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

[GCinAcademia]

Anyone else watching?

https://substack.com/inbox/post/179708306?utm_medium=ios

This is by the host - some background on the run up and day. Webberley seems to have quite a team behind her.

Wait, i have got a bit further with the debate and Helen Webberley says at one point that there are no trans people on the panel. Helen is a man, right? Is she seriously suggesting that she is female?

Males can never become females. Predators will exploit any loophole they can in order to gain access to potential victims.

What makes you think she’s male?

Just instinct - fake voice, very masculine face, masculine neck, masculine shoulders, holds herself as if she is trying to hide, looks like a man in a dress. Behaves like a man. I don't know, it's hard to back fill the details, it was just an instinctive impression as soon as i saw her.

wow... not sure I can fully agree with that!

do a google image search and about half of the pictures look like a man. Also it's the way she seems oblivious to what it is actually like to be a woman. At one point she announces, almost as if she herself had temporarily forgotten, 'i am a woman' with no conviction whatsoever. Anyway, either way, her arguments are totally non sensical. She argues for inclusion and that no group of people should be allowed their own spaces. So that would mean no Black therapy centres, no Iranian refugee centres, no Jewish societies etc etc. Because they are not inclusive and being inclusive is being kind and that's what modern people want apparently. On the one hand it's all identity politics, on the other you must include people of all identities. Why do you need an identity so badly if it has no consequences in society whatsoever. It's all absolute drivel. She has such double standards as well. She says that Julie is not allowed to speak on behalf of people she has interviewed but then announces 'i represent trans people'. She is a vicious, dangerous, evil psychopath who i believe is playing out something disturbed from her own history.

Lots of women look masculine. I'm sure I don't look adequately feminine enough for some people.
As for "behaving like a man" there is no behaviour that only males can display.

There is a hell of a lot to criticise about HW so no need to go for her looks.

Anyway now all her supporters can say she was called a man on MN.

I don’t think she looks like a man at all, and won’t stoop so low as to criticise a woman’s looks. Completely irrelevant to the debate.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to criticise her looks, just thought she was a man. Happy to be corrected.

Quite. The debate is about her apparent sociopathy. I have just looked up Harold Shipman and he exhibited traits that would be characterised as sociopathic or psychopathic:

• Lack of Remorse and Empathy: Shipman exhibited classic traits often associated with psychopathy/sociopathy, including a profound lack of empathy and remorse for his victims.
• Manipulation: He was known for exploiting his position of trust as a doctor to manipulate patients and the system to avoid detection for decades.
• Debate over Clinical Terminology: While sources often use "sociopath" or "psychopath" interchangeably to describe his cold and heartless actions, it is important to note these are popular rather than formal medical terms.
• Motivation and Complexity: Experts and commentators debate his exact motivations (ranging from a "god complex" to financial gain through forged wills), but many agree he displayed dangerous personality traits that represented a "perfect storm" in combination with his medical knowledge and societal trust.

I would be fascinated to hear a psychologists take on her odd body language and utterly unhinged confidence that she is totally right alongside her readiness to lie and manipulate language to her own ends.

While Webberley professes to feel huge empathy for her clients, and frequently asserts that she is a kind person and a good person (who is she trying to convince?), she acts in a way that disregards all knowledge about their long term health and wellbeing and has a callousness about detransitioners that beggars belief. She has a reckless level of disinterest in the health of the client, putting a mental health condition above all else while denying that it is a mental health condition.

She does not claim the be a doctor (although she still calls herself Dr) so she doesn’t have patients, she has clients who pay her money for drugs. I’m wondering if there is a bit of a ‘god complex’ there?

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.

Are you suggesting that behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypical feminine manner is the definition of being female and behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypically masculine manner is the definition of being male?

If so, obviously untrue as behaviours or "presentation" do not define one's sex in "social situations" or any other situation.

Or are you suggesting that stereotypical feminine and masculine behaviours and "presentation" in "social situations" are cues that other people use when they identify someone as female or male?

If so, true. These cues are generally reliable and are generally correctly interpreted. In very rare instances there may be incorrect identification of sex but, as noted above, that does not change the sex of the person observed.

Also rare, when cues are mixed, seem unreliable or are hard to read, people might be unsure of the sex of another person. Androgynous people are still male or female and their sex is not dependent on how they are recognised in a social situation, which might anyway differ between the people they encounter.

Are you suggesting that behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypical feminine manner is the definition of being female and behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypically masculine manner is the definition of being male?

Its typical behaviours not stereotypical behaviours as I explained in the quote you linked.

In terms of self definition as I mentioned upthread that depends what characteristics an individual identifies more with as in their reproductive characteristics or their behavioural inclinations. In the Example Helen Webberley gave of a child observing two distinct groups (males & females) in the playground & categorising themselves according to who they thought they had more in common with pretty much sums up gender identification.

"If so, obviously untrue as behaviours or "presentation" do not define one's sex in "social situations" or any other situation.

Or are you suggesting that stereotypical feminine and masculine behaviours and "presentation" in "social situations" are cues that other people use when they identify someone as female or male?"

You tell me. Can you describe what characteristics/cues you use to distinguish males from females in your day to day interactions with people whose reproductive characteristics you don't know given you usually can't see their gonads or chromosomes?

"If so, true. These cues are generally reliable and are generally correctly interpreted. In very rare instances there may be incorrect identification of sex but, as noted above, that does not change the sex of the person observed."

As I mentioned upthread, given people don't usually 'verify' their categorisations via gonad or chromosomal tests how would you know those 'readings' are generally reliable ? Self evidently, biological variation exists outside of normal ranges not to mention technology has provided for confounding alterations. As far as there being only a minority of cases that are outside the normal ranges its impossible to know the true extent given we haven't tested for billions of people.

As Bindel made the point in the podcast, its impossible to distinguish between the dangerous & non dangerous, the same goes for morphology given the extent of which diversity exists.

"Androgynous people are still male or female and their sex is not dependent on how they are recognised in a social situation, which might anyway differ between the people they encounter."

Certainly not their reproductive sex is dependent on how they are recognised but that's different to whether they or others consider themselves as men/women socially.

https://open.substack.com/pub/thehodgecast/p/my-thoughts-on-the-gender-debate?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Just popping here as is an interesting read

I honestly find difficult to unravel what you are saying, much like Helen Webberley's pronouncements.

In the Example Helen Webberley gave of a child observing two distinct groups (males & females) in the playground & categorising themselves according to who they thought they had more in common with pretty much sums up gender identification.

That's one possible interpretation of the behaviour of a young child who, in Webberley's example, decides to join the line of boys if they are a girl and vice versa. Its weakness as an explanation is that it relies on the hypothetical existence of "gender identity".

people don't usually 'verify' their categorisations via gonad or chromosomal tests how would you know those 'readings' are generally reliable ? Self evidently, biological variation exists outside of normal ranges not to mention technology has provided for confounding alterations. As far as there being only a minority of cases that are outside the normal ranges its impossible to know the true extent given we haven't tested for billions of people.

There are estimates for the number of people born with DSDs/VSDs. Most of these very rare conditions would not result in any ambiguity at all about the sex of a person in a "social context" or any other context, including when a child is born. Start on this page:
www.dsdfamilies.org/parents/what-dsd/brief-overview/conditions

Only two DSDs are relevant to potential ambiguity about sex in a social setting: 46,XY DSD with female phenotype and 46,XX DSD with male phenotype.

(I have not included 5ARD as it is phenomenally rare, children go through male puberty and would then be perceived as male plus in the unlikely event that a child was born with 5ARD in the UK they would be subject to genetic testing so would be raised as male from birth.)

• 46,XY DSD with female phenotype (e.g., CAIS): Prevalence of 6.4 per 100,000 female births (~3.2 per 100,000 total births), representing ~25% of 46,XY DSD cases. These individuals are typically raised and identified as female socially, despite XY chromosomes.

• 46,XX DSD with male phenotype (e.g., XX testicular DSD): Prevalence of 1 in 20,000 males (~2.5 per 100,000 total births), representing ~20-30% of 46,XX DSD cases. These are usually raised and identified as male, despite XX chromosomes.

References:

• Berglund et al. (2016). Incidence and prevalence of 46,XY females. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Link
• MedlinePlus. 46,XX testicular DSD. Link
• Österman et al. (2024). Prevalence of DSD in Switzerland. medRxiv. Link

Those figures translate to an estimated total of less than 3,000 people in the UK from babies to adults age 85+

The number of adults who identify as transgender in the UK might have been possible to estimate if the questions in the most recent census had not been so confusing. All we know is that the census provides an over-estimate given that the highest returns are for boroughs with a high percentage of people who do not have English as their first language.

"The Census 2021 estimate is that 0.54% of people in England and Wales aged 16 years or over had a gender identity different from their sex registered at birth. The majority (93.46%) of people responded that they had a gender identity the same as their sex registered at birth and 6.00% of people did not answer the question. The 2022 Census in Scotland found that 0.44% of people aged 16 years or over were trans or had a trans history."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/articles/census2021genderidentityestimatesforenglandandwalesadditionalguidanceonuncertaintyandappropriateuse/2025-03-26

This gives an estimate of 289,400 people who identify as transgender aged 16 or over. The vast majority of whom will not "pass" unambiguously as the opposite sex.

Estimates based on self-reporting are that 24% are "never clocked" as either transgender or as their actual sex.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

However, IMHO this is very likely to be an over-estimate, given that the majority of people on social media who identify as transgender and who claim to "always pass" do not in fact remotely pass online when they are not using "filters" and/or where their height is apparent and/or they speak.

Being generous, let's say 10% of females and 5% of males, giving a total of 43,400 people aged 16 or over in the UK who unambiguously "pass" as the opposite sex in social situations.

TBH this still seems a rather high number, from personal experience of meeting people in real life who I was later surprised to learn identified as transgender.

This made sense of what at the time had seemed something strange about the people concerned. When I learned that they had been medicalised to mimic the opposite sex it made sense, as I realised that what had seemed strange was a mismatch between their behaviour and what I had erroneously understood to be their sex.

Holly Lawford-Smith has suggested that it is hypothetically possible for a female to successfully "become" a man but that it is not possible for a male to successfully "become" a woman, ie. to be capable of identifying as the opposite sex. That is not to say that any such female would necessarily "pass" as a man in a social setting.

Trans Men Are Men (But Transwomen Are Not Women)
https://hollylawford-smith.org/trans-men-are-men-but-transwomen-are-not-women/

Similarly, someone might "pass" as the opposite sex but not actually identify as the opposite sex. Such as people who are androgynous, which is to do with perception of appearance, presentation and possibly behaviour, independent of any claimed "gender identity". Still likely to be very few and far between.

Another interesting thread derailed by Howseitgoin

Humans cannot change sex. No amount of word salad and chat GPT/AI generated nonsense adds to this fact.

Word to the wise - DO NOT ENGAGE

I honestly find difficult to unravel what you are saying, much like Helen Webberley's pronouncements.

Don't beat yourself up. Like I said from the start, understanding depends on individual limitations. For example A hard science mentality emphasises objective, quantifiable, and replicable data. A soft science mentality focuses on understanding human behaviour and society through methodologies that may be less rigid, relying more on interpretation and dealing with the ambiguity of human subjects. So perhaps you are more of a 'hard science' thinker?

"That's one possible interpretation of the behaviour of a young child who, in Webberley's example, decides to join the line of boys if they are a girl and vice versa. Its weakness as an explanation is that it relies on the hypothetical existence of "gender identity"."

Are you seriously suggesting social and cultural differences between men & women don't exist?

"There are estimates for the number of people born with DSDs/VSDs. Most of these very rare conditions would not result in any ambiguity at all about the sex of a person in a "social context" or any other context, including when a child is born. Start on this page:"

Outside of the normal range doesn't just refer to DSD's. Morphology has huge variation within a sex that's even greater between sexes.

"Holly Lawford-Smith has suggested that it is hypothetically possible for a female to successfully "become" a man but that it is not possible for a male to successfully "become" a woman, ie. to be capable of identifying as the opposite sex. That is not to say that any such female would necessarily "pass" as a man in a social setting."

Yep, that whole take was made on the assumption gender identity is based on 'feelings' which is flawed. Firstly, identification is based on associations….an association with one's intrinsic inclinations that are most likely personality trait influenced. Being aware of self inclinations & interests is hardly a feeling but an observation of one's behavioural tendencies that applied to social categories become a gender identity as in Webberley's example of children in the playground.

Aaaand we're back to those highly reliable factors that can be measured accurately across cultures and time - "associations " and "inclinations"

Clearly not all trans people think HW is their best representative. I can't disagree with any of this:

"Has to be said, Helen hasn't been coming out of these debates looking good.
Especially the one with Julie Blindel - as the debate went on, and Helen presumably thought she was losing, she was getting increasingly petty, pedantic and nit-picking, and by the end she had resorted to openly taunting and goading Julie.
She seemed to have toned it down for the debate with Helen Joyce (the Blindel debate happened a week before the Joyce debate, despite being released after it), but both debates were quite poor performances, and haven't put Helen in a good light.
Debating might not be her strong point, but that makes makes it all the more strange to sign up for all these debates and TV appearances. There's only so far that "all publicity's good publicity" holds true.
Ultimately, I'd say she's doing more harm than good to the trans community at this point."

Its wall to wall Webberley.

A very patient US interviewer. And some jaw dropping statements from Helen. I only managed about 20 minutes.

https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1992974572493140353

'Debating might not be her strong point, but that makes makes it all the more strange to sign up for all these debates and TV appearances. There's only so far that "all publicity's good publicity" holds true.
Ultimately, I'd say she's doing more harm than good to the trans community at this point."'

No shit! She's going to peak the fucking world singlehandedly.

Your arguments are not based on "soft science" they are mere sophistry - and TBH tediously familiar. I am not going to contribute to your derailing any further.

How are my contributions to this discussion 'derailing' when the concepts were discussed directly in the podcast as I quoted numerous times?