Listen now | Kit Kowalski and Edie Wyatt talk about the world of sex and gender from a gender-critical perspective, not just the culture war, but law, policy, activism, feminism and all the nonsense.
well the gaslighting of women along with coopting by deception and widespread misinformation via abuses of public funding- again in with the same cartels: Lobbyland, banks, co- option of charities , rich entitled NGOS - with their "D&I officers" (ahem )self styled congrats to the multinational clan ; their advocacy to award women' s rights on a platter to others ! - to a minorty of men- whilst invigliating and silencing women - Gotta have self hating handmaidens and autogynaephiles too
Another great episode. I remember you once said that the audience could suggest topics for you to look into. I would love somebody to investigate the claim that so-called transwomen need to use a female bathroom because otherwise they would be at risk of violence from transphobic men in the male one. It is such a widespread claim but nobody has ever cited anything to back it up. I expect that the evidence will show the opposite to be true: that so-called transwomen, possessing male strength, are about as safe as any man in John.
Thanks for the link to the Australian article on "Gender diversity" -- often not available without a subscription.
Though the "doctor" quoted may have something of a point with his, "gender diversity is a 'normal variation of human development' ...", even if there are more than a few flies in that ointment. But UK feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper had, more or less, underlined or at least broached the same viewpoint:
RRC: "Once we assert that the problem with gender is that we currently recognise only two of them, the obvious question to ask is: how many genders would we have to recognise in order not to be oppressive? Just how many possible gender identities are there? The only consistent answer to this is: 7 billion, give or take. There are as many possible gender identities as there are humans on the planet."
The problem there is less with gender itself than with the consequential, and quite monstrous "argument" that, for example, a feminine male (sex) "needs" to be castrated, to be turned into a sexless eunuch so that his body more closely resembles that of an actual female (sex), of someone for whom those feminine (gendered) traits are more typical.
2 sexes - gender is a construct ; womens rights origin and reasoning are biologically based; The notions of aesthetics of how women act; myopic versions of what a man might assume his "woman brain" might be are again assumed - his issues are not why safe spaces for girls and women are created ;women are not stepping on "mens rights" are we unless our right to education, equality of banking rights and freedom to leave the home are considered a challenge as it seems to be for Judith Butler we have to accept a penis whereever - women too are mostly not killing people neither are women the violent domestic abusers (98 women dead this year at the hands of a male partner) and thats not counting same sex relationship of men - they are pretty bad too - the prompt to be kind is not extended with the same enquiry or passion to the women ; 51% of the human population- And the 98 % of violent male crimes are perpetrated by biological born men - so men who self ID out of this harsh truth are at will to skewer the stats / are free to attribute male violence to women - women loose, men win again... why are women expected to accept the minority's issue in our name?- Public policy and sentencing is toughened response to womens sentencing due to the incorrect attribution ; standards and public policy in sentencing is twice affected more adverse outcomes for born female - and women's rights are about reality and thereby bluring lines- the statistics and healthcare outcomes due to changing the scientific genetic reasons for disease response too for yet another example - but hey conceptualised notions of infinite gender theory away mate in the name of nuanced concern . Sure ?
Sure -- two sexes, but that doesn't mean that every person, every member of every species, is either male or female. By the standard biological definitions, some third of us are sexless; "male" and "female" are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities, they're not identities, much less "immutable" ones. You might try reading this oldish Aeon article:
"Sex is real:
Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other."
As for your "gender is a construct", one might reasonably call that some rather questionable if not toxic feminist dogma. No doubt that feminine and masculine stereotypes qualify as such constructs, but the brute facts of significant personality differences between men and women most certainly are not. Those facts are the foundations for those stereotypes.
BTW, as a word to the wise, you might try putting a few more periods in your stream-of-consciousness ramblings ...
Nope, sorry, not at all the case. At least if you go by the standard biological definitions for the sexes. And if you don't then you're not doing biology -- kind of a case of feminists shooting themselves in the feet, of feminism not taking biology seriously as Helen Dale once put it:
You might try giving some thought to a Wiley Online Library article by a trio of reputable biologists, and to a tweet by American "biologist" PZ Myers:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
"male" and "female" are NOT identities. Biologically speaking, they're JUST labels that denote the presence of functional gonads.
Are you "offended" that you're no longer a teenager because you are, presumably, no longer a member of the "teenager" category, someone between the ages of 13 and 19?
SAME thing with the "male" and "female" CATEGORIES. You might try looking at the dictionary definition that underlines that viewpoint:
"sex (noun): Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
And with categories -- "male", "female", "teenager", and many others -- one has to be able to pay the membership dues to get a membership card. Why transwomen won't EVER qualify as females.
well the gaslighting of women along with coopting by deception and widespread misinformation via abuses of public funding- again in with the same cartels: Lobbyland, banks, co- option of charities , rich entitled NGOS - with their "D&I officers" (ahem )self styled congrats to the multinational clan ; their advocacy to award women' s rights on a platter to others ! - to a minorty of men- whilst invigliating and silencing women - Gotta have self hating handmaidens and autogynaephiles too
Another great episode. I remember you once said that the audience could suggest topics for you to look into. I would love somebody to investigate the claim that so-called transwomen need to use a female bathroom because otherwise they would be at risk of violence from transphobic men in the male one. It is such a widespread claim but nobody has ever cited anything to back it up. I expect that the evidence will show the opposite to be true: that so-called transwomen, possessing male strength, are about as safe as any man in John.
Thanks for the link to the Australian article on "Gender diversity" -- often not available without a subscription.
Though the "doctor" quoted may have something of a point with his, "gender diversity is a 'normal variation of human development' ...", even if there are more than a few flies in that ointment. But UK feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper had, more or less, underlined or at least broached the same viewpoint:
RRC: "Once we assert that the problem with gender is that we currently recognise only two of them, the obvious question to ask is: how many genders would we have to recognise in order not to be oppressive? Just how many possible gender identities are there? The only consistent answer to this is: 7 billion, give or take. There are as many possible gender identities as there are humans on the planet."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison
The problem there is less with gender itself than with the consequential, and quite monstrous "argument" that, for example, a feminine male (sex) "needs" to be castrated, to be turned into a sexless eunuch so that his body more closely resembles that of an actual female (sex), of someone for whom those feminine (gendered) traits are more typical.
2 sexes - gender is a construct ; womens rights origin and reasoning are biologically based; The notions of aesthetics of how women act; myopic versions of what a man might assume his "woman brain" might be are again assumed - his issues are not why safe spaces for girls and women are created ;women are not stepping on "mens rights" are we unless our right to education, equality of banking rights and freedom to leave the home are considered a challenge as it seems to be for Judith Butler we have to accept a penis whereever - women too are mostly not killing people neither are women the violent domestic abusers (98 women dead this year at the hands of a male partner) and thats not counting same sex relationship of men - they are pretty bad too - the prompt to be kind is not extended with the same enquiry or passion to the women ; 51% of the human population- And the 98 % of violent male crimes are perpetrated by biological born men - so men who self ID out of this harsh truth are at will to skewer the stats / are free to attribute male violence to women - women loose, men win again... why are women expected to accept the minority's issue in our name?- Public policy and sentencing is toughened response to womens sentencing due to the incorrect attribution ; standards and public policy in sentencing is twice affected more adverse outcomes for born female - and women's rights are about reality and thereby bluring lines- the statistics and healthcare outcomes due to changing the scientific genetic reasons for disease response too for yet another example - but hey conceptualised notions of infinite gender theory away mate in the name of nuanced concern . Sure ?
> "2 sexes - gender is a construct ...."
Sure -- two sexes, but that doesn't mean that every person, every member of every species, is either male or female. By the standard biological definitions, some third of us are sexless; "male" and "female" are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities, they're not identities, much less "immutable" ones. You might try reading this oldish Aeon article:
"Sex is real:
Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
As for your "gender is a construct", one might reasonably call that some rather questionable if not toxic feminist dogma. No doubt that feminine and masculine stereotypes qualify as such constructs, but the brute facts of significant personality differences between men and women most certainly are not. Those facts are the foundations for those stereotypes.
BTW, as a word to the wise, you might try putting a few more periods in your stream-of-consciousness ramblings ...
Every human is either male or female.
Nope, sorry, not at all the case. At least if you go by the standard biological definitions for the sexes. And if you don't then you're not doing biology -- kind of a case of feminists shooting themselves in the feet, of feminism not taking biology seriously as Helen Dale once put it:
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/
You might try giving some thought to a Wiley Online Library article by a trio of reputable biologists, and to a tweet by American "biologist" PZ Myers:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R
And US biologist PZ Myers:
PZM: " 'female' is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female."
https://x.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
It's not at all like I'm cutting my arguments out of whole cloth.
Are you really saying that a woman who has damaged ovaries is not female?
"male" and "female" are NOT identities. Biologically speaking, they're JUST labels that denote the presence of functional gonads.
Are you "offended" that you're no longer a teenager because you are, presumably, no longer a member of the "teenager" category, someone between the ages of 13 and 19?
SAME thing with the "male" and "female" CATEGORIES. You might try looking at the dictionary definition that underlines that viewpoint:
"sex (noun): Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326191905/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
And with categories -- "male", "female", "teenager", and many others -- one has to be able to pay the membership dues to get a membership card. Why transwomen won't EVER qualify as females.