Also in the News - Part 2

[Jon the Hat]

Its also worth noting that while most of the debate seems to be about the threat of men seif IDing as women to enable their abuse (which is certainly a risk albeit a small one), the huge spike in Trans people is in young girls, a group which has a history of social contagion... Hysteria!  False memory sydrome!  Eating Disorders!  Trans!  All of which appear to be based in the societal challenges which young women face and which we are not dealing with.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its also worth noting that while most of the debate seems to be about the threat of men seif IDing as women to enable their abuse (which is certainly a risk albeit a small one), the huge spike in Trans people is in young girls, a group which has a history of social contagion... Hysteria!  False memory sydrome!  Eating Disorders!  Trans!  All of which appear to be based in the societal challenges which young women face and which we are not dealing with.

There's certainly a lot of societal issues young women face (most of them caused by societal expectations made and enforced by blokes rather than allowing freer expression), but it might be a good idea to take those women seriously when they mention the particular issues like the one above rather than just dismissing them as "all in their head" and a result of those societal expectations. 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

There's certainly a lot of societal issues young women face (most of them caused by societal expectations made and enforced by blokes rather than allowing freer expression), but it might be a good idea to take those women seriously when they mention the particular issues like the one above rather than just dismissing them as "all in their head" and a result of those societal expectations. 

Gender is 100% a social construct though, so how can rejecting ones gender (in as much as that is possible given it doesn't exist per se) not be a factor of society?

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Gender is 100% a social construct though, so how can rejecting ones gender (in as much as that is possible given it doesn't exist per se) not be a factor of society?

I'm sorry, can you elaborate a little more on exactly what you're driving at here? I'm unsure and I'd like to be sure before I reply further.

[tom27111]

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Gender is 100% a social construct though, so how can rejecting ones gender (in as much as that is possible given it doesn't exist per se) not be a factor of society?

 

Gender isn't a social construct though.

 

Males and females are born with genetically different chromosomes.

 

(Yes,I'm also aware that there are anomalies)

 

Can you alter those chromosomes?

 

To my knowledge, you can't. 

 

[leicsmac]

34 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

Gender isn't a social construct though.

 

Males and females are born with genetically different chromosomes.

 

(Yes,I'm also aware that there are anomalies)

 

Can you alter those chromosomes?

 

To my knowledge, you can't. 

 

It's a bit woolly, but there is a stated difference between sex and gender. The former is based on chromosomal data (which as you said is far from a binary in itself) and gender is based on secondary characteristics (outside appearance and hormone levels).

 

Of course, it is a rather nebulous discussion.

[Jon the Hat]

Literally the WHO definition of Gender.

 

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's a bit woolly, but there is a stated difference between sex and gender. The former is based on chromosomal data (which as you said is far from a binary in itself) and gender is based on secondary characteristics (outside appearance and hormone levels).

 

Of course, it is a rather nebulous discussion.

Sex is as binary as just about anything in existence.  A human either has male or female gametes.

[tom27111]

M

OK, fair point.

 

But let's get topical...

 

Do you put a rapist in a male or female prison?

Edited 17 February 2023 by tom27111

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Sex is as binary as just about anything in existence.  A human either has male or female gametes.

A look at the animal kingdom shows that is true for far less organisms that it is not.

 

To say nothing of the aforementioned chromosomal anomalies. There's more of those around the world than people with green eyes (IIRC), not a small number.

 

Just now, tom27111 said:

OK, b

 

 

OK, fair point.

 

But let's get topical...

 

Do you put a rapist in a male or female prison?

Assuming the rapist possesses "male" genitalia (as the legal description seems to only account for right now), a male one.

 

However, let's not let this exceedingly rare example dictate policy or debate on trans issues altogether, ne?

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Literally the WHO definition of Gender.

 

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

Yeah, this is correct.

 

Also:

 

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm intrigued to know what support is had in mind here if transitioning is somehow off the table.

Still interested in an answer here, in your own time.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A look at the animal kingdom shows that is true for far less organisms that it is not.

 

To say nothing of the aforementioned chromosomal anomalies. There's more of those around the world than people with green eyes (IIRC), not a small number.

 

Assuming the rapist possesses "male" genitalia (as the legal description seems to only account for right now), a male one.

 

However, let's not let this exceedingly rare example dictate policy or debate on trans issues altogether, ne?

Rare now, because there was no benefit to a rapist deciding he would become a woman before, and hopefully this nips it in the bud.  It is however a simple and clear example of how Self ID can be exploited by people who are not trans if all you have to do to legally change yourself from woman to man or vice versa is to say you are the other.  There are many other examples.  It is important to avoid unintended consequences.  

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Rare now, because there was no benefit to a rapist deciding he would become a woman before, and hopefully this nips it in the bud.  It is however a simple and clear example of how Self ID can be exploited by people who are not trans if all you have to do to legally change yourself from woman to man or vice versa is to say you are the other.  There are many other examples.  It is important to avoid unintended consequences.  

Hopefully a balance can be struck where self ID is facilitated while examples like this are dealt with appropriately.

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hopefully a balance can be struck where self ID is facilitated while examples like this are dealt with appropriately.

I do believe we still have to reflect reality though - if you remain physically male it is not appropriate to use women only spaces regardless of how you might feel - the impact on others is too high.  It is also not appropriate to take advantage of your physical attributes to switch to female sports if you have been through puberty.  All the arguing about these clear and obvious points is making the debate toxic, as is the treatment of people who question this orthodoxy.  Fortunately lots of organisations are starting to come to their senses, as is the law.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I do believe we still have to reflect reality though - if you remain physically male it is not appropriate to use women only spaces regardless of how you might feel - the impact on others is too high.  It is also not appropriate to take advantage of your physical attributes to switch to female sports if you have been through puberty.  All the arguing about these clear and obvious points is making the debate toxic, as is the treatment of people who question this orthodoxy.  Fortunately lots of organisations are starting to come to their senses, as is the law.

With respect, while there has been a lot of harsh language used in the whole discussion, there hasn't been an example where someone has been killed (or even seriously injured) for "questioning the orthodoxy". The same cannot be said of the reverse, even this week.

 

Claim victimhood if you so will, but know there are much, much more deserving victims around.

 

Of course there needs to be some kind of framework established for the above examples, but again let's not extend that into the wider matter.

 

And when we're done with this particular gish gallop, I'm still looking for an answer to the earlier point I raised.

 

NB. If what I'm reading here is correct, by your own thoughts a child who doesn't feel their gender is correct wouldn't be able to play competitive sport at a reasonable level at all because they wouldn't be able to transition until after puberty (if it all) and if they wait until after that they'd be getting an unfair advantage anyway. Something of a catch-22.

[Jon the Hat]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, while there has been a lot of harsh language used in the whole discussion, there hasn't been an example where someone has been killed (or even seriously injured) for "questioning the orthodoxy". The same cannot be said of the reverse, even this week.

 

Claim victimhood if you so will, but know there are much, much more deserving victims around.

 

Of course there needs to be some kind of framework established for the above examples, but again let's not extend that into the wider matter.

 

And when we're done with this particular gish gallop, I'm still looking for an answer to the earlier point I raised.

 

NB. If what I'm reading here is correct, by your own thoughts a child who doesn't feel their gender is correct wouldn't be able to play competitive sport at a reasonable level at all because they wouldn't be able to transition until after puberty (if it all) and if they wait until after that they'd be getting an unfair advantage anyway. Something of a catch-22.

Correct, however I suspect a child in this situation has a lot more to worry about than competitive sport, unfortunate as that is.

[Jon the Hat]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, while there has been a lot of harsh language used in the whole discussion, there hasn't been an example where someone has been killed (or even seriously injured) for "questioning the orthodoxy". The same cannot be said of the reverse, even this week.

There has been plenty of intimidation of women standing up for their rights by aggressive men that is for sure, plenty of sensible normal people asking questions losing their jobs in organisations which have been taken over by stonewall nonsense.  I am not going to comment on the tragic death this week as the Police investigation is ongoing and speculation is very unhelpful.  However you don't get to use that as some kind of trump card when free speech and womens rights are being threatened.

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Correct, however I suspect a child in this situation has a lot more to worry about than competitive sport, unfortunate as that is.

Fair enough.

 

Personally I think better solutions exist and so that's all rather unnecessary, but go off, I guess.

 

42 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There has been plenty of intimidation of women standing up for their rights by aggressive men that is for sure, plenty of sensible normal people asking questions losing their jobs in organisations which have been taken over by stonewall nonsense.  I am not going to comment on the tragic death this week as the Police investigation is ongoing and speculation is very unhelpful.  However you don't get to use that as some kind of trump card when free speech and womens rights are being threatened.

No, but pointing that out does rather clarify where the true balance of power in such matters lies. Sometimes a reminder is evidently needed.

 

NB. If I'm ever hungry and need any cherries, I'll get you to pick em for me. But without jest, I do appreciate the back and forth.

[Mike Oxlong]

It was an appalling decision to reveal details of Nicola Bulley’s personal difficulties and a clear breach of her Article 8 ECHR right to a private and family life, made worse by the only purpose as far as I can make out being to get Lancashire Poice off the hook regarding the conduct of their enquiry to date 

[nnfox]

15 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

It was an appalling decision to reveal details of Nicola Bulley’s personal difficulties and a clear breach of her Article 8 ECHR right to a private and family life, made worse by the only purpose as far as I can make out being to get Lancashire Poice off the hook regarding the conduct of their enquiry to date 

Well I'm sure it would be preferable for the details not to be released, but the family were made aware it was going to happen and to my knowledge they haven't publicly criticised that decision.  In fact, they have said that there had been threats from people to sell stories about Nicola and they wanted to nip rumours in the bud before it got completely out of hand. 

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to about the conduct if the police enquiry to date.  What we see in the press is the tip of the iceberg, and I haven't seen anything that makes me madsively question their investigation.

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

Well I'm sure it would be preferable for the details not to be released, but the family were made aware it was going to happen and to my knowledge they haven't publicly criticised that decision.  In fact, they have said that there had been threats from people to sell stories about Nicola and they wanted to nip rumours in the bud before it got completely out of hand. 

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to about the conduct if the police enquiry to date.  What we see in the press is the tip of the iceberg, and I haven't seen anything that makes me madsively question their investigation.

It is her rights that have been breached whilst still a missing person, not those of her family and the family have acknowledged that Nicola would not have wanted the details released. 

 

Disclosure of a general vulnerability is perhaps reasonable, the specifics definitely not. I’m surprised that you think releasing the detail will stop internet trolls and wild speculation ! 

[nnfox]

19 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

It is her rights that have been breached whilst still a missing person, not those of her family and the family have acknowledged that Nicola would not have wanted the details released. 

 

Disclosure of a general vulnerability is perhaps reasonable, the specifics definitely not. I’m surprised that you think releasing the detail will stop internet trolls and wild speculation ! 

The truth is that people outside of the investigation and the family only know a fraction about the inner workings of what's actually going on, but I don't believe that the decision to release that information would have been taken lightly.  The lead detective in the case is also a female, probably of a similar age.  Maybe that counts for something for some people?  Maybe it doesn't (and I'm not saying it should).

 

I'm sure something would have happened that prompted the need to make a decision whether to release the information or not.  That decision rests with the lead detective and wouldn't have been taken lightly.  She would be aware of the full facts and would have weighed up all the pros and cons.  I'm certain that Article 8 would have been considered, the family would have been considered, the potential backlash from the press and public and a host of other things.  The full facts of why the information was released will probably never be revealed, but after taking everything into consideration, the decision was made to release that information.  That tells me that there is or was something serious brewing in the background that threatened to derail the investigation.

 

Of course, I could be wrong.  The detective in charge perhaps did just walk into the office wondering what to do that day and plucked out of the ether the thought that disclosing confidential health information in the highest profile missing person investigation for years would be a good idea, in which case, the decision was abhorrent.  

 

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, nnfox said:

The truth is that people outside of the investigation and the family only know a fraction about the inner workings of what's actually going on, but I don't believe that the decision to release that information would have been taken lightly.  The lead detective in the case is also a female, probably of a similar age.  Maybe that counts for something for some people?  Maybe it doesn't (and I'm not saying it should).

 

I'm sure something would have happened that prompted the need to make a decision whether to release the information or not.  That decision rests with the lead detective and wouldn't have been taken lightly.  She would be aware of the full facts and would have weighed up all the pros and cons.  I'm certain that Article 8 would have been considered, the family would have been considered, the potential backlash from the press and public and a host of other things.  The full facts of why the information was released will probably never be revealed, but after taking everything into consideration, the decision was made to release that information.  That tells me that there is or was something serious brewing in the background that threatened to derail the investigation.

 

Of course, I could be wrong.  The detective in charge perhaps did just walk into the office wondering what to do that day and plucked out of the ether the thought that disclosing confidential health information in the highest profile missing person investigation for years would be a good idea, in which case, the decision was abhorrent.  

 

 

 

The fact of the decision being carefully considered doesn’t mean that the right decision was reached. In my opinion it was a very poor decision to release the detail and certainly not one justified by purportedly reducing internet speculation. If disclosing the detail of the vulnerabilities were to lead to finding her then that might shift the balance and justify the release of the specific information but as above it is her rights that have been breached, not those of the police or her family. 

 

If she is found safe and well the unnecessary (in my opinion) specific disclosure into the public domain could well exacerbate her vulnerabilities.  I’m sure you’ll respond but for my part I’m just going to take it that we have different viewpoints on this one. 

[nnfox]

4 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The fact of the decision being carefully considered doesn’t mean that the right decision was reached. In my opinion it was a very poor decision to release the detail and certainly not one justified by purportedly reducing internet speculation. If disclosing the detail of the vulnerabilities were to lead to finding her then that might shift the balance and justify the release of the specific information but as above it is her rights that have been breached, not those of the police or her family. 

 

If she is found safe and well the unnecessary (in my opinion) specific disclosure into the public domain could well exacerbate her vulnerabilities.  I’m sure you’ll respond but for my part I’m just going to take it that we have different viewpoints on this one. 

I agree with this part.  The issue is that the public aren't in possession of the full facts, so they only see the decision and not the decision making process.  It might be that the decision making process was flawed and ultimately it was the wrong decision.  It's unlikely we'll ever know for sure.  On the flip side, there's probably decisions that have been made NOT to release information, and again that might be right or wrong, we'll never know.

 

Ultimately someone has to make a decision and the decision maker is human.  Until AI can be relied upon to make 100% correct decisions 100% of the time, we'll have to put trust in trained professionals to do what they think, in their informed position, is best.  Most of the time they'll get it right, sometimes they'll get it wrong and there'll be times where it isn't clear if it's right or wrong.

 

Happy to draw a line under it.

[Daggers]

5 hours ago, nnfox said:

I agree with this part.  The issue is that the public aren't in possession of the full facts, so they only see the decision and not the decision making process.  It might be that the decision making process was flawed and ultimately it was the wrong decision.  It's unlikely we'll ever know for sure.  On the flip side, there's probably decisions that have been made NOT to release information, and again that might be right or wrong, we'll never know.

 

Ultimately someone has to make a decision and the decision maker is human.  Until AI can be relied upon to make 100% correct decisions 100% of the time, we'll have to put trust in trained professionals to do what they think, in their informed position, is best.  Most of the time they'll get it right, sometimes they'll get it wrong and there'll be times where it isn't clear if it's right or wrong.

 

Happy to draw a line under it.

And the decision wouldn't have had to be made were it not for a chunk of the public and media behaving deplorably. 

 

A lot of people need to learn that even if they have an opinion maybe they should just STFU.