Andy, are you sure you aren't doubling down a little too hard here? Having known you through skeptical stuff for years and Helen's views widely disseminated and dissected the last few weeks.
"This is what we've always believed so why stop now?' is a terrible reason for taking a position when there is now more to be known. If your fear is for women's rights if we acknowledge that trans identity is real & rooted in biology, this can addressed w/out denial of biology.
-
-
But why ‘stop believing’? Sex is by definition about reproductive capability. Suddenly, the ‘science is new’. What science? Again, what compelling reason do we have for not adopting my position (a) - just stating that someone has a false belief?
-
Just say that then. That, for you, sex is just about reproductive systems so you'll divide people that way. Meanwhile, the science will go on discovering that actually brains and hormones etc are sexed too and trans people have those more like the opposite sex to their genitals.
-
So trans women with intact male bodies can and do ‘father’ children; where does this reproductive reality fit in your view?
-
It's a reproductive reality?
-
Male and female are sexual reproductive categories. When the law refers to men and women this is what it means. You seem to be arguing for gender identity to be the legal definition resulting in ‘women’ ‘fathering’ children. It’s quite irrational.
-
OK. You think that and dismiss me then. I really can't be bothered to argue about it any more.
-
I’m not putting forward a theory; it’s an observation. How do you reconcile the two?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.