Gender Neutral Fashion is failing skirt-wearing boys

[Stu]

You must have had to search back before Watson and Crick in the early 1950s to find it (possibly to pre-Darwinian times). I can also find 'science' to prove the phlogiston theory and 'science' based on the elements of Air, Earth, Fire and Water, but biology, physics and chemistry have long-since abandoned those theories in favour of ones that explain the facts better.

I accept this over-simplifies it but, if you have a Y chromosome, you are male. If you don't, you are female. A tiny minority (0.5% to 1.7%) have a DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development) - i.e. they are intersex. Even the majority of intersex people follow the same rule biologically and a tiny proportion have conditions like AID (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) and a very tiny proportion are true hermaphrodites.

Aside from the "disorders" (as they are called in medicine in the term DSDs), a person's sex is essentially binary. We develop to produce either sperm or eggs - and that applies to people who call themselves non-binary as much as it applies to those of us who are comfortable being male or being female.

[Barleymower]

You must have had to search back before Watson and Crick in the early 1950s to find it (possibly to pre-Darwinian times). I can also find 'science' to prove the phlogiston theory and 'science' based on the elements of Air, Earth, Fire and Water, but biology, physics and chemistry have long-since abandoned those theories in favour of ones that explain the facts better.

I accept this over-simplifies it but, if you have a Y chromosome, you are male. If you don't, you are female. A tiny minority (0.5% to 1.7%) have a DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development) - i.e. they are intersex. Even the majority of intersex people follow the same rule biologically and a tiny proportion have conditions like AID (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) and a very tiny proportion are true hermaphrodites.

Aside from the "disorders" (as they are called in medicine in the term DSDs), a person's sex is essentially binary. We develop to produce either sperm or eggs - and that applies to people who call themselves non-binary as much as it applies to those of us who are comfortable being male or being female.

Pelmut, Stu is set in his ways and now unable to break free of his own thought processes and consider that the world is not as seems at first glance.
Sex is very complex in humans. Binary and simplistic explanations for human sex biology are either wholly incorrect or substantially incomplete. Given what we know about biology across animals and in humans, efforts to represent human sex as binary based solely on what gametes one produces are not about biology but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society.

[rode_kater]

The UK government recently rejected any claim that there is any category of person who is "non-binary" - and the High Court disallowed a challenge on that, so I have the government and courts on my side. There is not a shred of scientific or biological evidence to support the claim for such a category, so I guess science is on my side.

To clarify, what the UK courts said is that the UK law does not recognise such a category. That's quite different from saying such a category does not exist. It's also a correct decision IMO because such choices should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary. In NL we solved the problem by allowing people to place an X in de sex field in your passport, and it can mean whatever you like (it's not easy mind you). It's possible in several countries these days.

But this whole thread is bizarre, basically people not using words for the same meaning. Like this:

Intersex is a concrete reality; it is biological. One either is or is not intersex and that can be established or confirmed scientifically.

Non-binary is not a concrete reality.

If you don't consider intersex a perfect example of something non-binary, what on earth do you think non-binary means? It's a word that needs context, because in math "non-binary" means rejecting the law of excluded middle which leads to a different kind of math. So clearly "non-binary" as a concept exists, but you're meaning something else.

[pelmut]

I totally agree with Barleymower. My worry is that some people may come to believe these myths if we do not challenge them each time they are repeated.

    ...but it does get very repetitive.

[Uncle Al]

Hello everyone

I've just spent 20-30 minutes reading information that, although "interesting",
has nothing to do with the title of this thread/topic. The "intellectuals" have
bantered back and forth, about highly cerebral concepts, that have no bearing
on the routine of many peoples daily lives.

Now, may we please get this thread back on topic

Uncle Al

[moonshadow]

I've come to realize over the years that in this current age we're in, is that there are a lot of people who seem to enjoy to stake out their little hilltop and shout their opinions out across the land whether they were wanted or not.

There are numerous documents, discussions, text, published works, many of which going back to the dawn of civilization that would indicate Stu's position may be short sighted. We've discussed this at great length here on this website with sources cited, obviously it had no effect. It is clear his mind is completely made up, and there will be no budge.

My father died pissed off and at odds at the world too. How unfortunate.

But lets just entertain the notion that he is absolutely correct for a moment... what does he gain by sharing this tidbit of enlightenment on some out of the way, obscure website for skirt wearing men with an active membership well under a hundred souls? I know what is gained, the dopamine released by his brain when he pounds out one of his "I'll put everyone in their place" post while proverbially beating his chest and flexing his mental muscles. Does he do it to troll? Or maybe carry favor with the other members with anti-trans views on this site? Maybe some other reason? Only he knows.

Maybe his reasoning is well intentioned, in that he simply wants to share the fact as he sees them and set the ignorant folk on the path to better understanding of this complex subject. If that be the case, then let me kindly add, while we're on the subject of facts:

The universe doesn't give a sh!t about any of this. We're all just riding this rock around our star an average of 70 times before we kick off to whatever may await (if anything at all), and while we all live our lives with our little monkey brains, clubbing each other over the heads with our notions of self importance, I conclude there are two types of people, those who build people up and those that tear people down.

As for which camp our friend here falls in, we've all seen the various comments over the years.... you be the judge.

As for nonbinary, it is what it is. I can assure everyone that the concept of nonbinary won't cease just because Stu says so. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain it. He's got Google, he can figure it out, or not. I really don't give a damn either way.

[moonshadow]

I would ponder though, since sex and gender are one and the same, when we assign feminine gender to objects like a sailing ship, where might I find the ovaries and vagina on this vessel?

When a hurricane make forms in the Atlantic, how do we determine whether to give it a boy name or a girl name? Is that what the weather plane is looking for when it flies deep inside.

"what shall we name it?"

"We will call it Hurricane Andrew".

"Are you sure??"

"Yes, the storm clearly has a Y chromosome..."

I always considered my car [Jax] a "boy car". Perhaps I should have this checked by a professional. Why is the moon often considered feminine (the Goddess) and the sun considered masculine (God)? Strictly speaking, I see no biological sex defined in either one.

Maybe he's right. But one thing I know for sure that doesn't exist... our importance in the grand scheme of things. I'm not triggered, I honestly don't give a crap. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. Whatever man, I hear this crap all of the time... it just doesn't matter.

I read this garbage this morning, then after eating a hearty breakfast, heard a rap on the door, and spend the rest of the day helping a new friend try to get his furnace working in his trailer, later my wife and I visited the dog kennel where we'll be boarding Rufus later this summer, and finally had some pretty good BBQ sandwiches... needless to say, gender politics never cross my mind.

I'm disappointed in myself for the amount of time I've wasted on this subject already, if I said anything, a simple "ooooookkaaaay" would have sufficed.

[rivegauche]

This is getting tedious. There are people here who are basically intolerant of society's direction of travel. On a forum devoted to those who are defying the norm, this is bonkers.

Binary means two options. With sex, it would be XX or XY. Except it's not. There are different outcomes. Yes, they are a tiny percentage, but their existence established biologically that sex IS (not can be) non-binary. How doctors and midwives allocate these variations can be binary, but the biology is non-binary. A person's sex is not dependent on their ability to breed - if it was, how would you allocate the many people who are infertile for one reason or another?

Sex is biological but can have another interpretation placed on it by society, such as the courts. Gender, on the other hand, is less fixed biologically and has mentally determined input. Surely how a person wishes to identify in terms of gender is a matter for that person and not you? Who are you to tell them they are wrong about themselves? Are they allowed no input to the situation?

There are indeed matters for society if an individual ventures into the traditional territory of a gender other than the one suggested by their appearance. There is the additional problem here that some individuals have an appearance that more closely resembles a gender or sex other than that assigned at birth. Let us have consideration for all these variations in society and stop persecuting them. Women (as assigned at birth) might well feel threatened or actually be threatened by a male presenting as female, but such crimes represent a tiny minority. You could use the same argument about black people. Some black people attack white people - let's have separate toilets for them. It is quite scary that there used to be such division in some countries (not the UK). Try even suggesting such a thing nowadays and you will be rightly condemned (though I am not in a position to say if that is also the case in certain states of the USA, the land of the free). The comparison isn't identical because we have very few (zero?) cases of biological women attacking men in male toilets. The real issue is not people of male sex at birth appearing female in order to attack women - it is of male people attacking women, which has a pathetic conviction rate. It has been pointed out that many of the politicians who have suddenly started using the bathroom stuff to attack trans women/cross dressers etc have no history of protecting women's rights - so that this is not a real concern but a bandwagon they have jumped on. Incidentally there are no UK laws that prevent men using women's toilets however they are dressed - they just don't have a right to do so, so can be required to leave.

On the subject of attacks, there were 632 mass shootings in the USA in 2023 up to 7 Dec (source - BBC website). In 2021 there were 20,948 gun-related homicides. I can't help wondering about the extent of overlap between those denying male-born access to female toilets because of small number if incidents and those insisting on a right to bear arms despite rather a lot of incidents. Essentially this is "I insist on denying your rights when maintaining my own even though mine do more harm than yours".

This business of "you are not female/non-binary because I say you are not" has to stop. It is nasty, it is prejudiced, it is arrogant, and it is intolerance writ large. Such intolerance has no place in society, let alone this forum.

[pelmut]

This business of "you are not female/non-binary because I say you are not" has to stop. It is nasty, it is prejudiced, it is arrogant, and it is intolerance writ large. Such intolerance has no place in society, let alone this forum.

I agree 100%, it is an unnecessary artificial distinction in the case of everything except the ability to breed -- and we aren't here to discuss that.

Incidentally there are no UK laws that prevent men using women's toilets however they are dressed - they just don't have a right to do so, so can be required to leave.

Not quite accurate:  They do have the right and can only be asked to leave because of misbehaviour (which is against the law, wherever it happens), they cannot be asked to leave because they are men -- that would be illegal discrimination. (Equality Act 2010)

[crfriend]

OK, guys, enough.

We're arguing here at cross-purposes and using differing methodologies which spoils the debate. Some of us are coming at it from a scientific point of view with reference to biology and psychology, and others are coming at it from viewpoints of pop-science and Political Correctness. Thus, let's please let this thread drop before it gets forcibly locked.

I can see everybody's viewpoints here, and thus can see the various forces in action -- and since some of those viewpoints are based in ideology rather than hard-nosed fact, there's no point arguing from the two platforms.

The main issue as I see it is that traditional masculinity no longer has any place at the table, having been replaced by "machismo" by political and social pressure from the rad-fems over the past 50 years. Thus, many of us are left rudderless because we don't fit the crematory-sized ash-box of machismo. So we try to play games with the Political Correctness spectrum to regain some footing in the world. We need to get away from PC.

Masculinity throughout history has been a broad tent -- as has been femininity -- but has been seriously eroded and restricted quite recently. Reject the erosion. Forcefully. Take your manhood back -- all of it. This means that it's OK to love; OK to care; OK to cry; OK to feel happy, sad, and experience the entire range of emotions that all human beings can. Sometimes it means being the peacock, and sometimes is means being the quiet loving partner!

[Barleymower]

OK, guys, enough.
Take your manhood back -- all of it. This means that it's OK to love; OK to care; OK to cry; OK to feel happy, sad, and experience the entire range of emotions that all human beings can. Sometimes it means being the peacock, and sometimes is means being the quiet loving partner!

Quite right Carl. Don't let the world dictate to you what it means to be a man. If you are born with the correct anatomy, you are a man. What being a man means to you is something for you to decide.

I see Stu has ducked out at this point having lit a fire under everyone.

[skirted84]

We've said this for years. In the old days it was Bravehearts next to freestylers, or freestyle masc v freestyle femme. Now its transgenderism/gender neutrality and simply men/boys in skirts. Different factions of fashion boundaries make sense in their own right but sound contradictory in the minds of the wider public.