50 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2022
    1. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in. In the real world, we use gender in  many ways in our society. For example, we clearly don’t and can’t segregate public bathrooms by sex, whether you define sexes in terms of chromosomes, genitalia, or some mix thereof. It would be absurd to check either before people use public restrooms, unless you buy the unsupported notion that you can tell someone’s chromosomes/genitalia in a real world setting based solely on appearance. This is why the policing of restrooms has largely come down to policing individuals who don’t conform to traditional gender norms, which is why gender non-conforming lesbians and other marginalized groups also suffer restroom moral panics. It seems to me that sex is not going to replace gender  and gender identity in a range of social functions, and that understanding how to balance them will remain an ongoing social project.

      This is nonsense, of course. The vast, vast majority of us males are perfectly happy to abide by the convention (if not the law) that a sign or symbol on the door indicating a 'public bathroom' is for those who are female is not a place they should be entering. A sign is enough to stop us. A sign. No one needs to inspect anyone chromosomes or genitals. We are perfectly happy to obey the sign, knowing that it is there to preserve the safety, dignity and privacy of the women and girls who are free to enter the space.

      The real question that needs an answer is why is that sign not sufficient for some males? Why do they believe they can override the clear intention of that sign? What level of arrogance does it take to think that sign doesn't apply to them?

    2. What is the source of that stat and how reliable is it?

      The source is the referral numbers published by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust's Gender Identity Development Service.

      Financial year Girls 2009-10* 40 2014-15 399 2015-16 852 2016-17 1,265 2017-18 1,657 2018-19 1,740 2019-20 1,862

    3. our moral panic

      He seems wedded to his notion of a 'moral panic' but has not put his finger on what the moral or panic aspects.

    4. two individuals who I think it’s fair to say are in the gender critical camp

      Shooting the messenger.

    5. some outweighing cost

      Again sounds like he is dismissing the costs to women and girls.

    6. reduce barriers

      But what are these barriers?

    7. individuals should be free to live as they identify

      They mostly can already but I'd be interested to see what currently is preventing them. And granting access to single-sex spaces for females isn't something that should be granted without good reason.

    8. the best compromise approach when it comes to sports

      Males play in the team for males and females play in the teams for females. Perfect.

    9. their gender respected

      What on earth does than mean? I can respect a person; I don't have to respect their 'gender' and more than I have to respect their religion or star sign.

    10. rolling back other trans rights

      In the UK at least, there are exemptions against discrimination in sex-affected sports: trans-identifying males do not have the right to compete in them so this is not rolling back rights, never mind other rights.

    11. general moral agreement about a desire for everyone to get to compete fairly

      We already have that. If you want to dismantle the existing categories in the name of 'fairness' then the burden is on him to say why he thinks males competing against females in all sports is desirable. But if he conceded that there are some sports that should be segregated by sex for performance and fairness reasons then he's lost the whole argument. With the possible exception of darts.

    12. I find it valuable to at least temporarily set aside the sports question for a few reasons.

      That is merely convenient and I suspect he has some realisation that he cannot win that argument so is attempting to park it.

    13. there is an open debate over competitive advantage

      No, there isn't. There really isn't. The overwhelming evidence is against him and this - at least - is somewhere where he must see he is wrong when presented with that evidence. But to even put that forward as if there really is a debate shows his ideological bias.

    14. cis

      No need to use a derogatory term.

    15. trans individuals are to be recognized by society

      In the UK, it's about legal recognition, not societal recognition. But there is never any cogent reasons why the State should ever get involved in how people 'identify'.

      Trans people can already "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security."

      What they seek is State validation for their feelings.

    16. who largely genuinely want to simply ensure good quality of life for trans individuals

      Clearly incorrect. A moment's search will find many trans activists who want to take over womanhood and drive out women, with violence if necessary.

      But the framing again is telling: he wants it to be about the poor downtrodden trans people who are the most marginalised, etc...yet wield enormous power in many corridors.

    17. how you calibrate the size and nature of the risk here

      By looking at the risk to women and girls from males. That has to be the starting point. I can't see why the precautionary principle should not be invoked here: if you want to claim that some males (the ones who want to be treated as if they were female) are no threat to females (not that it's just about feeling or being threatened), then the burden is on the advocates of allowing males into female spaces to show that the risk is - at best - minimal. It is usually accepted that some women are a threat to other women (even if the vast majority of those who are a threat are male), then it has to be accepted that at least some of those males who want to be treated as if they were female are also a threat. The only rebuttal of that is to posit that all men who want to be treated as if they were female are a lower risk to women than even women are. I can't see how anyone could be so credulous.

    18. I’ve seen it described as an attempt to exterminate lesbians and destroy masculinity and the family.

      I can't say I've heard that but even if there was some hyperbole, it could be the result of the fears of women and girls being dismissed out of hand - by men like him.

    19. My concern is that much of what I see from gender critical feminists seems functionally equivalent to the lavender panic

      Seriously? He expect this false equivalence to hold as a serious argument?

    20. even if they are being misguided in where they’re focusing their energy.

      There seems to be not even a jot of acknowledgement that there is a threat to women and girls. I see he's about to dismiss them as ungrounded but I assume he is framing this as the (perceived, but in his eyes, non-existent) direct threat to women and girls from trans-identifying males when it is the usual misunderstanding that it is the threat from males that is the persistent and never-ending threat to women and girls.

    21. a small or nonexistent problem

      That is, at best, a sexist and female-blind analysis.

    22. various biological features

      I think this seeks to diminish fundamental differences between the two sexes so that they can be more easily dismissed.

    23. we as individuals understand our own gender

      ...for those that have one...

    24. the way society shapes expectations about our behavior

      Yes, but what this omits is that these societal expectations are almost always demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes - and one sex is far more adversely affected than the other.

    25. technical sense

      Is there some other sense? Or is this framing an attempt to to get societal pressures out the way so it can later be shifted to what the individual feels?

    26. anti-trans moral panic

      Wrong-headed framing. It's a battle for the rights of women and girls.

    27. Sex designation is based on some mix of biological features like genes, hormones, and body parts, though there is often inconsistency in which feature is the truly essential feature, such as when sexed bodies are classified in one moment based on chromosomes and the next based on genitalia.

      Fundamental misunderstanding of what a sex is. Getting this wrong can only mean any framing of the sex-gender issues can't be properly grounded.

  2. Mar 2021
    1. Unless you are a fertility doctor, it’s unlikely you will encounter too many ova, so we must be using other definitions in everyday life.

      This is an extraordinary line to take: "because we don't normally see human ova in our daily lives, the definition of female as being related to an individual whose body is structured to produce large gametes must not be the right definition." Seriously?

      Try applying that same line of 'reasoning' to the definition of a man being an adult human male.

    2. Some people who are very keen to define what a woman is have popularised the definition: “adult human female“. It seems pretty straightforward on the face of it. But to test its usefulness, we can dissect it, just as we can do with “species” and “individual” (and any other biological concept). “Adult”. How do we define that? Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity and is technically capable of producing offspring. Legally, for humans, (at least in the UK since 1970) adults are people aged 18 or older. So “adult” could cover people from as young as young as 8, or no less than 18, depending on what definition we are using and who we are applying it to. I think you’ll agree that’s quite vague for something so universal.

      This completely misses the fact that in terms of unlawful discrimination and provisions for single-sex spaces and services, the Equality Act 2010 defines sex as a protected characteristic and a person who has this particular protected characteristic is "a reference to a man or to a woman" and defines “woman” as a female of any age and a “man” as a male of any age.

      The argument presented here is irrelevant.

    3. Legally, for humans, (at least in the UK since 1970) adults are people aged 18 or older.

      This is incorrect. There are different ages for different purposes and varies by countries in the UK. For example, in England and Wales, those 16 to 18 can marry, but only with parental consent. In Scotland, parental consent is not required for this age group.

    1. 8. It requires all public sector organisations to actively consider how what they do, every day, affects all of us – not just some

      This is really a very poor description of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Act.

    2. Businesses, healthcare providers or employers can’t single out trans people thanks to the act. Trans people continue to face stigma and discrimination but this Act has helped strengthen their legal rights.

      This gives those who meet the criterion in the Act for the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' addition rights that others do not have.

    3. 1. It protects all of us from discrimination – wherever you are The Act legally protects you from being treated differently by your employer, school or college. It also means you can’t be treated differently when you use public services, like the hospital or the doctors, and even at your local shops and restaurants.

      This fails to mention that some discrimination is lawful under the Act, such as that provided by the single-sex exemption.

    4. 3. The Act protects against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic origins, faith, age and nationality

      Why is the protected characteristic of sex not listed? Is this omission incompetence or deliberate?

    5. faith

      The protected characteristic is 'religion or belief', not 'faith'.

  3. Jan 2021
    1. gender identity that is neither entirely male nor entirely female

      Female and male are the names of the two sexes, not 'gender identities'.

      Gender' relies on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes,

    2. although exhibited at lower levels than some other species

      What on earth is this trying to say?

    3. A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

      Why bring this up? The question made no mention of 'gender reassignment'.

  4. Dec 2020
    1. If known, have you used the pronouns the individual uses to describe themselves in your story?

      This is wrong. An individual doesn't use any pronouns to describe themselves: pronouns are what others use to refer to a third party, usually when they are not present. An individual may prefer, ask or demand others to use specific words to use when referring to them, but no one has any power to compel anyone - nor should they.

    2. If an individual is granted a full GRC they will, from the date of issue, be considered in the eyes of the law to be of their acquired gender.

      This is incorrect. The Gender Recognition Act gives a number of exceptions to the holder of a Gender Recognition Certificate being considered as of the 'acquired gender' as specified on her/his Gender Recognition Certificate.

      The Equality Act 2010 provides additional exemptions, eg the right to single-sex services.

    3. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transgender people to apply to the Gender Recognition Panel

      This presumes a definition of 'transgender', which is a term that is not used or even defined in the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

      It would be more accurate to say that the GRA provides a way for anyone who fulfils the criteria in the GRA to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

  5. Dec 2015
    1. Where a patient’s condition is outside the practitioner’s area of expertise

      Since virtually all CAM practitioners have no medical qualifications, all conditions must be outside their area of expertise.

    2. should take legal advice

      Would it not be more appropriate to take scientific or medical advice rather than legal?

    3. a recognised body

      A body recognised by whom? The only officially recognised CAM practitioners are those registered under the Chiropractors Act 1994 and the Osteopaths Act 1993.

  6. Jul 2015
    1. Skeptics also claim that there is nothing in homeopathy. In that case, there isn't any harm in trying it. They will counter that with saying 'oh but people will then miss out on taking essential medication.' But anyone who knows even the basics of homeopathy will know that there isn't an issue with taking homeopathic remedies alongside pharmaceutical medicines. In light of this, the skeptic argument falls down.

      This demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking abilities and an inability to listen to what skeptics actually say. Many homeopathic products do contain little or no actual ingredients other than sugar or water, but some do. But one of the main objections to homeopathy is in the belief that it is somehow a 'system of medicine'. Such bizarre beliefs are not founded on any good evidence and any perpetuation of this leads some to eschewing conventional medicines for what might be serious but treatable medical conditions. See http://discoverhomeopathy.co.uk/victims-2/

    2. homeopathy remains available on the NHS in the UK
  7. May 2015
    1. with redacted patient charts considered one of the most accurate and reliable resources for this data acquisition

      This is only asserted by those who fail to understand the hierarchy of evidence.

    2. Thus, to advocate the elimination of either mode of treatment would be counter-productive, would it not?

      This is wrong. It assumes that homeopathy is an effective treatment when the best evidence (eg the Australian NHMRC homeopathy report) shows that homeopathy has no specific effects over placebo. The comparison with conventional medicine is therefore a false equivalence.

    3. either mode of treatment

      Homeopathy isn't a 'mode of treatment' unless and until good quality evidence is presented that shows homeopathy has specific effects over placebo.

      The Australian NHMRC report into homeopathy was the latest review of the best evidence and it concluded:

      Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.

    4. Good Thinking Society has challenged the CCG NHS Liverpool’s use of homeopathy

      This is technically incorrect. The Good Thinking Society challenged the decision Liverpool CCG made to award a contract to a homeopath.