Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I just stumbled on this doggeral:
"As the above genetic range suggests, the molecular biology that underlies gender identity, the development of gonadal and genital anatomy, and the factors that define sexual behaviour is proving unexpectedly complex and is still incompletely understood. It is now evident that humans cannot be characterized as member of 1 of 2 clearly defined units: male or female. In fact, individuals exist on a continuum: those who do not conform unequivocally to the dyadic view of human sex in terms of anatomy, gender identity, and/or sexual behaviour should be characterized as having variations in rather than disorders of sexual development. Such individuals can no longer be regarded as anomalies to be rejected, condemned, and, if possible, “corrected” either psychologically or anatomically. As such concern over the impacts of ‘trans’ people – who are significantly disadvantaged compared to ‘non trans’ people – far outweighs the tiny fraction of the global population they are."
See? We are apparently no longer required to discover anything from anything so vulgar as actual real life experience. Instead, we wait till given the properly peer reviewed scientific research.
It is the comment of one "Natasha" and she's a lot of fun, cf.
"The six most common karyotypes of biological sex in human beings that do not result in death to the fetus:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births"
I'm sure that's impeccably researched.
From what I gather, Craig Murray doesn't seem to have much control over his own site here. There would appear to be a team of moderators who "organise" it for him. And a tighter and more censorian bunch you will not find anywhere (outside the Guardian anyway).
My pleasure. Linda 'Coach' Blade and Barbara Key's book is also good for sporting information. 'UNSPORTING: How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport', albeit from a sporting perspective.
Also let's not forget 'Material Girls' by Kathleen Stock is also seriously well worth a look.
I wonder if anyone can recommend any background reading I can do for a book I am planning to write about the danger of transgenderism to children? Thanks
Off the top of my head, I would suggest Abigail Shrier's 'Irreversible Damage' - as that one focusses on younger people. For a great overview, Helen Joyce's 'Trans and perhaps the most logically concise and informative is Heather Brunskell-Evans's 'Transgender Body Politics'.
Look up Stephanie Davies-Arai and Transgender Trend. Lots of resources and links there (and to authors). And maybe look at child health and pedagogy resouces - then critique of those and Institutions (and theories) in Education. There are quite a few people trying to provide more balanced and less captured curricula - it would be nice to see you working with each other where you can.
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 5, 2023Liked by mole at the counter
Like Mole has mentioned - several of these women spoke or ran workshops at the Education conference hosted at UCL, twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/ if you can use twitter? #Ed4WomensLib
That will give you a flavour of what happened. There were educators from all levels and locations there. And students and parents of students of all ages. And men and school teachers so a lot of discussion on what resources – and the need for more. It might be worth you getting in touch with some to see if they could say what they and their students need. I'm not sure what age range it would be aimed at - that in itself is a very tricky area with unsuitable topics or language being promoted without the underlying language or experience to begin to understand it. Some 'resources' are already being retrospectively changed as they used categories from 6 to 18 which aren't appropriate in many instances.
It was very hard to hear the sexualised and sexualising language some external 'experts' are being brought into schools to deliver in 'workshops'. Ten year old girls being encouraged to explore what dildos are and how that 'need' to use one 'represents' their 'identity'. With no challenge at all.
Moley, can you alert Graham to a tweet in his post about Rushdie, the last tweet. I can't seem to screenshot it, so have copied and pasted instead. I'm forever suspended on Twitter. Graham should sue whomsoever this vile person is. Here it is:
Graham, if you're out there...take a look on your Twitter page, the Rushdie thread, final post. Time to sue, and bigtime. Crowdfund, we'll all help. Can't seem to take a screenshot of it, so have copied and pasted instead.
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 6, 2023Liked by mole at the counter
*it's just occurred to me how arrogant this man is - he wouldn't have been around when Apocalypse Now was first out, or in the years when it became a cultural reference point then a meme. Or know who Conrad is. Joseph who? Or for the children of that generation or the next. And now it's a meme to mean anything and it can be situated entirely online as 'just something people say to each other online'. It's become diluted so many steps away. My generational refs are all out of whack (always were), and it does still piss me off when young beards try to claim to know it all. He seems to edge near admitting that, then reveals just how narrow his life experience is. It's a very usual type of arrogance of young men, like Owen Jones is still fiercely gripping. None of us know everything but we can realise that. Realise we don't know it all. Sometimes my family or friends had in-jokes we hadn’t realised were from a particular source. I knew fairly young that Mr Bob Dylan wrote the words to every song ever.
It's like going to songs on YouTube then reading the bottom half. How it's people correcting others that the 'original' released in 2021 is a cover and of the 'original' from 2006, actually sooooo ancient prehistory, then the snark when someone bowls along at grandad age to point out it's a cover from the 90s using a sample from the 60s. Actually. Then the gaming refs, only here from blah blah for when it was used as that's 'genius' and 'so original'. Then some very sad teens and younger wishing they knew the time before 'this' all started and the claims of claims of claims and trying to find the truth of anything online. Then the others telling others, relax, share, enjoy it all of you.
Thank god for straight white men! Without them, how could women know how to think or speak properly? Isn’t it brilliant, how he elevates the feelings of one trans identified male above the physical security of women trapped in prison cells?
Every time a friend or adult got a bit ordery with us as kids we used to say jawohl and do the opposite. It was a way to signal and it's in turns funny and depressing that those using slang think they invented it, then using references to signal they're a member of an in-group. Or an in-group playing at being an out-group to show they're really the in-group. That's what all these smug activists remind me of. Slang out of context can be disastrous.
I'm not sure how a youngish pale-skinned man grows a beard and then throws the word gammon at older men (and women? Black women?). To signify what? They have no right to speak? But he does? The delusion is remarkably strong in this one. He could be the very modern definition of a gammon so why is he stoking even more division and slurring others using his platform to do so. I thought 'India' and his racist and sexist comments about black women dressed up as 'inclusion' would have stopped 'India' being invited onto programmes as much.
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 5, 2023Liked by mole at the counter
There was a rainbow-jumpered psychologist in the Question Time audience who spoke about struggling to 'help' young trans people get 'support', "because these young people can't get access to a GP." The subtitler rendered it as "access to AGP." Is there such a thing as a Freudian subtitle?
Oh thank you Dulle Griet - I wonder if it only works with the live subtitling, or if I watched on a/the official playback if it would do it too. This is all very Pope Joan and Lady Isabella Birdish. I quite often misspell and write as I hear things in my head phonetically, so when AI does this I tend to smile.
Too much charades or too many 'first' languages as a kid :-)
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 5, 2023Liked by mole at the counter
The chattering classes indeed. The entire media is now one vast hideous embarrassment. Even if no-one on it spoke out on the glaringly obvious, it would still be glaringly obvious. The "hate filled cat calls" etc., i.e. the inevitable reaction from anyone with any sense at all, would be the routine response in every household everywhere.
So many issues with this article. India willoughby was articulate? “Older” audience members said things he didn’t want to hear? Some of them “gammon” coloured? Would he be referring to working class people there at all? Also, can you put something in quotation marks if it’s not actually what the “older woman” said?
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 6, 2023Liked by mole at the counter
He's got a list of 8 protected characteristics he needed to mock. And chucked in class too just like the good warrior he is. I love the underlying sneer some of them use to randomly use quote marks. It really 'f**ks' me 'off' to 'be' honest. It's like the use of the *asterisk* to emphasise or cast doubt for *heavy emphasis* so would suggest all these '*new journalists*' have learnt their trade from online forums. Which they of course invented and loudly claim to have created all language and modern everything.
I'm not often the topic of some journalistic swipe, but when you were at an event then you read or hear coverage, you think, huh? Are they even writing about the same event? These guys are a weird mix of PinkNewsGuardian snide and empty bitching. And they get their news from observing other news, or phoning it in reporting on other 'news'.
What a prick. Anyone seeing the clip knows it's bollocks.
I've seen other comments, I think in the Times, about the perfectly reasonable woman in the audience. (Why is that bloody Willoughby always on those panels?)
I wish Debbie Hayton were invited instead of Willoughby. I know some people think Debbie has AGP but personally, Debbie has championed the cause of women against the trans agenda and I'm happy to say 'she' because she never demands it of us.
I do love the rights brigadiers - carefully choosing when you are what type of person (for 'personhood') then male or female ('identifying') then when they really think it's their ace card, they resort to human. They appear to think human rights trump other humans' rights which is a very strange interpretation of actual human rights laws. So it's the battle of Women vs Human now (a bit like Alien & Predator vs Fluffy Kitten). Trans identifying men are always the most and best kind of human.
He reduces her here to 'just' a woman - 'this' woman - and as she doesn't 'identify' as such that means she's the worst bog standard kind of 'cis' woman. He can then portray that and her by comparison to the human he is portraying as the most marginalised and vulnerable. How dareth she destroy a human's human rights! I'm sure it all made a lot of sense in his head.
Wonderful! I Hope your next script is about your adventures in the land of the gender loons.
Congratulations you wonderful wonderful warriors for truth and decency. We'll be forever in your debt.
Most kind, thank you!
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I just stumbled on this doggeral:
"As the above genetic range suggests, the molecular biology that underlies gender identity, the development of gonadal and genital anatomy, and the factors that define sexual behaviour is proving unexpectedly complex and is still incompletely understood. It is now evident that humans cannot be characterized as member of 1 of 2 clearly defined units: male or female. In fact, individuals exist on a continuum: those who do not conform unequivocally to the dyadic view of human sex in terms of anatomy, gender identity, and/or sexual behaviour should be characterized as having variations in rather than disorders of sexual development. Such individuals can no longer be regarded as anomalies to be rejected, condemned, and, if possible, “corrected” either psychologically or anatomically. As such concern over the impacts of ‘trans’ people – who are significantly disadvantaged compared to ‘non trans’ people – far outweighs the tiny fraction of the global population they are."
See? We are apparently no longer required to discover anything from anything so vulgar as actual real life experience. Instead, we wait till given the properly peer reviewed scientific research.
Where is this magnificent drivel from? Scientific American ? Alice Roberts? Viz?
You'll find it here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/sex-and-gender-in-humans-is-not-binary/#post-90487
It is the comment of one "Natasha" and she's a lot of fun, cf.
"The six most common karyotypes of biological sex in human beings that do not result in death to the fetus:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births"
I'm sure that's impeccably researched.
From what I gather, Craig Murray doesn't seem to have much control over his own site here. There would appear to be a team of moderators who "organise" it for him. And a tighter and more censorian bunch you will not find anywhere (outside the Guardian anyway).
You are all such magnificent human beings. Thank you all.
hurrah. will order book. thank you
Thank you! We aim to give a large proportion of the proceeds to good causes!
Historians want text, first of all things, so it is very important to get our voices in print. Well done
That is a good point, thank you.
The Times are keeping the issues alive in their Scotland pages. This is on today's pages:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-form-a-thin-blue-line-to-keep-gender-protesters-apart-xdjgs52xf
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eat-humble-pie-over-trans-law-snp-critic-tells-sturgeon-ttks67w0l
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-sturgeon-and-independence-fall-in-poll-after-isla-bryson-trans-prisoner-row-5j3pqr7s5
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeons-betrayal-has-killed-confidence-of-loyalists-dnxkmtjxx
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-has-made-a-mess-on-gender-issues-but-independence-is-bigger-than-she-is-r30hrjcbm
Yes Material Girls I have read
Thanks very much for your suggestions, I've read Shrier's book and I'll look into the other two.
My pleasure. Linda 'Coach' Blade and Barbara Key's book is also good for sporting information. 'UNSPORTING: How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport', albeit from a sporting perspective.
Also let's not forget 'Material Girls' by Kathleen Stock is also seriously well worth a look.
I wonder if anyone can recommend any background reading I can do for a book I am planning to write about the danger of transgenderism to children? Thanks
Off the top of my head, I would suggest Abigail Shrier's 'Irreversible Damage' - as that one focusses on younger people. For a great overview, Helen Joyce's 'Trans and perhaps the most logically concise and informative is Heather Brunskell-Evans's 'Transgender Body Politics'.
Look up Stephanie Davies-Arai and Transgender Trend. Lots of resources and links there (and to authors). And maybe look at child health and pedagogy resouces - then critique of those and Institutions (and theories) in Education. There are quite a few people trying to provide more balanced and less captured curricula - it would be nice to see you working with each other where you can.
Thanks very much
Like Mole has mentioned - several of these women spoke or ran workshops at the Education conference hosted at UCL, twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/ if you can use twitter? #Ed4WomensLib
That will give you a flavour of what happened. There were educators from all levels and locations there. And students and parents of students of all ages. And men and school teachers so a lot of discussion on what resources – and the need for more. It might be worth you getting in touch with some to see if they could say what they and their students need. I'm not sure what age range it would be aimed at - that in itself is a very tricky area with unsuitable topics or language being promoted without the underlying language or experience to begin to understand it. Some 'resources' are already being retrospectively changed as they used categories from 6 to 18 which aren't appropriate in many instances.
It was very hard to hear the sexualised and sexualising language some external 'experts' are being brought into schools to deliver in 'workshops'. Ten year old girls being encouraged to explore what dildos are and how that 'need' to use one 'represents' their 'identity'. With no challenge at all.
Thanks very much for this, I am having problems creating a Twitter account but if I can I will follow up what you've told me about.
You can read it without signing in or even having an account.
Thanks
The best thing to see was you all enjoying yourselves. This is an assault on all of us.
Even I managed to enjoy myself a little!
Fantastic to hear such eloquent and logical arguments from people that are brave enough to keep telling the truth. I will be buying the book.
Ah, go on then - you've twisted my arm. I've just ordered a copy - it had better live up to the hype 😁😁😁
Eeeek! 😁
Moley, can you alert Graham to a tweet in his post about Rushdie, the last tweet. I can't seem to screenshot it, so have copied and pasted instead. I'm forever suspended on Twitter. Graham should sue whomsoever this vile person is. Here it is:
Gracum Linehan
@Gracumlinner
Replying to
@Glinner
Hey Graham why are you a pedophile?
6:20 PM · Feb 6, 2023
·
89
Views
Yes, I will.
Yeh! the Welsh government is gearing up to show how committed it is to abandoning critical thinking!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64548844
Graham, if you're out there...take a look on your Twitter page, the Rushdie thread, final post. Time to sue, and bigtime. Crowdfund, we'll all help. Can't seem to take a screenshot of it, so have copied and pasted instead.
Gracum Linehan
@Gracumlinner
Replying to
@Glinner
Hey Graham why are you a pedophile?
6:20 PM · Feb 6, 2023
·
89
Views
I didn't read past "However, as a member of the "woke" generation, I know the smell of bigotry."
Ah, but does he smell it in the morning - that is the true test of your inner hero and bigot destroyer. He is the meme of all memes.
*it's just occurred to me how arrogant this man is - he wouldn't have been around when Apocalypse Now was first out, or in the years when it became a cultural reference point then a meme. Or know who Conrad is. Joseph who? Or for the children of that generation or the next. And now it's a meme to mean anything and it can be situated entirely online as 'just something people say to each other online'. It's become diluted so many steps away. My generational refs are all out of whack (always were), and it does still piss me off when young beards try to claim to know it all. He seems to edge near admitting that, then reveals just how narrow his life experience is. It's a very usual type of arrogance of young men, like Owen Jones is still fiercely gripping. None of us know everything but we can realise that. Realise we don't know it all. Sometimes my family or friends had in-jokes we hadn’t realised were from a particular source. I knew fairly young that Mr Bob Dylan wrote the words to every song ever.
It's like going to songs on YouTube then reading the bottom half. How it's people correcting others that the 'original' released in 2021 is a cover and of the 'original' from 2006, actually sooooo ancient prehistory, then the snark when someone bowls along at grandad age to point out it's a cover from the 90s using a sample from the 60s. Actually. Then the gaming refs, only here from blah blah for when it was used as that's 'genius' and 'so original'. Then some very sad teens and younger wishing they knew the time before 'this' all started and the claims of claims of claims and trying to find the truth of anything online. Then the others telling others, relax, share, enjoy it all of you.
😁
Thank god for straight white men! Without them, how could women know how to think or speak properly? Isn’t it brilliant, how he elevates the feelings of one trans identified male above the physical security of women trapped in prison cells?
Every time a friend or adult got a bit ordery with us as kids we used to say jawohl and do the opposite. It was a way to signal and it's in turns funny and depressing that those using slang think they invented it, then using references to signal they're a member of an in-group. Or an in-group playing at being an out-group to show they're really the in-group. That's what all these smug activists remind me of. Slang out of context can be disastrous.
I'm not sure how a youngish pale-skinned man grows a beard and then throws the word gammon at older men (and women? Black women?). To signify what? They have no right to speak? But he does? The delusion is remarkably strong in this one. He could be the very modern definition of a gammon so why is he stoking even more division and slurring others using his platform to do so. I thought 'India' and his racist and sexist comments about black women dressed up as 'inclusion' would have stopped 'India' being invited onto programmes as much.
There was a rainbow-jumpered psychologist in the Question Time audience who spoke about struggling to 'help' young trans people get 'support', "because these young people can't get access to a GP." The subtitler rendered it as "access to AGP." Is there such a thing as a Freudian subtitle?
There is now!
Oh thank you Dulle Griet - I wonder if it only works with the live subtitling, or if I watched on a/the official playback if it would do it too. This is all very Pope Joan and Lady Isabella Birdish. I quite often misspell and write as I hear things in my head phonetically, so when AI does this I tend to smile.
Too much charades or too many 'first' languages as a kid :-)
The chattering classes indeed. The entire media is now one vast hideous embarrassment. Even if no-one on it spoke out on the glaringly obvious, it would still be glaringly obvious. The "hate filled cat calls" etc., i.e. the inevitable reaction from anyone with any sense at all, would be the routine response in every household everywhere.
So many issues with this article. India willoughby was articulate? “Older” audience members said things he didn’t want to hear? Some of them “gammon” coloured? Would he be referring to working class people there at all? Also, can you put something in quotation marks if it’s not actually what the “older woman” said?
Journalism is having a serious crisis.
He's got a list of 8 protected characteristics he needed to mock. And chucked in class too just like the good warrior he is. I love the underlying sneer some of them use to randomly use quote marks. It really 'f**ks' me 'off' to 'be' honest. It's like the use of the *asterisk* to emphasise or cast doubt for *heavy emphasis* so would suggest all these '*new journalists*' have learnt their trade from online forums. Which they of course invented and loudly claim to have created all language and modern everything.
I'm not often the topic of some journalistic swipe, but when you were at an event then you read or hear coverage, you think, huh? Are they even writing about the same event? These guys are a weird mix of PinkNewsGuardian snide and empty bitching. And they get their news from observing other news, or phoning it in reporting on other 'news'.
It’s bloody awful. I think they need to be repeatedly criticised until they get the message.
What a prick. Anyone seeing the clip knows it's bollocks.
I've seen other comments, I think in the Times, about the perfectly reasonable woman in the audience. (Why is that bloody Willoughby always on those panels?)
He feeds on attention?
He seemed to be claiming to be a biological woman at one point. I think he said “I’m a woman, I’m biological”
I wish Debbie Hayton were invited instead of Willoughby. I know some people think Debbie has AGP but personally, Debbie has championed the cause of women against the trans agenda and I'm happy to say 'she' because she never demands it of us.
Morally justify such disdain? Telling the truth is disdain? Just another misogynist with very little brain power.
I do love the rights brigadiers - carefully choosing when you are what type of person (for 'personhood') then male or female ('identifying') then when they really think it's their ace card, they resort to human. They appear to think human rights trump other humans' rights which is a very strange interpretation of actual human rights laws. So it's the battle of Women vs Human now (a bit like Alien & Predator vs Fluffy Kitten). Trans identifying men are always the most and best kind of human.
He reduces her here to 'just' a woman - 'this' woman - and as she doesn't 'identify' as such that means she's the worst bog standard kind of 'cis' woman. He can then portray that and her by comparison to the human he is portraying as the most marginalised and vulnerable. How dareth she destroy a human's human rights! I'm sure it all made a lot of sense in his head.