A blunder is a mistake ... refusing to retract a comment which you know is false is not that ... it is a form of abuse of a woman's reputation because the people who have made the false allegation do not believe in reasonable behaviour towards women as human beings
Stella's reasoned, considered stance clearly ruffles the feathers of the trans ideology acolytes and those perpetuating institutional misogyny, perhaps she's onto something?
Neutral space, time and therapeutic support for those suffering Gender Distress, it's really not an outrageous idea, but in the short time that she has been advocating for children, families and detrans ppl to be heard, she has had to face abuse from all directions. I will be forever grateful to her, Genspect and those that support her work. I'm heartened to read this article supporting her and her work, thank you.
Well written piece. Obviously Mick Barry's an idiot. Looking for Woke points at the expense of a well known woman's reputation is an act of the most abject cowardice. Siding with the MOB.always is.Shame on him 👎
Stella focused on mental health is in a different position to others. Of course she needs to understand. She’s right, there needs to be more research. Empathy isn’t the same as sympathising. I doubt very much she will have sympathy for a paraphilia. There is a big difference!
I’m a big fan of Helen Joyce and agree the ideology needs defeating completely.
Plus I’m with Kellie Jay about giving women a platform to speak out. Kellie says she doesn’t care about Pervy men and I get that, pervs give me the creeps as well.
I respect Stella and others who are trying to understand what’s going on with these men in order to do their job properly. It isn’t a job I’d like to do but I’m glad there are people doing it.
May 19, 2022·edited May 19, 2022Liked by Graham Linehan
Both those attacking Arty Morty and those attacking Stella O’Malley rely on taking things out of context. We are losing the ability to have good faith debate as a way of handling disagreement.
I was on that Space and lodged a feedback comment supporting Stella. It seemed to be the "if your not with us your against us type attack". I didn't find it in the least bit helpful or pleasant to listen to. Stella and Sarah Phillimore did a great interview with Maggie Mellon from EBSWA - highly recommended.
I'm really sorry that Stella's comments were used to smear her unfairly in this way, but I cannot take you seriously when you describe Arty Morty as being "unfairly mobbed". AM had made several dodgy statements (not to mention having a reference to a paedophilic relationship in his bio) and a lot of women wanted to talk things out like adults.
Unfortunately he threw his toys out of the pram and refused to act like a responsible adult would, and it could not have been more obvious during Lorelei’s space that Stella didn’t know what Arty had said either.
The women in this movement receive the most appalling abuse and yet when a man gets even the slightest pushback the ranks of GC men close in to protect one another. Don’t think women haven’t noticed how much more you care about criticism directed at men than women receiving rape and death threats.
I don’t believe for a second that if it had been a TRA and not your friend who had said those things you’d have written countless substack articles about it.
Women raising safeguarding concerns are not caught up in a purity spiral: we just care about integrity and safety.
I’ve been listening to Stella and Sasha’s podcast, “Gender: A Wider Lens”. They are both extremely compassionate and knowledgeable.
Barry is a complete fool if he relies on internet trolls rather than hearing directly from Stella herself.
He should listen to the Gender:A Wider Lens” and “Nolan Investigates Stonewall” podcasts, and have a look at the pictures from Manchester - then he’d be in a position to make informed comments instead of disgracing himself.
"....he tried to equally blame NATO & Russia for the Ukrainian invasion."
This isn't an unreasonable position. US/NATO has been pushing Russia into a corner for decades knowing that, sooner or later, Russia would be forced to respond. It's a proxy war for which Ukraine is NATO's sacrificial pawn.
The Gender - a wider lens podcast is essential listening for anyone who wants to know more about these issues. There will be no progress until there is understanding.
Excellent essay - a rather damning and thorough indictment of Mick Barry and far too many so-called politicians.
Though the article also provides a welcome link and introduction to the commendable efforts and policies of Genspect. However, in spelunking through their website, I ran across their definition for the sexes which is decidedly inconsistent with antithetical to the standard biological definition endorsed by many if not most reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias. Genspect's defintion:
"Sex is binary. The sex of an individual is based on their reproductive anatomy and is determined by the type of gamete this anatomy is organized, through natural development, to produce."
More or less the colloquial or "folk biology" definition, and one that has been explicitly endorsed by "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright in a Times letter:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
So, Genspect's definition and that of Hilton and company are essentially based on the presence of specific structures absent any necessity to actually have any "reproductive functions" as the Lexico definition defines it:
If sex is all about reproduction - as is clearly the case - then it seems rather incongruous at best if not profoundly illogical and quite unscientific to argue that organisms have a sex if they can't actually reproduce.
Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico, in his paper on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender", underlines that profound and quite thorny dichotomy:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Genspect, & Hilton] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
And that biological definition is hardly uncommon or cut from whole cloth. Australian professor Paul Griffiths, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy, argues for the same definition:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
"Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male gametes or female ones. Male plants and animals produce smaller gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) while females produce larger ones (ova, often called egg cells)."
The biological definitions are defined such that to have a sex is to be able to produce either of two types of gametes through having functional gonads of either of two types. It necessarily follows that organisms which can't produce either are thereby sexless.
While that dichotomy might be seen as largely academic or a case of splitting hairs, Griffiths makes a credible case that they're essential to the whole edifice of biological science. It does not seem at all reasonable or workable that society can have the "patchwork definitions of social sciences", of Genspect, and of Hilton existing side by side with the biological definitions. Will school children go to their social studies classes and learn the patchwork definitions and then go to their biology classes to learn the quite antithetical biological definitions?
In many cases the conflict between those two perspectives won't cause many problems or much grief. But in some cases it will as in the common claim that sex is immutable - which only holds water for the patchwork or structure-absent-function definitions, although not at all for the biological definitions by which the claim is so much errant moonshine.
But the consequences are that, by the patchwork definitions, dysphoric children who have their gonads removed in "gender affirmation surgery" retain their sexes, while by the biological definitions we're turning them into sexless eunuchs - which may well be the "justification" for the patchwork definitions. Adults should presumably be allowed to do that to themselves if they wish, but, by the more credible and scientific biological definitions, allowing that to happen to dysphoric and autistic children has to be seen as the crime of the century - "monstrous" hardly does justice to it.
A blunder is a mistake ... refusing to retract a comment which you know is false is not that ... it is a form of abuse of a woman's reputation because the people who have made the false allegation do not believe in reasonable behaviour towards women as human beings
Stella's reasoned, considered stance clearly ruffles the feathers of the trans ideology acolytes and those perpetuating institutional misogyny, perhaps she's onto something?
Neutral space, time and therapeutic support for those suffering Gender Distress, it's really not an outrageous idea, but in the short time that she has been advocating for children, families and detrans ppl to be heard, she has had to face abuse from all directions. I will be forever grateful to her, Genspect and those that support her work. I'm heartened to read this article supporting her and her work, thank you.
Well written piece. Obviously Mick Barry's an idiot. Looking for Woke points at the expense of a well known woman's reputation is an act of the most abject cowardice. Siding with the MOB.always is.Shame on him 👎
Another bloody witch hunt. Defenestration is too good for the likes of this chancer.
Stella focused on mental health is in a different position to others. Of course she needs to understand. She’s right, there needs to be more research. Empathy isn’t the same as sympathising. I doubt very much she will have sympathy for a paraphilia. There is a big difference!
I’m a big fan of Helen Joyce and agree the ideology needs defeating completely.
Plus I’m with Kellie Jay about giving women a platform to speak out. Kellie says she doesn’t care about Pervy men and I get that, pervs give me the creeps as well.
I respect Stella and others who are trying to understand what’s going on with these men in order to do their job properly. It isn’t a job I’d like to do but I’m glad there are people doing it.
Both those attacking Arty Morty and those attacking Stella O’Malley rely on taking things out of context. We are losing the ability to have good faith debate as a way of handling disagreement.
I was on that Space and lodged a feedback comment supporting Stella. It seemed to be the "if your not with us your against us type attack". I didn't find it in the least bit helpful or pleasant to listen to. Stella and Sarah Phillimore did a great interview with Maggie Mellon from EBSWA - highly recommended.
I'm really sorry that Stella's comments were used to smear her unfairly in this way, but I cannot take you seriously when you describe Arty Morty as being "unfairly mobbed". AM had made several dodgy statements (not to mention having a reference to a paedophilic relationship in his bio) and a lot of women wanted to talk things out like adults.
Unfortunately he threw his toys out of the pram and refused to act like a responsible adult would, and it could not have been more obvious during Lorelei’s space that Stella didn’t know what Arty had said either.
The women in this movement receive the most appalling abuse and yet when a man gets even the slightest pushback the ranks of GC men close in to protect one another. Don’t think women haven’t noticed how much more you care about criticism directed at men than women receiving rape and death threats.
I don’t believe for a second that if it had been a TRA and not your friend who had said those things you’d have written countless substack articles about it.
Women raising safeguarding concerns are not caught up in a purity spiral: we just care about integrity and safety.
I’ve been listening to Stella and Sasha’s podcast, “Gender: A Wider Lens”. They are both extremely compassionate and knowledgeable.
Barry is a complete fool if he relies on internet trolls rather than hearing directly from Stella herself.
He should listen to the Gender:A Wider Lens” and “Nolan Investigates Stonewall” podcasts, and have a look at the pictures from Manchester - then he’d be in a position to make informed comments instead of disgracing himself.
"....he tried to equally blame NATO & Russia for the Ukrainian invasion."
This isn't an unreasonable position. US/NATO has been pushing Russia into a corner for decades knowing that, sooner or later, Russia would be forced to respond. It's a proxy war for which Ukraine is NATO's sacrificial pawn.
The Gender - a wider lens podcast is essential listening for anyone who wants to know more about these issues. There will be no progress until there is understanding.
Mick Barry...what a tadger!
What's a tankie to do these days? I guess TRAs are the closest things they can find to stalinists anymore. And some do like their boots licked...
Mick Barry is just riding on woke.
Excellent essay - a rather damning and thorough indictment of Mick Barry and far too many so-called politicians.
Though the article also provides a welcome link and introduction to the commendable efforts and policies of Genspect. However, in spelunking through their website, I ran across their definition for the sexes which is decidedly inconsistent with antithetical to the standard biological definition endorsed by many if not most reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias. Genspect's defintion:
"Sex is binary. The sex of an individual is based on their reproductive anatomy and is determined by the type of gamete this anatomy is organized, through natural development, to produce."
https://genspect.org/position/
More or less the colloquial or "folk biology" definition, and one that has been explicitly endorsed by "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright in a Times letter:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
So, Genspect's definition and that of Hilton and company are essentially based on the presence of specific structures absent any necessity to actually have any "reproductive functions" as the Lexico definition defines it:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex
If sex is all about reproduction - as is clearly the case - then it seems rather incongruous at best if not profoundly illogical and quite unscientific to argue that organisms have a sex if they can't actually reproduce.
Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico, in his paper on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender", underlines that profound and quite thorny dichotomy:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Genspect, & Hilton] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
And that biological definition is hardly uncommon or cut from whole cloth. Australian professor Paul Griffiths, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy, argues for the same definition:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Wikipedia:
"Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male gametes or female ones. Male plants and animals produce smaller gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) while females produce larger ones (ova, often called egg cells)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
And biologists Lehtonen and Parker (FRS), writing in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, assert in their glossary the same definitions:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
The biological definitions are defined such that to have a sex is to be able to produce either of two types of gametes through having functional gonads of either of two types. It necessarily follows that organisms which can't produce either are thereby sexless.
While that dichotomy might be seen as largely academic or a case of splitting hairs, Griffiths makes a credible case that they're essential to the whole edifice of biological science. It does not seem at all reasonable or workable that society can have the "patchwork definitions of social sciences", of Genspect, and of Hilton existing side by side with the biological definitions. Will school children go to their social studies classes and learn the patchwork definitions and then go to their biology classes to learn the quite antithetical biological definitions?
In many cases the conflict between those two perspectives won't cause many problems or much grief. But in some cases it will as in the common claim that sex is immutable - which only holds water for the patchwork or structure-absent-function definitions, although not at all for the biological definitions by which the claim is so much errant moonshine.
But the consequences are that, by the patchwork definitions, dysphoric children who have their gonads removed in "gender affirmation surgery" retain their sexes, while by the biological definitions we're turning them into sexless eunuchs - which may well be the "justification" for the patchwork definitions. Adults should presumably be allowed to do that to themselves if they wish, but, by the more credible and scientific biological definitions, allowing that to happen to dysphoric and autistic children has to be seen as the crime of the century - "monstrous" hardly does justice to it.