Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Rolfe]

I note they don't mention that Professor Wintemute was one of the authors of the notorious "Yogakarta principles", which are simply a codified laundry list of trans-activist demands. At that point he was fully on board with the trans project and happy to recommend they should be given everything they want.

It was only later that he started to think about how these demands impacted on and indeed destroyed women's rights that he reconsidered. He now realises that the entire trans project is predicated on riding a coach and horses through women's rights to single-sex spaces and provisions, and is speaking up against it.

All credit to him. But it's shocking to realise how little anyone involved in this project considers women's rights - the issue isn't even on their radar. Women are just expected to budge over and put up with it.

[d4m10n]

“There was a feeling that transgender people have suffered and they are saying this is what is needed — the implications of no surgery and self-ID had not dawned on us back in 2006. So far as I remember nobody was thinking about males with intact genitals gaining access to women’s spaces.”

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april...hat-trump-all/

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Rolfe]

Thanks.

[Rolfe]

I wish he had as much influence now he's talking sense as he did when he was a fervent lobbyist for the trans position.

Quote:

Having listened to women and had his “eyes opened”, Wintemute has travelled so far from his original position that he now wonders whether the GRA and prior laws in Europe should have been passed. “The arguments made at that time were that people had done everything they could to appear to be of the opposite sex, but the fact that their appearance did not match their official documents put them at risk of violence, harassment, or discrimination,” he says.

Instead of changing the person’s legal sex, the law could have simply sought to protect people from harm triggered by the difference between their legal sex and their appearance on the basis of their presentation, he suggests. “This would remove much of the current conflict, as it would affirm trans people’s birth sex as their legal sex, while ensuring their protection from discrimination based on gender non-conforming appearance or behaviour.”

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I wish he had as much influence now he's talking sense as he did when he was a fervent lobbyist for the trans position.

"A lie travels round the world while the truth is still lacing its shoes."

There seems to be a *lot* of activism and sensationalism that follows this principle. Huge hype and headlines when the original idea is promoted, little or no attention when the original idea turns out to have flaws and need re-working.

[Rolfe]

OT, but I remember years ago on the forum we had a discussion about a BBC item on "The Beast of Helensburgh", which was all hyped up to suggest that a black panther was stalking the railway line at that town. (You could see from the film it was a black Felis domesticus, and not even an especially big one at that.)

Repeated item on the BBC news. Spots on several national newspapers.

If you wanted to find out what happened next, it was only in the small-circulation Helensburgh Advertiser. The cat was identified as one "Puss-puss", the pet of a little girl who lived near the railway line. Locals had identified the cat immediately. But the BBC and the national newspapers never followed it up at all.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Ah well, back to watching glinner piss all over the last smouldering remains of his reputation, career, relationships and mental health, and his inevitable re-banning from twitter.

I don't think gendercrits should be judged based on Linehan's behavior any more than trans rights advocates should be judged based on the activism of folks like Merager & Yaniv. That said, since you keep bringing him up, I've got a question for anyone who cares to answer:

https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1613516753098706945

Do you think he's making a good point here, or is this sort of word policing unnecessary?

[theprestige]

If you'd asked me a couple years ago, I would have said probably not. Today? Absolutely. "Gender assigned at birth" is a now-anachronistic synonym for "sex observed at birth". Anachronistic because TRAs want to play Orwellian games with language to further their anti-social agenda. So let's drop the old-timey synonym, and normalize what actually happens: Sex is observed at birth, and duly recorded along with the newborn's other biological facts.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If you'd asked me a couple years ago, I would have said probably not. Today? Absolutely. "Gender assigned at birth" is a now-anachronistic synonym for "sex observed at birth". Anachronistic because TRAs want to play Orwellian games with language to further their anti-social agenda. So let's drop the old-timey synonym, and normalize what actually happens: Sex is observed at birth, and duly recorded along with the newborn's other biological facts.

The highlighted is correct. At least in this context, sex and gender are no longer synonyms.

For completeness, you could add: "Due to the high correlation between gender and sex, gender is assumed from sex. Gender is not observable at birth."

[Nick Terry]

Petition on the Equality Act just reached 69,000 (12.06am GMT).
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

The other petition on gender identity in relationships education, which runs out on Jan 18, is now at 35,219 signatures - it's obviously not going to get anywhere near 100K, but the recent surge is still curious.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618970

[Rolfe]

There's also one about repealling the entire GRA which has made its 10K but doesn't look set to get the 100K. Maybe people think that's too radical, but frankly it's something that will have to be done eventually. It's a complete dog's breakfast and Wintemute is right.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628382

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TomB

The highlighted is correct. At least in this context, sex and gender are no longer synonyms.

The tweet was about sex "assigned at birth," rather than gender. The only sense in which gender is assigned to newborns is that some get light blue hats and the others get pastel pink.

Personally, I'm on the fence this time. If someone says "sex observed at birth" I know what they mean, if they say "sex assigned at birth," I know what they mean. I'm inclined to "birth sex" myself. Linehan and the intersectional social justice activists likely agree that this is a battle worth fighting, but I remain skeptical.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The tweet was about sex "assigned at birth," rather than gender. The only sense in which gender is assigned to newborns is that some get light blue hats and the others get pastel pink.

Personally, I'm on the fence this time. If someone says "sex observed at birth" I know what they mean, if they say "sex assigned at birth," I know what they mean. I'm inclined to "birth sex" myself. Linehan and the intersectional social justice activists likely agree that this is a battle worth fighting, but I remain skeptical.

Really, I don't care a whole lot. I know what people mean, and arguing about terminology seems like a distraction from the real issues. But the word "assigned" grates on me in this context. Perhaps overly so.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The tweet was about sex "assigned at birth," rather than gender. The only sense in which gender is assigned to newborns is that some get light blue hats and the others get pastel pink.

Personally, I'm on the fence this time. If someone says "sex observed at birth" I know what they mean, if they say "sex assigned at birth," I know what they mean. I'm inclined to "birth sex" myself. Linehan and the intersectional social justice activists likely agree that this is a battle worth fighting, but I remain skeptical.

Second response to the same post.

I know what the post was about. What theprestige posted (sex observed at birth) is accurate. I'm just pointing out that people usually assume gender from sex. Then they paint the nursery, choose names, and buy clothes based on that assumption.

Sounds terrible, but 99 percent of the time that assumption is correct, even if there is no rational reasons that boys get blue and girls get pink etc. Basically, taking sex and extrapolating personality and preferences.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TomB

Really, I don't care a whole lot. I know what people mean, and arguing about terminology seems like a distraction from the real issues. But the word "assigned" grates on me in this context. Perhaps overly so.

Some while back, Tumblr activists tried to take linguistic shift even further, imputing coercion to the process.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Ah no, you misunderstood. I just stopped by to remind you that Linehan - whom you were demonstrably happy to see back on Twitter - is living up to form as an out-and-out nutjob who (from the minute he was allowed back on twitter) has resumed obsessively tweeting anti-trans screeds at a rate of well over 18 hours per day every day*, and who has lost his wife, his family, his home, almost all of his friends & (former) colleagues and his career in the process. I was wondering what it was about him you admire so much, and what your admiration of him says about you. That's all.

Yes, I understood. You consistently resort to personal attacks, misrepresentations, smears, guilt by association, and applauding silencing and punishment (eg. firing, ostracism) of people you disagree with. There was once a time when most people who regarded themselves as sceptics seemed to understand that people do this because they are intolerant of dissent and cannot advance their position by debate because they have no argument (e.g. scientologists). This was before a large chunk of the sceptic movement abandoned scientific scepticism for ideological fundamentalism and apparently decided that scientologists are great role models and champions of free speech.

Quote:

Oh and BTW, please could you kindly inform me what evidence there is that homosexuality is a valid condition and not a mental health disorder

Human characteristics do not divide into ‘disorders’ or ‘valid conditions’. If somebody advocates that a condition should be classified as a disorder, the accepted requirements today are that it causes clinically significant distress, functional impairment and/or harm to others, and therefore may require diagnosis, treatment/management, or accommodation. Accordingly, there is no reason for homosexuality to be classified as a disorder. It was classified as such because it was socially stigmatized and illegal, and that was considered sufficient at the time the first DSM was published in the 1950s.
The distress requirement was added to the diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorder in 1987, 26 years before it was renamed gender dysphoria in DSM-5 and 'trans identity' without dysphoria has not been considered a disorder for about 35 years and has never been illegal.
You're welcome.

Quote:

(I am perhaps over-assuming that you actually don't consider homosexual people to be mentally ill on account of their homosexuality.... or I dunno, maybe your view on the validity of homosexuality is in line with your view on the validity of transgender identity?).

'Validity of homosexuality’ and ‘validity of transgender identity’ are both equally meaningless expressions, apart from the fact that ‘homosexuality’ has a clear, non-ideological and non-circular definition and objective markers, whereas ‘transgender identity’ does not.

Quote:

And when you answer that question, go ahead and replace "homosexuality" with "transgender identity". The penny might drop.

Gender:
Everyone has an immutable sex (male or female). ‘Man’ is the traditional term for adult human male and ‘woman’ for adult human female. Society has traditionally had gender expectations based on sex such as men being masculine and women being feminine, or men and women having stereotypical preferences in gender expression and social roles. Some males and females do not identify with the gender expectations associated with their sex, for example, feminine men and masculine women. If all that is required to be a woman is to be female, a woman can reject gender expectations and still be a woman (and likewise for men). If ‘woman’ is redefined to mean somebody who identifies with a gender, this implies that females who are gender nonconforming are not women (and likewise for GNC men). We should not rename the terms ‘man/woman’ and ‘boy/girl’ to refer to identification with a 'gender' because this is sexist and regressive. We should especially not encourage children to think that whether they are a boy or girl is based on how they feel rather than biology, encouraging a boy who feels different from other boys because he is gender non-conforming thinking he must be a girl and have the ‘wrong body’ (and likewise for girls). Instead, we should encourage them to think that it’s ok to be gender non-conforming and this does not conflict with their sex.

Sexual orientation:
Everyone has an immutable sex (male or female). ‘Man’ is the traditional term for adult human male and ‘woman’ for adult human female. Society has traditionally had gender sexual orientation expectations based on sex such as men being masculine gynephilic and women being feminine androphilic, or men and women having stereotypical preferences in gender expression and social roles expression of sexuality and attraction to the opposite sex. Some males and females do not identify with the gender sexual orientation expectations associated with their sex, for example, feminine androphilic men and masculine gynephilic women. If all that is required to be a woman is to be female, a woman can reject gender sexual orientation expectations and still be a woman (and likewise for men). If ‘woman’ is redefined to mean somebody who identifies with a gender is androphilic, this implies that females who are gender nonconforming lesbians are not women (and likewise for gay men). We should not rename the terms ‘man/woman’ and ‘boy/girl’ to refer to identification with a 'gender' identification of an expected sexual orientation because this is sexist homophobic and regressive. We should especially not encourage children to think that whether they are a boy or girl is based on how they feel rather than biology, encouraging a boy who feels different from other boys because he is gender non-conforming will be gay in adulthood thinking he must be a girl and have the ‘wrong body’ (and likewise for girls). Instead, we should encourage them to think that it’s ok to be gender non-conforming gay and this does not conflict with their sex.

Nope, don't see the problem.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TomB

Really, I don't care a whole lot. I know what people mean, and arguing about terminology seems like a distraction from the real issues. But the word "assigned" grates on me in this context. Perhaps overly so.

Well when the terminology IS THE ONLY ISSUE we don't really have anywhere else to go here.

This discussion has NEVER been anything but "Do I have five fingers or four fingers in a thumb?"

Everyone knows what everyone means, the discussion is about who's terminology we use.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The tweet was about sex "assigned at birth," rather than gender. The only sense in which gender is assigned to newborns is that some get light blue hats and the others get pastel pink.

Personally, I'm on the fence this time. If someone says "sex observed at birth" I know what they mean, if they say "sex assigned at birth," I know what they mean. I'm inclined to "birth sex" myself. Linehan and the intersectional social justice activists likely agree that this is a battle worth fighting, but I remain skeptical.

"Birth sex" is just "sex" with extra syllables. The binary condition is set at conception, and immutable thereafter. "Birth sex" is no more distinctive than "first trimester sex" or "fifty-first-birthday sex". Not even if the fifty one year-old has had puberty blockers, lifelong hormone treatments, and the best most extensive plastic surgery known to man, will their sex have changed one iota from what it was when gamete first met gamete.

[Rolfe]

Preach!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Birth sex" is no more distinctive than "first trimester sex" or "fifty-first-birthday sex".

I'm hoping to one day have fifty-first-birthday sex, and I hope to god it's more distinctive.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well when the terminology IS THE ONLY ISSUE we don't really have anywhere else to go here.

This discussion has NEVER been anything but "Do I have five fingers or four fingers in a thumb?"

Everyone knows what everyone means, the discussion is about who's terminology we use.

Well, occasionally we've talked about other things such as sports leagues, locker rooms, etc. But I will grant that even those usually turn back to terminology.

If a term that means X evolves or is redefined to mean Y, do all pre-existing usages of the term also now mean Y? Or do they still retain their original meaning (X)?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TomB

Well, occasionally we've talked about other things such as sports leagues, locker rooms, etc. But I will grant that even those usually turn back to terminology.

If a term that means X evolves or is redefined to mean Y, do all pre-existing usages of the term also now mean Y? Or do they still retain their original meaning (X)?

I'm saying the number of digits you have on your hand stays 5 regardless of if you call it five fingers or four fingers in a thumb.

If the vogue thing from 1900-1950 was to call them the five fingers, then from 1960 onward it became more and more common to call them the four fingers and a thumb, we all understand that the actual digits on a human hand never changed and we wouldn't have a discussion that was just everyone counting the digits and going "I counted five fingers" or "I counted four fingers and a thumb" and then we pause for a few seconds and someone shouts "Okay! Everybody count again!"

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm hoping to one day have fifty-first-birthday sex, and I hope to god it's more distinctive.
: duck :

Me about to to press Submit Reply: "The jokes will practically write themselves."

Presses Submit Reply anyway.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm saying the number of digits you have on your hand stays 5 regardless of if you call it five fingers or four fingers in a thumb.

If the vogue thing from 1900-1950 was to call them the five fingers, then from 1960 onward it became more and more common to call them the four fingers and a thumb, we all understand that the actual digits on a human hand never changed and we wouldn't have a discussion that was just everyone counting the digits and going "I counted five fingers" or "I counted four fingers and a thumb" and then we pause for a few seconds and someone shouts "Okay! Everybody count again!"

Which is all irrelevant, since terminology isn't the only issue. If it were, you'd be right that there's really nothing more to see here, and we could all move along.

No, the issue isn't terminology. The issue - the only issue - is that some people are trying to use terminological gaslighting as a strategy for accomplishing other non-terminological goals without having to actually acknowledge or justify those goals as such.

[JoeMorgue]

Well yes that's my point.

Regardless of which side is "correct" (since figuring that out is the whole point of, ya know, a debate) we aren't going anywhere when one side is trying to not argue it is correct, but define itself as correct.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

Petition on the Equality Act just reached 69,000 (12.06am GMT).
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

The other petition on gender identity in relationships education, which runs out on Jan 18, is now at 35,219 signatures - it's obviously not going to get anywhere near 100K, but the recent surge is still curious.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618970

I looked in on the petition at midnight, and it was at 69,405. At 12.06am it was at 69,408. So that's 408 signatures in 24 hours, and it seems to be maintaining about that rate. At the moment it needs an average of just over 315 signatures per day to hit the target, so it seems to be in with a good chance.

I think it's an inspired choice of subject, because it will force the debate right to the heart of the issue. Even if they say they won't change the wording of the act, they will surely be forced to say what they think it means. (I thought I saw a link earlier today to an article by a legal expert stating that the EA meant biological sex, but I didn't click on it.) Anyway, it's going to be hard to have a token boilerplate shut-up-and-go-away-you-ve-had-your-answer debate on this one.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I looked in on the petition at midnight, and it was at 69,405. At 12.06am it was at 69,408. So that's 408 signatures in 24 hours, and it seems to be maintaining about that rate. At the moment it needs an average of just over 315 signatures per day to hit the target, so it seems to be in with a good chance.

Your average per day keeps dropping, it will be interesting to see if that drops below 300/day in the near future.

Quote:

I think it's an inspired choice of subject, because it will force the debate right to the heart of the issue. Even if they say they won't change the wording of the act, they will surely be forced to say what they think it means. (I thought I saw a link earlier today to an article by a legal expert stating that the EA meant biological sex, but I didn't click on it.) Anyway, it's going to be hard to have a token boilerplate shut-up-and-go-away-you-ve-had-your-answer debate on this one.

The debate is also needed since so many institutions including police forces are going beyond the interpretation of the EA as well as the 2004 GRA as they're understood by nearly all lawyers.

Stonewall has been peddling misleading panic about a 'trans travel ban' ignoring how the 2004 GRA actually works *currently* in the UK, but not potentially Scotland:
https://sex-matters.org/posts/update...te-to-your-mp/

There's of course no actual travel ban, the issue is whether gender recognition criteria are the same as the 2004 GRA or more relaxed, and whether that can translate into fast-track approval under the 2004 GRA terms for a UK gender recognition certificate.

Meanwhile, the Bad Law Project provided a robust response to the Metropolitan Police, who wanted a voluntary interview with someone for tweeting things about flags. What a waste of police time when they don't have enough resources to prosecute rape cases properly.
https://twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/sta...84096618315782

All of this absolutely needs debating.

[Nick Terry]

A new gender-critical platform, Femelliste, was just started in France; many articles are in English as well.

This one is good on pronouns
https://en.femelliste.com/articles-f...ans-definition

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

Your average per day keeps dropping, it will be interesting to see if that drops below 300/day in the near future.

It's just a fun bit of arithmetic. (I just did the online autism test, and no I am NOT.) If it keeps exceeding the current average-needed-to-target then the average will keep falling, that's just the sums. If it misses, then the average will start to increase. I think it may have become self-sustaining though. I forgot to check yesterday if my flute duet partner had signed. We were dementing on about it while we were arranging transport to a lesson. I expect she has, she's on Twitter, but if she hasn't then she needs to be pointed at it. Not just for her signature, but for the people she will then enlist.

There is so much ridiculous hype on this it's unbelievable. There was a meme going round Twitter with a "have your gender ready for inspection" sign superimposed on the Scottish border sign.

Nobody cares about your bloody gender. People care about you going into the single-sex spaces reserved for the opposite sex. Try that in England and then rely on a Scottish GRC when you're challenged and see what happens. That's the issue. Also, specific things like Scottish schoolboys attending English schools getting a GRC and then demanding to use the girls' toilets along with 12-year-old girls who are getting their first periods. (That's an issue in Scotland too of course.)

I thought the Bad Law Project letter was hilarious. The Met "required" someone to attend a "voluntary" interview (that sounds like stuff the Italian police got up to when they were railroading Amanda Knox) because he'd tweeted something about Wembley being festooned in that ghastly "progressive" Pride flag. I think he was a football fan, not a gender-critical activist.

There was another interesting article I saw about the whole requirement for secrecy thing. That was incorporated into the GRA in the belief that men who got GRAs would be trying their damnedest to pass as women, and would be horribly distressed if someone "outed" them. Now though we have men about to get GRCs who can be seen to be men by anyone with eyes (or ears). It was pointed out in relation to the question of publication bans when a publication is already freely available - say from abroad - that trying to enforce the keeping of a "secret" that is already public knowledge is pointless. It's all a complete dog's breakfast.

One article pointed out that if a 16-year-old boy got a GRC but changed nothing about his appearance, then insisted on using the girls' toilets at school, and a girl asked a teacher why a boy was allowed to be in there, the teacher would be breaking the law if she replied "because he has a GRC" and would have to reply "because he is a girl."

The entire bloody GRA needs repealling.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

A new gender-critical platform, Femelliste, was just started in France; many articles are in English as well.

This one is good on pronouns
https://en.femelliste.com/articles-f...ans-definition

The whole pronoun thing in other languages is fascinating. French in particular, since every inanimate object is either he or she. I did read something about a pretty lame attempt to introduce new pronouns, which would presumably all be neopronouns just for the special snowflakes.

I'd love to know what they'd do with a language with a lot of prepositional pronouns like Gaelic. I think German has some similar issues.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The whole pronoun thing in other languages is fascinating. French in particular, since every inanimate object is either he or she. I did read something about a pretty lame attempt to introduce new pronouns, which would presumably all be neopronouns just for the special snowflakes.

I'd love to know what they'd do with a language with a lot of prepositional pronouns like Gaelic. I think German has some similar issues.

You probably saw the story last autumn about Cambridge trying to teach nonbinary German, which is just... I can't even.

[Rolfe]

No, I don't think I did.

In one of the few in-person Gaelic classes I managed to go to before lockdown struck, one guy asked how the language handled this issue. The teacher looked a bit non-plussed. I fixed him with a steely glare and said, "Don't go there. Just don't." He wisely took the hint.

My Gaelic notes currently have something like eleven sets of prepositional pronouns, and counting. And that's not including the ordinary me, you etc., and the emphatic forms of the same, and the two different ways to do possessives (my, your etc.). I suppose it would be possible for people to insist on the use of the wrong form for them (feminine instead of masculine or vice versa), but the ze/zir brigade are going to hit the immovable object if they try to neo-pronoun that lot.

ETA: I did see something on Twitter with a page from a Spanish dictionary giving two forms of the word for non-binary - one masculine the other feminine! At least German does have a neuter gender. French doesn't, nor has Gaelic, and I suspect neither has Spanish.

ETA again: I started the Duolingo German course about three years ago, but put it on hold as I was concentrating on Gaelic. It was quite refreshing, if boring and repetitive. The first few lessons were nothing but "I am a man and you are a woman" repeated umpteen times in varous forms (including with boy and girl). I said something in the forum about how refreshing this was, to see a language clearly understand sex, and the post was promptly deleted.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

No, I don't think I did.

It's not quite as bad as it seems from this story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-German.html

Going by this webpage:
https://www.mmll.cam.ac.uk/german/inclusive-language

What seems to be the actual case (pun not intended) is the male/female and 'inclusive' versions of nouns because the existing ones were always gendered much more extensively than in English. The example they use here is teacher - Lehrer (m) or Lehrerin (f). It's as if almost everything is actor-actress by simply adding -in or for plurals -innen.

Until recently, this meant one could do a pleasing 'men and women' version by writing LehrerInnen. Lehrerinnen would be only women teachers, whereas LehrerInnen conveys 'men and women teachers'. This I love because it gives subtle prominence to women, and it was in pretty standard usage through the 2000s and 2010s, e.g. this 2019 book on Amazon uses this formulation: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Meine-Klass.../dp/109572486X

The new "non-binary" versions are freaking ugly: Lehrer:innen/ Lehrer*innen/ Lehrer_innen. German academics are switching to these, mainly the middle one with the *******-asterisk, and it is causing eyesore when reading the latest books. The punctuation marks are evidently very recent and remind me of the x-ing of various things in nonbinary English.

I'll continue to use LehrerInnen (etc). The beauty of German is saving on words because of the flexibility of compound words, so a formulation that saves on saying Lehrer und Lehrerinnen is great - of course, there are entirely gender neutral versions like Lehrkraefte. I just wish they hadn't buggered around with colons and asterisks.

At some point there'll be a EU commission trying to harmonise these discordant formulations....

[Rolfe]

I remember ages ago hearing that German was going to eliminate the -in suffix completely. When someone asked me what my job was and I said "Tierärtzin" I got a funny look which didn't go away until I said "Tierartz", but that could just have been my lousy pronunciation. Neveretheless Duolingo teaches the -in suffix now, and I don't see any sign of it disappearing in ordinary usage.

You can't impose language from above like this. People will go on using it the way they want to and the way they have been used to. These contrived terms are going to go the way of the contrived names for the months that were imposed after the French Revolution. They will be a curiosity to future generations.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I remember ages ago hearing that German was going to eliminate the -in suffix completely. When someone asked me what my job was and I said "Tierärtzin" I got a funny look which didn't go away until I said "Tierartz", but that could just have been my lousy pronunciation. Neveretheless Duolingo teaches the -in suffix now, and I don't see any sign of it disappearing in ordinary usage.

You can't impose language from above like this. People will go on using it the way they want to and the way they have been used to. These contrived terms are going to go the way of the contrived names for the months that were imposed after the French Revolution. They will be a curiosity to future generations.

There's a fair degree of debate about this in Germany, but yes, language evolves independently of central dictats. Whereas France tried dictating French versions of English words that had crept in, Germany pretty much absorbs English naturally, and for the past 20+ years it's considered good style simply to swap into English for some words halfway through a sentence. Ironically this means most of the neologisms like genderfluid and other gender identity terms often appear in English in German writing.

German Wiki sez apropos they/them pronouns: im Deutschen nicht übersetzbar. Considering Sie does treble duty as she, formal you and they, and there's a neuter form if someone really wants to be called 'it' and avoid gender, then this is true. So there are now neopronouns in German like xier/sier, going back a decade or more.

[Elaedith]

Harriet Hall (Skepdoc) died a few days ago. Her review of Shrier's 'Irreversible Damage' was removed from Science Based Medicine because she questioned the gender-affirmation approach.

An entry about this with the review (revised) is posted on her blog.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Yes, I understood. You consistently resort to personal attacks, misrepresentations, smears, guilt by association, and applauding silencing and punishment (eg. firing, ostracism) of people you disagree with. There was once a time when most people who regarded themselves as sceptics seemed to understand that people do this because they are intolerant of dissent and cannot advance their position by debate because they have no argument (e.g. scientologists). This was before a large chunk of the sceptic movement abandoned scientific scepticism for ideological fundamentalism and apparently decided that scientologists are great role models and champions of free speech.



Human characteristics do not divide into ‘disorders’ or ‘valid conditions’. If somebody advocates that a condition should be classified as a disorder, the accepted requirements today are that it causes clinically significant distress, functional impairment and/or harm to others, and therefore may require diagnosis, treatment/management, or accommodation. Accordingly, there is no reason for homosexuality to be classified as a disorder. It was classified as such because it was socially stigmatized and illegal, and that was considered sufficient at the time the first DSM was published in the 1950s.
The distress requirement was added to the diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorder in 1987, 26 years before it was renamed gender dysphoria in DSM-5 and 'trans identity' without dysphoria has not been considered a disorder for about 35 years and has never been illegal.
You're welcome.


'Validity of homosexuality’ and ‘validity of transgender identity’ are both equally meaningless expressions, apart from the fact that ‘homosexuality’ has a clear, non-ideological and non-circular definition and objective markers, whereas ‘transgender identity’ does not.


Gender:
Everyone has an immutable sex (male or female). ‘Man’ is the traditional term for adult human male and ‘woman’ for adult human female. Society has traditionally had gender expectations based on sex such as men being masculine and women being feminine, or men and women having stereotypical preferences in gender expression and social roles. Some males and females do not identify with the gender expectations associated with their sex, for example, feminine men and masculine women. If all that is required to be a woman is to be female, a woman can reject gender expectations and still be a woman (and likewise for men). If ‘woman’ is redefined to mean somebody who identifies with a gender, this implies that females who are gender nonconforming are not women (and likewise for GNC men). We should not rename the terms ‘man/woman’ and ‘boy/girl’ to refer to identification with a 'gender' because this is sexist and regressive. We should especially not encourage children to think that whether they are a boy or girl is based on how they feel rather than biology, encouraging a boy who feels different from other boys because he is gender non-conforming thinking he must be a girl and have the ‘wrong body’ (and likewise for girls). Instead, we should encourage them to think that it’s ok to be gender non-conforming and this does not conflict with their sex.

Sexual orientation:
Everyone has an immutable sex (male or female). ‘Man’ is the traditional term for adult human male and ‘woman’ for adult human female. Society has traditionally had gender sexual orientation expectations based on sex such as men being masculine gynephilic and women being feminine androphilic, or men and women having stereotypical preferences in gender expression and social roles expression of sexuality and attraction to the opposite sex. Some males and females do not identify with the gender sexual orientation expectations associated with their sex, for example, feminine androphilic men and masculine gynephilic women. If all that is required to be a woman is to be female, a woman can reject gender sexual orientation expectations and still be a woman (and likewise for men). If ‘woman’ is redefined to mean somebody who identifies with a gender is androphilic, this implies that females who are gender nonconforming lesbians are not women (and likewise for gay men). We should not rename the terms ‘man/woman’ and ‘boy/girl’ to refer to identification with a 'gender' identification of an expected sexual orientation because this is sexist homophobic and regressive. We should especially not encourage children to think that whether they are a boy or girl is based on how they feel rather than biology, encouraging a boy who feels different from other boys because he is gender non-conforming will be gay in adulthood thinking he must be a girl and have the ‘wrong body’ (and likewise for girls). Instead, we should encourage them to think that it’s ok to be gender non-conforming gay and this does not conflict with their sex.

Nope, don't see the problem.

No, I thought knew you wouldn't. Thankfully it doesn't matter, because the adults in the room (meaning the mainstream medical experts, and progressive legislatures throughout the developed world) don't think as you do. They now understand that transgender identity is a valid condition* and that consequently transgender people need and deserve proper accommodation, rights and protections. They certainly don't need bigots misgendering them and denying their right to be who they are.

But as I said, fortunately people with views similar to yours are nowhere whatsoever close to the levers of power. The people close to the levers of power agree - broadly - with my position. And howling about "institutional capture" and other such nonsense is, I guess, one way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance of the adults disagreeing so radically with your opinion. Feel free to carry on


* And yes, even though you and others here continually pretend not to know what that means, it clearly has an obvious meaning (to the adults in the room). As has been explained to you many times now, it means that transgender identity is no longer considered to be a mental health disorder/delusion/sickness. Just as, y'know, homosexuality is no longer considered to be a mental health disorder/delusion/sickness.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

There's a fair degree of debate about this in Germany, but yes, language evolves independently of central dictats. Whereas France tried dictating French versions of English words that had crept in, Germany pretty much absorbs English naturally, and for the past 20+ years it's considered good style simply to swap into English for some words halfway through a sentence. Ironically this means most of the neologisms like genderfluid and other gender identity terms often appear in English in German writing.

German Wiki sez apropos they/them pronouns: im Deutschen nicht übersetzbar. Considering Sie does treble duty as she, formal you and they, and there's a neuter form if someone really wants to be called 'it' and avoid gender, then this is true. So there are now neopronouns in German like xier/sier, going back a decade or more.

Pfft, yet more "capture" going on - this time "language capture". It's a damn disgrace, I tell ya!

[d4m10n]

Language capture is not exactly unusual in the service of ideology.

(IIRC, Orwell might've written something about this.)

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

No, I thought knew you wouldn't. Thankfully it doesn't matter, because the adults in the room (meaning the mainstream medical experts, and progressive legislatures throughout the developed world) don't think as you do. They now understand that transgender identity is a valid condition* and that consequently transgender people need and deserve proper accommodation, rights and protections. They certainly don't need bigots misgendering them and denying their right to be who they are.

Thanks for confirming that you are unable to find anything wrong with what I said, and so have nothing to resort to but more tantrums, smears, and misrepresentation and activist gobbledegook.

Quote:

But as I said, fortunately people with views similar to yours are nowhere whatsoever close to the levers of power. The people close to the levers of power agree - broadly - with my position. And howling about "institutional capture" and other such nonsense is, I guess, one way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance of the adults disagreeing so radically with your opinion. Feel free to carry on

Yes, I understand that it's all about the power to feel superior and force ideological views on others and punish heretics, as with religious fundamentalism, scientology and other authoritarian cults. Truth doesn't matter. Thanks for confirming.

Quote:

* And yes, even though you and others here continually pretend not to know what that means, it clearly has an obvious meaning (to the adults in the room). As has been explained to you many times now, it means that transgender identity is no longer considered to be a mental health disorder/delusion/sickness. Just as, y'know, homosexuality is no longer considered to be a mental health disorder/delusion/sickness.

I understand very well that this is what you mean by it. However, this is a definition you made up and is arrant nonsense. It makes sense to you because you have no idea what you are talking about.