Rather tortured at The Guardian

Gender-critical feminists disagree with the view of some LGBT activists that gender identity should be prioritised over biological sex in terms of law-making and policy. They fear sex is being argued into non-existence and that this will erode rights hard-won by women in the face of historical biological discrimination.

Some LGBT activists regard the focus on biological sex as transphobic. They argue that while they do not deny the reality of biological sex there must be a recognition of complexities beyond binary definition, and that people should have the right to privacy around their sex characteristics at birth (as was agreed in the European convention on human rights in 2002, which led to the current Gender Recognition Act).

Can you imagine the staff confabs that had to be carried out to get all to sign on to that?

19 thoughts on “Rather tortured at The Guardian”

  1. “…people should have the right to privacy around their sex characteristics at birth…”

    OK

    “…(as was agreed in the European convention on human rights in 2002,…”

    So they do actually have that right, so what’s the problem again?

  2. The Meissen Bison

    the right to privacy around their sex characteristics at birth

    Difficult to achieve this: at birth one’s sex characteristics are in plain sight.

  3. Actually we do have privacy. We cover them up. Although the girls usually like to make sure their ‘characteristics’ are prominently displayed somehow.

  4. Dennis, Reminding You That Wogs Always Get To Stupid Faster

    There are no complexities. Humans, like all other mammals, have two, and only two, sexes. Biological sex is real, gender is made up bullshit.

    How dare you ignore the complexities of binary definition.

    And only wogs could find it necessary to come up with a “Gender Recognition Act”.

  5. I look forward to the return of “private life” where sexual lives, mental afflictions and preferred pronouns remain protected by privacy.

  6. “Biological sex is real, gender is made up bullshit.”

    Not exactly.. There’s always the 1% where Mother nature is experimenting/something glitched, which may or may not be reinforced by the local environment (for modern humans, includes the internet..).
    Which also means that for 99% of people sex and gender are in alignment, and cause no issues at all.

    The actual bullshit is that some in that 1% insist we are not allowed to call that 99% normal when it obviously is, by any definition. And actually get a platform.
    As opposed to the majority of peeps in that 1% category who simply deal with the odd hand they’ve been given by Mother Nature. Often quite successfully ( if not without effort) without bothering World + Dog with it.

  7. My pronouns are f**k/s**t/c**t. If you can’t respect that, I’ll complain to your employer and get you sacked.

  8. @Grikath

    1%? I agree with all that you say otherwise, but that sounds kind of high. The rate of true hermaphrodism is a tiny fraction of this, and gender dysphoria seem to be a tiny fraction of 1%.

  9. @ Grikath:

    There’s always the 1% where Mother nature is experimenting/something glitched…

    In reality, less than 0.01% of live births are ‘Intersex’ i.e what we used to call Hermaphrodites, so it’s more like 99.9% of humans are what we refer to as ‘Normal’.

    But Intersex people aren’t trannies and trannies aren’t Intersex – they’re largely a group of people with some sort of mental disorder who need sympathy and psychiatric treatment rather than to be indulged in any way, shape or form.

    https://isna.org/faq/frequency/

  10. @Grikath

    Sexual development disorders, what used to be called intersex, has nothing to do with gender. And in the vast majority of these sex is still pretty clear.

  11. And only wogs could find it necessary to come up with a “Gender Recognition Act”.

    Given the current incumbent in the White House, I wouldn’t get too complacent.

  12. Ah.. That 1% is me being generous and …prudent…
    I could have used 99,9% and still be right, but the Screaming Ninnies would argue that it really should be 99,7% , because… so my number is Wrong and I am a PatriarchiNazi.
    That 1% includes every “spectrum”-excuse and number-massaging the Opposition could possibly come up with that can’t be debunked in one short sentence, with a healthy margin as a topping.

    And I’m not talking about physical defects, like intersex..
    The example is entirely for the case where physical gender/sex does not match percieved gender/flight of fancy. For whatever reason.
    Which is rare for true gender dysphoria. But you have to include the whole drag-queen/whatever-the-lesbian-equivalent-is plus some other odds and ends which to most of us would amount to “keep your fetishes in the bedroom, please” in as well to be *ahem* Inclusive and not upset the tender snowflakes.

    But that still leaves that 99% which we aren’t allowed to call “normal”.

  13. @ Grikath:

    Ah.. That 1% is me being generous and …prudent……The example is entirely for the case where physical gender/sex does not match percieved gender/flight of fancy.

    Fair enough. My question to anyone who believes they are really a member of the opposite sex is: how would you know?

  14. Dennis, Reminding You That Wogs Always Get To Stupid Faster

    Given the current incumbent in the White House, I wouldn’t get too complacent.

    Oh, we’ll get there. Of that I have no doubt.

    I was just savoring the fact that wogs always get to stupid faster than we do.

  15. I sneeze in threes

    “ Difficult to achieve this: at birth one’s sex characteristics are in plain sight.” they certainly are for the mother too

  16. @ Isit:

    …they certainly are for the mother too…

    I think you meant to say ‘ Person Who Gives Birth’. ‘ Mother’ is incredibly transphobic.

  17. @Jonathan

    The disorder that is gender dysphoria does exist. There are people who are convinced that they are in the wrong gender. It is probably a bad connection in the brain (plus some other stuff). We should treat these people with understanding – and where appropriate surgery. But, we really should not forget that it is a disorder, it’s very close to this

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria

    And as you can see in the wiki, the psychiatrists are being drawn into the absurd conversation of is BID a part of “human diversity” – meaning we should pander to their delusions.

    And here we can see the ethics being considered

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19132621/

    Medical ethicists discuss the controversy about elective amputations of healthy limbs: on the one hand the principle of autonomy is used to deduce the right for body modifications; on the other hand the autonomy of BIID patients is doubted. Neurological results suggest that BIID is a brain disorder producing a disruption of the body image, for which parallels for stroke patients are known. If BIID were a neuropsychological disturbance, which includes missing insight into the illness and a specific lack of autonomy, then amputations would be contraindicated and must be evaluated as bodily injuries of mentally disordered patients. Instead of only curing the symptom, a causal therapy should be developed to integrate the alien limb into the body image.

    “Lobbies of persons suffering from BIID explain the desire for amputation in analogy to the desire of transsexuals for surgical sex reassignment.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *