuracy and for the most part, this shouldn’t matter. What difference does it make if the people around me in public settings are male or female. It only matters when using single sex provision and females should not have to second guess. They should rest assured knowing that males will not encroach on female only provision.

Males who use single sex provision for women are violating women’s boundaries and the law. That’s the beginning and end of it.

Every adult who decides to go through any kind of extreme body modifications needs to evaluate the influence it will have on their future life in the society.
It might mean moving from Olympics to Paraolympics (literally or figuratively).

Any adults who perform such extreme body modification on children needs to be jailed.