I am genuinely puzzled that people who I thought had integrity deny that there's a problem here for women and children. Dismissed as 'the culture wars' - when it is so clearly about safeguarding for women and children. Why are politicians, the BBC, the NHS and many high profile individuals so ambivalent - or even rooting for the dismantling of safeguarding - just because some men have issues that they 'say' require full access to all areas marked female? Surely, that's a red flag in itself? Why are they so keen to unravel what has previously been accepted as moral and decent in civilised society? Why do so many people in power want to sacrifice women, girls and children on this particular altar? It's so regressive! Genuinely bewildered by the extent of this betrayal of women and girls in the West!
Oh no, that's awful. From someone who is lucky enough to be semi-self-employed, my heart goes out to you and people in a similar situation. Hang in there!❤️
Two of my favourite men talking sense to each other. I’m so glad there are more and more people willing to tell the truth and call out the BBC and others who are avoiding the issue. Thank you, Andrew and Graham.
A true 'mensch' is our Graham, as Yiddish speakers would say. (Definition: "a man regarded as being honourable, decent, and responsible, and having strength of character.")
What a terrific interview by two sane individuals. Feel so sorry for Graham, for supporting me and my 'fellow' women. Thank you Graham, most of us are right behind you.
My solution: allow self id with no rights whatsoever to any services marked out as catering specifically for natal females! Remove the incentive for bad actors!
I agree - but then, what would be different from the situation at the moment? People can dress how they like, call themselves what they like etc. It's that they need the confirmation of others that creates the problem.
They would not be able to get it off the backs of women tho' by invading our spaces and sports etc; if these are reserved for females only by law (and that means natal females from birth!).
Perhaps they would then advocate for third spaces. If not, we know that they are either mentally ill men or perverts wanting access to prey! These men are just not women's problem to accommodate.
I didn't know of one 'trans' person in school! Now there are clusters of 'trans' kids everywhere, and men lining up to put wigs on and enter female spaces! Every day there are more and more men grifting in F sport! I think a tiny number of people have genuine issues with their sex - this explosion over recent years is highly suspicious to me! It's a social contagion mixed in with chancers and the mentally ill imo!
Yes, we are in upside-down world now, and too many people don't seem to remember what right-side up used to be. The idea that so many are making "sense" of the concept of "trans kids" just illustrates the point. I've explained to people I know -- these are decent, open-minded people too -- that probably most of supposed trans kids are future LGB adults who are being sterilized, subjected to a form of conversion therapy, not to mention mutilated. The reaction has either been astonishment because they never thought of that, and they become very uncomfortable (good!) now knowing, or they say "Well, you still shouldn't restrict other children from getting care..." Then I've gone the route of "there is no such thing as a trans child, and children can't give proper legal consent to these drastic interventions, they are too young" and that seems to sink in. But do my friends still really give an F? I have no idea. But other than speaking our minds with conviction, what else can we do/say? And as I mentioned elsewhere, I don't have a lot at stake for speaking my mind, so I'm lucky. What a "mess we're in" is right!
I believe the law is on our side - hence the demand by Sex Matters to make it explicit in the Equality Act 2010, so that there is no doubt or room for Stonewall to make out that so-called transgender 'women' are allowed in women's spaces.
How were things for women and girls before this phase of gender identity rights took over? I don't recall having any issues with transsexual men in women's spaces, these men were so few and far between, and more than likely relatively decent people. Now the world of women and girls is being opened up to every pervy man who wants access and is willing to claim he's female. And the idiots who make the decisions about these policies are cowards or pervs themselves. I feel some nostalgia for the good bad old days.... (if that makes sense!)
I agree, we have the laws in place, but need to make it explicit that 'woman' refers to female by birth only and cannot be opted into! Changing sex markers on documents must also be stopped!
> “Have we reached a tipping point in the gender wars?”
Good question there Andrew – one certainly hopes so. And, as you’ve suggested, the “optics” of a “man” – nominally speaking at least – beating up on a “woman” – nominally speaking – for the world’s “entertainment” has likely contributed substantially to that “tipping”.
Though I’m not sure that Andrew isn’t talking out of both sides of his mouth – or, at best, is unclear on what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place. Particularly in his assertion (@3:18) that “You know, with a male individual winning gold in the boxing ...”. Which is not necessarily the case. Which is the crux of the matter.
And the problem there, at the crux, is that there are basically 3 “operational” definitions for the sexes on the table. The defacto standard at the Olympics boils down to the Kindergarten Cop definitions: boys (males) have penises, and girls (females) have vaginas -- "how dare you deny that Khelif is a female!!11!! 🙄" But a bunch of scientific illiterates and "scientism-ists" have gotten the "idea" that karyotypes are the tickets to the promised land: boys (males) have XYs, and girls (females) have XXs -- "so let it be written, so let it be done!" 🙄
However, the standard biological definitions STIPULATE an entirely different set of criteria: (pubescent) boys (males) have functional testicles, and (pubescent) girls (females) have functional ovaries. And in which case, there’s some reason to argue that Khelif and company – most of the intersex in fact – are neither male nor female, that they’re sexless. Though it might be moot whether that makes much difference in allowing Khelif to compete in women’s boxing.
So the question is which definitions are going to be “trump”, particularly in various social situations since the biological ones are foundational to pretty much all biology, and are not at all open to any debate at all. Papal Encyclicals. But, unfortunately, Andrew is largely part of the problem since he, at one point, insisted that it is genitalia that are the defining criteria. And banned me from his Substack and cancelled my subscription for pointing out that that definition was rather “problematic” – as events have proven – and, to boot, accused me of “tedious casuistry” and being a “flat-earther” for so arguing:
Yet he now “thinks” that it is simply a matter of chromosomes which are no guarantee at all of being a member of a particular sex category. For example:
“Patients: A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.”
Bit of a stretch to argue that someone who has menstruated and given birth, presumably having used her own ova, to two children is not a female because she happens to have XY chromosomes – which Andrew is more or less arguing.
Can’t have your cake and eat it too there mate.
But that underlines the problem how we’re to decide who qualifies for membership in which sex categories. Even apart from how useful they are for adjudicating access to various facilities.
Is the individual discussed in the article a chimera? The result of one fetus having absorbed another, and retaining some of the latter's cells (with a separate DNA profile) in certain areas of their body? (I saw mention of "mosaicism"; is that another term for chimerism?)
Good questions -- somewhat outside my salary range to answer 🙂. But a couple of illuminating quotes from the article, though the title is a bit ambiguous:
"Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development" -- not sure if that's the mother or the daughter. But the "Context" provides further information:
"Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a predominantly 46,XY karyotype in the ovary (93% 46,XY and 6% 45,X)."
The mother clearly has 46, XY in many of her cells. And, as Emma Hilton is endorsing the use of cheek swabs for sex testing in sports, the mother would probably test as 46, XY. From which Doyle would presumably say, "therefore male". And get up on his high horse with a resounding, "how dare you!!!??" 🙄
But, as I had indicated in my comments on his Substack -- before being banned there, he had noisily, and rather pretentiously, insisted, "Vagina, therefore female. How dare you!!!? 🙄"
Houston, we have a problem due to contradictory definitions -- a classic case of reductio ad absurdum. Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is to fall back on the standard biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless.
Which many people reject and refuse to consider because it "offends" their vanities, because it knocks into a cocked hat their articles of faith that "sex is immutable 🙄", that everyone is either male or female from conception to death.
As a woman and the mother of an autistic, same-sex attracted teenage daughter who was lured into the evil ideology (though I pray momentarily), I cannot really express my gratitude to you, Graham, and people such as Andrew, JKR, Julie Bindel, Barry Wall, Kathleen stock, Helen Joyce, Mr. Menno, and others for your bravery in speaking out against it. I've lost 'friends' since I started being honest about my views. I can't return to my career as a teacher or as a support worker for CAMHs as I refuse to be complicit in this horror show that equates to the abuse of women and children. I don't make the headlines when I speak out, I just get verbally abused, but courage calls to courage everywhere. Thank you.
TWO voices of reason... in the same interview.
That is two more than the BBC would have on.
I am genuinely puzzled that people who I thought had integrity deny that there's a problem here for women and children. Dismissed as 'the culture wars' - when it is so clearly about safeguarding for women and children. Why are politicians, the BBC, the NHS and many high profile individuals so ambivalent - or even rooting for the dismantling of safeguarding - just because some men have issues that they 'say' require full access to all areas marked female? Surely, that's a red flag in itself? Why are they so keen to unravel what has previously been accepted as moral and decent in civilised society? Why do so many people in power want to sacrifice women, girls and children on this particular altar? It's so regressive! Genuinely bewildered by the extent of this betrayal of women and girls in the West!
Thank you, Graham, for everything you do and for sticking up for women and children. Your book is excellent.
I work in a university and not only does it not feel like things are getting better, it's feeling like the walls are closing in.
Oh no, that's awful. From someone who is lucky enough to be semi-self-employed, my heart goes out to you and people in a similar situation. Hang in there!❤️
Same here.
Many thanks Graham. The capture of BMA and BBC by gender id extremists has the potential for a societal ignorance/anti-science disaster.
Two of my favourite men talking sense to each other. I’m so glad there are more and more people willing to tell the truth and call out the BBC and others who are avoiding the issue. Thank you, Andrew and Graham.
A true 'mensch' is our Graham, as Yiddish speakers would say. (Definition: "a man regarded as being honourable, decent, and responsible, and having strength of character.")
What a terrific interview by two sane individuals. Feel so sorry for Graham, for supporting me and my 'fellow' women. Thank you Graham, most of us are right behind you.
I just want to put a plug in for Blackwells booksellers, as an alternative to Amazon.
Free shipping in the UK and to North America, and they sell all of the gender critical titles.
Support smaller businesses.
good to know that BLACKWELLS is a decent bookseller.
My solution: allow self id with no rights whatsoever to any services marked out as catering specifically for natal females! Remove the incentive for bad actors!
I agree - but then, what would be different from the situation at the moment? People can dress how they like, call themselves what they like etc. It's that they need the confirmation of others that creates the problem.
They would not be able to get it off the backs of women tho' by invading our spaces and sports etc; if these are reserved for females only by law (and that means natal females from birth!).
Perhaps they would then advocate for third spaces. If not, we know that they are either mentally ill men or perverts wanting access to prey! These men are just not women's problem to accommodate.
I didn't know of one 'trans' person in school! Now there are clusters of 'trans' kids everywhere, and men lining up to put wigs on and enter female spaces! Every day there are more and more men grifting in F sport! I think a tiny number of people have genuine issues with their sex - this explosion over recent years is highly suspicious to me! It's a social contagion mixed in with chancers and the mentally ill imo!
Yes, we are in upside-down world now, and too many people don't seem to remember what right-side up used to be. The idea that so many are making "sense" of the concept of "trans kids" just illustrates the point. I've explained to people I know -- these are decent, open-minded people too -- that probably most of supposed trans kids are future LGB adults who are being sterilized, subjected to a form of conversion therapy, not to mention mutilated. The reaction has either been astonishment because they never thought of that, and they become very uncomfortable (good!) now knowing, or they say "Well, you still shouldn't restrict other children from getting care..." Then I've gone the route of "there is no such thing as a trans child, and children can't give proper legal consent to these drastic interventions, they are too young" and that seems to sink in. But do my friends still really give an F? I have no idea. But other than speaking our minds with conviction, what else can we do/say? And as I mentioned elsewhere, I don't have a lot at stake for speaking my mind, so I'm lucky. What a "mess we're in" is right!
I believe the law is on our side - hence the demand by Sex Matters to make it explicit in the Equality Act 2010, so that there is no doubt or room for Stonewall to make out that so-called transgender 'women' are allowed in women's spaces.
How were things for women and girls before this phase of gender identity rights took over? I don't recall having any issues with transsexual men in women's spaces, these men were so few and far between, and more than likely relatively decent people. Now the world of women and girls is being opened up to every pervy man who wants access and is willing to claim he's female. And the idiots who make the decisions about these policies are cowards or pervs themselves. I feel some nostalgia for the good bad old days.... (if that makes sense!)
I agree, we have the laws in place, but need to make it explicit that 'woman' refers to female by birth only and cannot be opted into! Changing sex markers on documents must also be stopped!
Armando Iannucci is so disappointing. I thought he'd be better than that.
Even people like Jeremy Clarkson see it!
Yay, Graham!!
Excellent
Not rufus hound as well ,sheesh
> “Have we reached a tipping point in the gender wars?”
Good question there Andrew – one certainly hopes so. And, as you’ve suggested, the “optics” of a “man” – nominally speaking at least – beating up on a “woman” – nominally speaking – for the world’s “entertainment” has likely contributed substantially to that “tipping”.
Though I’m not sure that Andrew isn’t talking out of both sides of his mouth – or, at best, is unclear on what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place. Particularly in his assertion (@3:18) that “You know, with a male individual winning gold in the boxing ...”. Which is not necessarily the case. Which is the crux of the matter.
And the problem there, at the crux, is that there are basically 3 “operational” definitions for the sexes on the table. The defacto standard at the Olympics boils down to the Kindergarten Cop definitions: boys (males) have penises, and girls (females) have vaginas -- "how dare you deny that Khelif is a female!!11!! 🙄" But a bunch of scientific illiterates and "scientism-ists" have gotten the "idea" that karyotypes are the tickets to the promised land: boys (males) have XYs, and girls (females) have XXs -- "so let it be written, so let it be done!" 🙄
However, the standard biological definitions STIPULATE an entirely different set of criteria: (pubescent) boys (males) have functional testicles, and (pubescent) girls (females) have functional ovaries. And in which case, there’s some reason to argue that Khelif and company – most of the intersex in fact – are neither male nor female, that they’re sexless. Though it might be moot whether that makes much difference in allowing Khelif to compete in women’s boxing.
So the question is which definitions are going to be “trump”, particularly in various social situations since the biological ones are foundational to pretty much all biology, and are not at all open to any debate at all. Papal Encyclicals. But, unfortunately, Andrew is largely part of the problem since he, at one point, insisted that it is genitalia that are the defining criteria. And banned me from his Substack and cancelled my subscription for pointing out that that definition was rather “problematic” – as events have proven – and, to boot, accused me of “tedious casuistry” and being a “flat-earther” for so arguing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r91LM72izpD8sYqSzvFK0C2L3nIB_Nq2/view?usp=sharing
Yet he now “thinks” that it is simply a matter of chromosomes which are no guarantee at all of being a member of a particular sex category. For example:
“Patients: A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
Bit of a stretch to argue that someone who has menstruated and given birth, presumably having used her own ova, to two children is not a female because she happens to have XY chromosomes – which Andrew is more or less arguing.
Can’t have your cake and eat it too there mate.
But that underlines the problem how we’re to decide who qualifies for membership in which sex categories. Even apart from how useful they are for adjudicating access to various facilities.
Is the individual discussed in the article a chimera? The result of one fetus having absorbed another, and retaining some of the latter's cells (with a separate DNA profile) in certain areas of their body? (I saw mention of "mosaicism"; is that another term for chimerism?)
Good questions -- somewhat outside my salary range to answer 🙂. But a couple of illuminating quotes from the article, though the title is a bit ambiguous:
"Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development" -- not sure if that's the mother or the daughter. But the "Context" provides further information:
"Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a predominantly 46,XY karyotype in the ovary (93% 46,XY and 6% 45,X)."
The mother clearly has 46, XY in many of her cells. And, as Emma Hilton is endorsing the use of cheek swabs for sex testing in sports, the mother would probably test as 46, XY. From which Doyle would presumably say, "therefore male". And get up on his high horse with a resounding, "how dare you!!!??" 🙄
But, as I had indicated in my comments on his Substack -- before being banned there, he had noisily, and rather pretentiously, insisted, "Vagina, therefore female. How dare you!!!? 🙄"
Houston, we have a problem due to contradictory definitions -- a classic case of reductio ad absurdum. Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is to fall back on the standard biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless.
Which many people reject and refuse to consider because it "offends" their vanities, because it knocks into a cocked hat their articles of faith that "sex is immutable 🙄", that everyone is either male or female from conception to death.
As a woman and the mother of an autistic, same-sex attracted teenage daughter who was lured into the evil ideology (though I pray momentarily), I cannot really express my gratitude to you, Graham, and people such as Andrew, JKR, Julie Bindel, Barry Wall, Kathleen stock, Helen Joyce, Mr. Menno, and others for your bravery in speaking out against it. I've lost 'friends' since I started being honest about my views. I can't return to my career as a teacher or as a support worker for CAMHs as I refuse to be complicit in this horror show that equates to the abuse of women and children. I don't make the headlines when I speak out, I just get verbally abused, but courage calls to courage everywhere. Thank you.