Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
""Again with the evidence - what is it with you? Not everything is about evidence."" But evidence is how we separate truth from assumption. It’s the reason we have medicine instead of leeches, and maps instead of myths. So when did curiosity start sounding like arrogance? When did "show your sources" become rudeness instead of rigour? Somewhere along the line, "believing what feels true" began to outrank "checking what is true." Anecdotes get treated like data, opinion pieces like research, and those who ask for proof are told they’re being difficult. But asking for evidence isn’t pedantry. It’s respect - for the reader, for the argument, and for reality itself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Considering the number of times you have been caught telling lies and passing them off as "evidence-based", it's not really surprising that people don't trust your evidence anymore." I’ve been clear each time evidence changed part of my argument — once I adjusted my view completely, and once I accepted a correction but kept my overall position. That’s not lying, that’s how discussion is meant to work, isn't it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem occurs when people cherry pick "evidence" to suit their feelings, then get uppity when people call them out on it. Ask any lawyer - evidence can be framed to make black seem white. And people are sometimes blinded by their own "evidence", where an empty head becomes an echo chamber." That’s fair — evidence can be framed badly, which is why I try to make my sources as clear and checkable as possible. If I’ve interpreted something wrong, I’m happy for someone to show me. But it still frustrates me when people expect me to change my mind based on opinion or feeling instead of fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Evidence isn't asking an LLM to research a political topic, either. LLMs exhibit pronounced bias to the left on political topics, primarily due to the data sets available to them, but is sometimes baked in to the code." I’m not denying that studies show most LLMs tilt left when measured on political scales — that’s well-documented. But that doesn’t mean they’re programmed to be ideological. It’s the same pattern we see in academia: when you aim for accuracy, peer review, and verifiable data, you end up with a bias toward objective, testable truth. Somehow, that keeps getting called “left-wing.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Evidence isn't asking an LLM to research a political topic, either. LLMs exhibit pronounced bias to the left on political topics, primarily due to the data sets available to them, but is sometimes baked in to the code. I’m not denying that studies show most LLMs tilt left when measured on political scales — that’s well-documented. But that doesn’t mean they’re programmed to be ideological. It’s the same pattern we see in academia: when you aim for accuracy, peer review, and verifiable data, you end up with a bias toward objective, testable truth. Somehow, that keeps getting called “left-wing.”" Sure. To illustrate, there's an evidence based response in the other thread... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But that doesn’t mean they’re programmed to be ideological." Actually, gotta pick on that point. They are designed to "do no harm", which is often construed as limiting negative sentiments about certain groups, or attempting to counter or self censor contentious issues. This is actually part of the cause - think of it as programmed AI affirmative action. It's a real thing, and you can test it yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But that doesn’t mean they’re programmed to be ideological. Actually, gotta pick on that point. They are designed to "do no harm", which is often construed as limiting negative sentiments about certain groups, or attempting to counter or self censor contentious issues. This is actually part of the cause - think of it as programmed AI affirmative action. It's a real thing, and you can test it yourself." True - models are tuned to avoid harm and misinformation. That isn’t ideology, it’s ethics and law. If refusing to spread hate or falsehoods counts as “bias,” that says more about the politics than the programming. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That isn’t ideology, it’s ethics and law." And in Iran, "ethics" and the law might say something totally different. Would you accept the same if it were against your ideology? You've just taken facts and applied your feelings to frame it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That isn’t ideology, it’s ethics and law. And in Iran, "ethics" and the law might say something totally different. Would you accept the same if it were against your ideology? You've just taken facts and applied your feelings to frame it." On the contrary, I’ve often argued that some things are subjective. For example, the term “woman” is based on adulthood — and definitions of adulthood differ between countries. I’ve been clear that makes it a subjective term. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tresesse Meliourum you are on fire this morning. What a brilliant piece about the limitations of AI and its use. Anybody that posts anything, factual or not, on these debates is doing so to satisfy their own feelings on a matter. The reason lies work so well on the general public is because those in opposition to the lies have to debunk them first before they can get out the truth. It's so time consuming and if you cannot breakdown the 'emotion' behind the lie sometimes its near impossible. You can see this by all the virtue signalling done on here. This is why Brexit happened. They told lies which then took ages to disprove. The prime example being the 350 million paif to the EU could be paid to the NHS instead. A real emotive lie that one. Keep up with your objective truth. Mrs x" That’s kind of my point. Emotion drives how people receive information, but it doesn’t make the information itself emotional. I’m fine with people feeling strongly - I just prefer when feelings follow facts, not replace them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That isn’t ideology, it’s ethics and law. And in Iran, "ethics" and the law might say something totally different. Would you accept the same if it were against your ideology? You've just taken facts and applied your feelings to frame it. On the contrary, I’ve often argued that some things are subjective. For example, the term “woman” is based on adulthood — and definitions of adulthood differ between countries. I’ve been clear that makes it a subjective term." So you're twisting one aspect of the subjectivity of a definition of a word (age) to suit your own ideology (gender vs sex). Well done - you've just illustrated the point further. There's no need for subjectivity if you define the "adult" component as (age of average, or actual) sexual maturity, end of puberty, or full physical maturity by some other objective measure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So you're twisting one aspect of the subjectivity of a definition of a word (age) to suit your own ideology (gender vs sex). Well done - you've just illustrated the point further. There's no need for subjectivity if you define the "adult" component as (age of average, or actual) sexual maturity, end of puberty, or full physical maturity by some other objective measure." I’m not sure how that changes anything. Recognising that definitions vary doesn’t mean abandoning biological reality - it just means acknowledging that language and law don’t always map perfectly onto it. If anything, you’re the one redefining words - turning them into a global average or vague marker like “sexual maturity.” That isn’t objective, it’s arbitrary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just from reading your posts title, indicates that you would like to follow a set pattern in threads but you are not getting other posters to behave like you want them too. This post appears to be born of frustration in regards to this, the fact that others are not following your 'self determined' rules in relation to evidence. This might be that your demands for evidence are not really that. Everything someone supplies evidence you don't like or which proves a point that contradicts yours you dont examine it, you immediately discredit it. You do this by saying its just ideology, like thats the ultimate slur. You seem to only acknowledge any evidence which supports your narrative, especially on gender issues. You yourself are ideological. On threads relating to gender you are Gender Affirmative, when I've seen you post about our government and Politics in general you appear to have a left leaning ideology. This is fine but you simply cannot dismiss something because you don't like it as ideology just because its not the ideology you adhere to.People can have an equally valid belief in a contradictory ideology to you such as being Gender Critical. Have you ever considered that some people may put up a logical argument without knowing about a subject? Does that invalidated a well proposed, well thought out idea based on logic and not fact? It may not be ideological at all because the person posting the point knows little about the subject but still has an analytical mind. So are you saying philosophical arguments are less valid than legal arguments, downplaying the thoughts and arguments of Socrates, Plato, Augustine and Aquinas, because the study of Jurisprudence would suggest otherwise. You dont need to provide evidence that the sky is blue, water is wet or the sun is hot. You just 'know'. Mrs x" You say “self-determined rules” in relation to evidence. Just one small problem - they’re not my rules. They’re called the Socratic method - you know, after the guy you later accuse me of downplaying by using his method. And the reason we don’t need evidence every time we say the sun is hot or the sky is blue is because those claims have already been through the Socratic process that led to common consensus. It’s not that we “just know” - it’s that we’ve already done the work to find out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At this point, every poster has criticised, your approach or your use of AI, one has even said you've been caught lying. At what point do you look at yourself and think, is it me? By the way, this is evidence too, just like those polls you like to hang so much credit on. If this was a story in the PinkNews they could say "Majority of Posters on Fab Hold Strong Views Against Your Posts". And right now, using the arguments you yourself used about headlines and polls would surely have to agree but can't see that. Mrs x" Popularity isn’t evidence - that’s why there’s a logical fallacy about using it as proof. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just from reading your posts title, indicates that you would like to follow a set pattern in threads but you are not getting other posters to behave like you want them too. This post appears to be born of frustration in regards to this, the fact that others are not following your 'self determined' rules in relation to evidence. This might be that your demands for evidence are not really that. Everything someone supplies evidence you don't like or which proves a point that contradicts yours you dont examine it, you immediately discredit it. You do this by saying its just ideology, like thats the ultimate slur. You seem to only acknowledge any evidence which supports your narrative, especially on gender issues. You yourself are ideological. On threads relating to gender you are Gender Affirmative, when I've seen you post about our government and Politics in general you appear to have a left leaning ideology. This is fine but you simply cannot dismiss something because you don't like it as ideology just because its not the ideology you adhere to.People can have an equally valid belief in a contradictory ideology to you such as being Gender Critical. Have you ever considered that some people may put up a logical argument without knowing about a subject? Does that invalidated a well proposed, well thought out idea based on logic and not fact? It may not be ideological at all because the person posting the point knows little about the subject but still has an analytical mind. So are you saying philosophical arguments are less valid than legal arguments, downplaying the thoughts and arguments of Socrates, Plato, Augustine and Aquinas, because the study of Jurisprudence would suggest otherwise. You dont need to provide evidence that the sky is blue, water is wet or the sun is hot. You just 'know'. Mrs x You say “self-determined rules” in relation to evidence. Just one small problem - they’re not my rules. They’re called the Socratic method - you know, after the guy you later accuse me of downplaying by using his method. And the reason we don’t need evidence every time we say the sun is hot or the sky is blue is because those claims have already been through the Socratic process that led to common consensus. It’s not that we “just know” - it’s that we’ve already done the work to find out." You don't know the Socratic method. It's based on logic and not evidence. It doesn't mean that the two can't be used together but its definitely not evidence based. Where have you got this opinion from? Even AI would know this. It's not from Socrates himself, so where? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At this point, every poster has criticised, your approach or your use of AI, one has even said you've been caught lying. At what point do you look at yourself and think, is it me? By the way, this is evidence too, just like those polls you like to hang so much credit on. If this was a story in the PinkNews they could say "Majority of Posters on Fab Hold Strong Views Against Your Posts". And right now, using the arguments you yourself used about headlines and polls would surely have to agree but can't see that. Mrs x Popularity isn’t evidence - that’s why there’s a logical fallacy about using it as proof. " Popularity is very much proof, in this case it proof, right now that your thoughts are not popular. Do you actually read your own stuff before posting, logical fallacy my backside haha, very AI. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You don't know the Socratic method. It's based on logic and not evidence. It doesn't mean that the two can't be used together but its definitely not evidence based. Where have you got this opinion from? Even AI would know this. It's not from Socrates himself, so where? Mrs x" Semantics. The Socratic method uses logic to test assumptions - and the way we test assumptions today is by evidence. Socrates questioned claims to expose what people couldn’t prove. We just have better tools for proof now. And even if AI “would know that,” maybe that’s the observed evidence that it isn’t writing my arguments - exactly as I’ve been saying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Popularity is very much proof, in this case it proof, right now that your thoughts are not popular. Do you actually read your own stuff before posting, logical fallacy my backside haha, very AI. Mrs x" Popularity is only proof that something is popular. At one point, popular opinion held that the Earth was the centre of the universe, that it was flat, and that we thought with our hearts while the brain was useless tissue. Then humanity applied the Socratic method, challenged those assumptions, and proved them false with evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You don't know the Socratic method. It's based on logic and not evidence. It doesn't mean that the two can't be used together but its definitely not evidence based. Where have you got this opinion from? Even AI would know this. It's not from Socrates himself, so where? Mrs x Semantics. The Socratic method uses logic to test assumptions - and the way we test assumptions today is by evidence. Socrates questioned claims to expose what people couldn’t prove. We just have better tools for proof now. And even if AI “would know that,” maybe that’s the observed evidence that it isn’t writing my arguments - exactly as I’ve been saying." You are right tgat Sicrates uses logic but it does use evidence in the manner you are suggesting, no empirical study. So if it doesn't use evidence, why do you need it so much, just follow Socrates to uncover tge truth because thats what intimately happens in the Socratic Method. It's not about lab work, coming up with data, the extrapilation of facts, would like to think you are conflating Aristotle, or Archimedes but not too sure. Maybe you are just trying to 'wing it' hoping others won't spot the obvious, massive flaws in what you are saying. But congrats on trying to "shoe horn" your empire theory into being tge Socratic Method. I think that this is one of the reasons you recieve the criticism you have this morning. It's because you never seem to acknowledge when you may have been mistaken, you could say something like 'Oh yeah, I meant Aristotle' and people can relate to that, everyone makes mistakes but you hit rock bottom and instead of trying to climb out of the hike you've dug for yourself you start to dig. Platonic would be turning in his grave. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Popularity is very much proof, in this case it proof, right now that your thoughts are not popular. Do you actually read your own stuff before posting, logical fallacy my backside haha, very AI. Mrs x Popularity is only proof that something is popular. At one point, popular opinion held that the Earth was the centre of the universe, that it was flat, and that we thought with our hearts while the brain was useless tissue. Then humanity applied the Socratic method, challenged those assumptions, and proved them false with evidence." Stop it, stop it, I can't take anymore ots so ridiculous. You really need a bigger shovel, this hole you've dug has just got massive. Flat Earth v Round Earth and you think Socratic Method was involved, give me a minute I cannot catch my breath... ARISTOTLE and then later ERATOSTHENES used empire study, geometry, maths to establish the earth was round, These guys provided tge proof for this using evidence, thought you of all people should know this. They did not use the Philosophical approach of Socrates, no, no, no. Stop digging, just say my bad and we can move on, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right tgat Sicrates uses logic but it does use evidence in the manner you are suggesting, no empirical study. So if it doesn't use evidence, why do you need it so much, just follow Socrates to uncover tge truth because thats what intimately happens in the Socratic Method. It's not about lab work, coming up with data, the extrapilation of facts, would like to think you are conflating Aristotle, or Archimedes but not too sure. Maybe you are just trying to 'wing it' hoping others won't spot the obvious, massive flaws in what you are saying. But congrats on trying to "shoe horn" your empire theory into being tge Socratic Method. I think that this is one of the reasons you recieve the criticism you have this morning. It's because you never seem to acknowledge when you may have been mistaken, you could say something like 'Oh yeah, I meant Aristotle' and people can relate to that, everyone makes mistakes but you hit rock bottom and instead of trying to climb out of the hike you've dug for yourself you start to dig. Platonic would be turning in his grave. Mrs x" I’m going to assume you meant empirical, not empire. Socrates used reasoned questioning to expose assumptions - that’s what I’ve been doing. Aristotle later built on that with empirical observation, and modern evidence-based reasoning is a continuation of both. And yet you accuse me of downplaying their work. I’d say understanding it is the harder part. As for not being willing to change, it isn’t me that’s entrenched - won’t move regardless of opinion, evidence, moon alignment, or chakra balance. I conceded to you yourself in another thread when you actually provided evidence that what I said was wrong. That’s what changing your view based on facts looks like - you should try it sometime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stop it, stop it, I can't take anymore ots so ridiculous. You really need a bigger shovel, this hole you've dug has just got massive. Flat Earth v Round Earth and you think Socratic Method was involved, give me a minute I cannot catch my breath... ARISTOTLE and then later ERATOSTHENES used empire study, geometry, maths to establish the earth was round, These guys provided tge proof for this using evidence, thought you of all people should know this. They did not use the Philosophical approach of Socrates, no, no, no. Stop digging, just say my bad and we can move on, Mrs x" Ad hominem noted. And yes - Aristotle and Eratosthenes provided the evidence that proved the Earth was round. Thank you for helping me make my point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thought with hearts and our brains were useless tissues... hahaha hahaha Mrs x" That would be incredulity - another logical fallacy. Try looking it up. At one point, humanity really did think that the heart was the seat of thought and the brain was useless tissue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's take a positive from all the AI driven threads, arguments and counters. I think we can confidently say, AI is no match for human reasoning and emotional consciousness. " You can say it with all the confidence in the world - doesn’t make it true. That’s kind of the point I’ve been making all along. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are right tgat Sicrates uses logic but it does use evidence in the manner you are suggesting, no empirical study. So if it doesn't use evidence, why do you need it so much, just follow Socrates to uncover tge truth because thats what intimately happens in the Socratic Method. It's not about lab work, coming up with data, the extrapilation of facts, would like to think you are conflating Aristotle, or Archimedes but not too sure. Maybe you are just trying to 'wing it' hoping others won't spot the obvious, massive flaws in what you are saying. But congrats on trying to "shoe horn" your empire theory into being tge Socratic Method. I think that this is one of the reasons you recieve the criticism you have this morning. It's because you never seem to acknowledge when you may have been mistaken, you could say something like 'Oh yeah, I meant Aristotle' and people can relate to that, everyone makes mistakes but you hit rock bottom and instead of trying to climb out of the hike you've dug for yourself you start to dig. Platonic would be turning in his grave. Mrs x I’m going to assume you meant empirical, not empire. Socrates used reasoned questioning to expose assumptions - that’s what I’ve been doing. Aristotle later built on that with empirical observation, and modern evidence-based reasoning is a continuation of both. And yet you accuse me of downplaying their work. I’d say understanding it is the harder part. As for not being willing to change, it isn’t me that’s entrenched - won’t move regardless of opinion, evidence, moon alignment, or chakra balance. I conceded to you yourself in another thread when you actually provided evidence that what I said was wrong. That’s what changing your view based on facts looks like - you should try it sometime." You are literally trying to change history, its just too funny. Scrapes didn't use evidence thats why I challenged you because of your constant demand for it. I was pointing out that a method of reasoning existed, millenia ago and is still valid now and that this method does not require evidence. But somehow you are trying to adopt the Socratic method to support your argument of needing evidence to everything. Thats just not true and the works of Plato and his mate proves this. This is established, and believed, worldwide. You then go onto say the Socratic Method was used in scientific discovers, in that they used it to establish the Rarth is round. His method wasn't used, Locates himself didn't prove this, others did and now you know this you'll still argue black is white. Come on its too early for this bullshit, and you've got a hole to fill in, if you do the decent thing and hold your hands up, otherwise you'll need AI to look up the nearest JCB stockist to you, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stop it, stop it, I can't take anymore ots so ridiculous. You really need a bigger shovel, this hole you've dug has just got massive. Flat Earth v Round Earth and you think Socratic Method was involved, give me a minute I cannot catch my breath... ARISTOTLE and then later ERATOSTHENES used empire study, geometry, maths to establish the earth was round, These guys provided tge proof for this using evidence, thought you of all people should know this. They did not use the Philosophical approach of Socrates, no, no, no. Stop digging, just say my bad and we can move on, Mrs x Ad hominem noted. And yes - Aristotle and Eratosthenes provided the evidence that proved the Earth was round. Thank you for helping me make my point." So quick with the victim card, I've not attacked you but have your silly arguments. What point have I helped you prove, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At this point, I have concluded that whenever one forumite creates or comments on a thread, another forumite joins in, but not in an intellectual or educational manner, or even one of good will. And still, I wonder why they do this? " I suggest Socrates for you, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At this point, I have concluded that whenever one forumite creates or comments on a thread, another forumite joins in, but not in an intellectual or educational manner, or even one of good will. And still, I wonder why they do this? I suggest Socrates for you, Mrs x" Oh, I fully understand Socratic questioning. It would be nice to see it being used in the politics threads. It would make for far better discussions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At this point, I have concluded that whenever one forumite creates or comments on a thread, another forumite joins in, but not in an intellectual or educational manner, or even one of good will. And still, I wonder why they do this? I suggest Socrates for you, Mrs x Oh, I fully understand Socratic questioning. It would be nice to see it being used in the politics threads. It would make for far better discussions. " I agree, so why have you posted your post this morning? It's not related to the thread? So if you are going to attack a poster, I presume its me, what evidence have you got to back this up? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are literally trying to change history, its just too funny. Scrapes didn't use evidence thats why I challenged you because of your constant demand for it. I was pointing out that a method of reasoning existed, millenia ago and is still valid now and that this method does not require evidence. But somehow you are trying to adopt the Socratic method to support your argument of needing evidence to everything. Thats just not true and the works of Plato and his mate proves this. This is established, and believed, worldwide. You then go onto say the Socratic Method was used in scientific discovers, in that they used it to establish the Rarth is round. His method wasn't used, Locates himself didn't prove this, others did and now you know this you'll still argue black is white. Come on its too early for this bullshit, and you've got a hole to fill in, if you do the decent thing and hold your hands up, otherwise you'll need AI to look up the nearest JCB stockist to you, Mrs x" Literally taken from a website describing the Socratic method. Socratic method steps 1. Understand the belief. Ask the person to state clearly their belief or argument. 2. Sum up the person’s argument. Play back what they said to clarify your understanding of their position. 3. Ask for evidence. What assumptions is this belief based on? What evidence is there to support it? Ask open questions to uncover inconsistencies or contradictions. 4. Challenge their assumptions. If contradictions or counterexamples appear, ask them to either discard the belief or restate it more precisely. 5. Repeat. Continue until both parties reach a restated belief or clear understanding. Did I see the word evidence in there? Oh yes, I did. It literally says we should ask for it. So yes - it seems Socrates and I are on the same page. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, so why have you posted your post this morning? It's not related to the thread? So if you are going to attack a poster, I presume its me, what evidence have you got to back this up? Mrs x " Asking for evidence, are we? Welcome to the Socratic method. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, so why have you posted your post this morning? It's not related to the thread? So if you are going to attack a poster, I presume its me, what evidence have you got to back this up? Mrs x Asking for evidence, are we? Welcome to the Socratic method." I never said I was using the Socratic method, how's the search for the JCB going haha Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, so why have you posted your post this morning? It's not related to the thread? So if you are going to attack a poster, I presume its me, what evidence have you got to back this up? Mrs x Asking for evidence, are we? Welcome to the Socratic method.I never said I was using the Socratic method, how's the search for the JCB going haha Mrs x" given the rate you’re digging, it sounds like you’ve already got the JCB covered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are literally trying to change history, its just too funny. Scrapes didn't use evidence thats why I challenged you because of your constant demand for it. I was pointing out that a method of reasoning existed, millenia ago and is still valid now and that this method does not require evidence. But somehow you are trying to adopt the Socratic method to support your argument of needing evidence to everything. Thats just not true and the works of Plato and his mate proves this. This is established, and believed, worldwide. You then go onto say the Socratic Method was used in scientific discovers, in that they used it to establish the Rarth is round. His method wasn't used, Locates himself didn't prove this, others did and now you know this you'll still argue black is white. Come on its too early for this bullshit, and you've got a hole to fill in, if you do the decent thing and hold your hands up, otherwise you'll need AI to look up the nearest JCB stockist to you, Mrs x Literally taken from a website describing the Socratic method. Socratic method steps 1. Understand the belief. Ask the person to state clearly their belief or argument. 2. Sum up the person’s argument. Play back what they said to clarify your understanding of their position. 3. Ask for evidence. What assumptions is this belief based on? What evidence is there to support it? Ask open questions to uncover inconsistencies or contradictions. 4. Challenge their assumptions. If contradictions or counterexamples appear, ask them to either discard the belief or restate it more precisely. 5. Repeat. Continue until both parties reach a restated belief or clear understanding. Did I see the word evidence in there? Oh yes, I did. It literally says we should ask for it. So yes - it seems Socrates and I are on the same page." You and Socrates couldn't be further apart. The evidence quoted here is not facts, figures, data, citations and the stuff you define as evidence but its beliefs, reasoning, opinions and as you example actually states, assumptions. Nothing empirical. Thats literally why point 4 of your example says Challenge the Assumptions and not Challenge the Evidence, Data, etc. I can't really be arsed but I could provide examples of tge difference between the logic model Socrates created vs the Evidentiary model you demand, shall I? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, so why have you posted your post this morning? It's not related to the thread? So if you are going to attack a poster, I presume its me, what evidence have you got to back this up? Mrs x Asking for evidence, are we? Welcome to the Socratic method.I never said I was using the Socratic method, how's the search for the JCB going haha Mrs x given the rate you’re digging, it sounds like you’ve already got the JCB covered." So go on tell me I'm wrong then. "What the Socratic Method Is The Socratic Method is a form of disciplined questioning used to explore complex ideas, uncover assumptions, and test reasoning. It’s named after the Greek philosopher Socrates (469–399 BCE), who used it to teach his students to think critically rather than accept ideas at face value. --- How it works At its core, the Socratic Method involves: 1. Asking probing questions rather than making statements. 2. Challenging definitions and assumptions (“What do you mean by justice?”). 3. Testing for contradictions or gaps in logic. 4. Encouraging self-reflection — helping the other person discover the truth for themselves. It’s a dialogue-based approach — one person leads with questions, and the other examines their own beliefs in response. ...the Socratic Method is logical, not evidentiary. Differences between the 2 models: Socratic Method Logic: Dialogue, self-examination, philosophical reasoning Evidence-based reasoning: Empirical data, experiments, observation, scientific reasoning" Left the darkest in to show you this is from AI, Chat GPT, maybe you'll stop being sill now, since you love using this. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You and Socrates couldn't be further apart. The evidence quoted here is not facts, figures, data, citations and the stuff you define as evidence but its beliefs, reasoning, opinions and as you example actually states, assumptions. Nothing empirical. Thats literally why point 4 of your example says Challenge the Assumptions and not Challenge the Evidence, Data, etc. I can't really be arsed but I could provide examples of tge difference between the logic model Socrates created vs the Evidentiary model you demand, shall I? Mrs x" You’re conflating two distinct things: what Socrates did and what the method named after him became. The Socratic Method isn’t about replacing evidence with opinion — it’s about interrogating assumptions until only what can withstand scrutiny remains. It’s named after him not for what he personally proved, but for what he started — a tradition of questioning that led directly into empiricism. When the method evolved through Aristotle and later through the scientific revolution, it kept that same core: challenge, test, verify. If you stop at “beliefs and reasoning,” you’re not using the Socratic Method — you’re doing half of it and skipping the hard part where reality gets to answer back. That’s why I said “we’re on the same page.” Asking for evidence is part of the process. Pretending that evidence doesn’t matter is how we get stuck worshipping assumptions. It’s apparently ok to say “my bad” and we can move on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So go on tell me I'm wrong then. "What the Socratic Method Is The Socratic Method is a form of disciplined questioning used to explore complex ideas, uncover assumptions, and test reasoning. It’s named after the Greek philosopher Socrates (469–399 BCE), who used it to teach his students to think critically rather than accept ideas at face value. --- How it works At its core, the Socratic Method involves: 1. Asking probing questions rather than making statements. 2. Challenging definitions and assumptions (“What do you mean by justice?”). 3. Testing for contradictions or gaps in logic. 4. Encouraging self-reflection — helping the other person discover the truth for themselves. It’s a dialogue-based approach — one person leads with questions, and the other examines their own beliefs in response. ...the Socratic Method is logical, not evidentiary. Differences between the 2 models: Socratic Method Logic: Dialogue, self-examination, philosophical reasoning Evidence-based reasoning: Empirical data, experiments, observation, scientific reasoning" Left the darkest in to show you this is from AI, Chat GPT, maybe you'll stop being sill now, since you love using this. Mrs x" You’ve basically just reinforced what I said. The Socratic Method tests assumptions through questioning — that’s the entire mechanism by which we arrive at truth. Whether you call it “logic” or “evidence,” it’s the same process of challenging claims until only what stands up remains. It’s named after Socrates not for what he proved, but for what he started: a tradition of inquiry that eventually gave rise to empirical reasoning. The scientific method is its descendant. So yes — when I ask for evidence, I’m following the same principle Socrates used. You question, you test, you discard what fails. That’s the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my last thread, someone said to me: "Again with the evidence - what is it with you? Not everything is about evidence." But evidence is how we separate truth from assumption. It’s the reason we have medicine instead of leeches, and maps instead of myths. So when did curiosity start sounding like arrogance? When did "show your sources" become rudeness instead of rigour? Somewhere along the line, "believing what feels true" began to outrank "checking what is true." Anecdotes get treated like data, opinion pieces like research, and those who ask for proof are told they’re being difficult. But asking for evidence isn’t pedantry. It’s respect - for the reader, for the argument, and for reality itself." There's an old Monty Python sketch called Argument. Give it a look at. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So go on tell me I'm wrong then. "What the Socratic Method Is The Socratic Method is a form of disciplined questioning used to explore complex ideas, uncover assumptions, and test reasoning. It’s named after the Greek philosopher Socrates (469–399 BCE), who used it to teach his students to think critically rather than accept ideas at face value. --- How it works At its core, the Socratic Method involves: 1. Asking probing questions rather than making statements. 2. Challenging definitions and assumptions (“What do you mean by justice?”). 3. Testing for contradictions or gaps in logic. 4. Encouraging self-reflection — helping the other person discover the truth for themselves. It’s a dialogue-based approach — one person leads with questions, and the other examines their own beliefs in response. ...the Socratic Method is logical, not evidentiary. Differences between the 2 models: Socratic Method Logic: Dialogue, self-examination, philosophical reasoning Evidence-based reasoning: Empirical data, experiments, observation, scientific reasoning" Left the darkest in to show you this is from AI, Chat GPT, maybe you'll stop being sill now, since you love using this. Mrs x You’ve basically just reinforced what I said. The Socratic Method tests assumptions through questioning — that’s the entire mechanism by which we arrive at truth. Whether you call it “logic” or “evidence,” it’s the same process of challenging claims until only what stands up remains. It’s named after Socrates not for what he proved, but for what he started: a tradition of inquiry that eventually gave rise to empirical reasoning. The scientific method is its descendant. So yes — when I ask for evidence, I’m following the same principle Socrates used. You question, you test, you discard what fails. That’s the point." You aren't, not even in the slightest, as soon as you ask for facts, empire evidence and the like you are not using the Socratic Method. Here's another AI quote, I've left it just as it came so you know its AI. Please read carefully the bits were it states its NOT an evidence model. Go... "The Socratic method is a logic-based method, not an evidentiary one. Let’s unpack that carefully 👇 --- 🧠 1. What the Socratic Method actually is The Socratic method (developed by Socrates, c. 470–399 BCE) is a process of critical questioning used to test the reasoning and definitions behind someone’s beliefs. It involves: 1. Asking probing questions (“What do you mean by that?”) 2. Exposing contradictions or assumptions 3. Guiding the person to refine or change their position through reasoning Its goal is clarity and logical consistency, not data collection or proof. --- ⚙️ 2. Why it’s a logic method Feature Socratic Method Logic-Based Trait Focus Definitions, assumptions, reasoning ✔ Tests internal coherence Evidence used None — relies on dialogue and thought ✔ Logical inference only Goal To reach clearer understanding or expose fallacies ✔ Validity, not verification Tools Questions, reasoning, analogies ✔ Deductive reasoning, conceptual analysis Socrates didn’t measure or observe — he reasoned. For example: “If justice is giving people what they deserve, then what if someone deserves mercy?” That’s pure logic testing, not evidence-gathering. --- 🔬 3. Why it’s not evidentiary The evidentiary method depends on empirical verification — using data, observation, or experiment to test whether something is true in the real world. Example of evidentiary reasoning: “Objects fall at the same rate regardless of weight — as shown by Galileo’s experiments.” The Socratic method doesn’t involve experiments, data, or measurable claims — it’s philosophical reasoning, not scientific inquiry... --- 💡 In short The Socratic method is logical, not evidentiary. It’s about reasoning clearly, not proving empirically." So not evidentiary... Evidence used: NONE. It states that very clearly. Socrates didn't tell anyone WHAT to think. Thats the job of Evidence models, used by Aristotle when saying the Earth's a sphere. Socrates told people HOW to think, Critical Thinking, he's actually called the Father of Critical Thinking, something else you use incorrectly all the time. It's part of Jurisprudence, its amandatory module normally taught in year 1 to all Law students, something I found very interesting. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my last thread, someone said to me: "Again with the evidence - what is it with you? Not everything is about evidence." But evidence is how we separate truth from assumption. It’s the reason we have medicine instead of leeches, and maps instead of myths. So when did curiosity start sounding like arrogance? When did "show your sources" become rudeness instead of rigour? Somewhere along the line, "believing what feels true" began to outrank "checking what is true." Anecdotes get treated like data, opinion pieces like research, and those who ask for proof are told they’re being difficult. But asking for evidence isn’t pedantry. It’s respect - for the reader, for the argument, and for reality itself. There's an old Monty Python sketch called Argument. Give it a look at. " It's not needed all the time though and Socrates is the prime example of this. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's an old Monty Python sketch called Argument. Give it a look at. " No there isn’t!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's take a positive from all the AI driven threads, arguments and counters. I think we can confidently say, AI is no match for human reasoning and emotional consciousness. You can say it with all the confidence in the world - doesn’t make it true. That’s kind of the point I’ve been making all along. " The easiest way to frame it is: 404 Critical thinking unavailable. Please contact your administrator. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my last thread, someone said to me: "Again with the evidence - what is it with you? Not everything is about evidence." But evidence is how we separate truth from assumption. It’s the reason we have medicine instead of leeches, and maps instead of myths. So when did curiosity start sounding like arrogance? When did "show your sources" become rudeness instead of rigour? Somewhere along the line, "believing what feels true" began to outrank "checking what is true." Anecdotes get treated like data, opinion pieces like research, and those who ask for proof are told they’re being difficult. But asking for evidence isn’t pedantry. It’s respect - for the reader, for the argument, and for reality itself. There's an old Monty Python sketch called Argument. Give it a look at. " Feels like I'm in a Monty Python sketch this morning. I feel its just to difficult to argue rationally with some people. I like something said in Slow Horses, by Jackson Lamb played by Gary Oldman, when he says... "“You people are slow. Bringing you up to speed is like trying to explain Norway to a dog.” That really tickled me and rings true at times haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's an old Monty Python sketch called Argument. Give it a look at. No there isn’t! "Sense of humour nice, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So go on tell me I'm wrong then. "What the Socratic Method Is The Socratic Method is a form of disciplined questioning used to explore complex ideas, uncover assumptions, and test reasoning. It’s named after the Greek philosopher Socrates (469–399 BCE), who used it to teach his students to think critically rather than accept ideas at face value. --- How it works At its core, the Socratic Method involves: 1. Asking probing questions rather than making statements. 2. Challenging definitions and assumptions (“What do you mean by justice?”). 3. Testing for contradictions or gaps in logic. 4. Encouraging self-reflection — helping the other person discover the truth for themselves. It’s a dialogue-based approach — one person leads with questions, and the other examines their own beliefs in response. ...the Socratic Method is logical, not evidentiary. Differences between the 2 models: Socratic Method Logic: Dialogue, self-examination, philosophical reasoning Evidence-based reasoning: Empirical data, experiments, observation, scientific reasoning" Left the darkest in to show you this is from AI, Chat GPT, maybe you'll stop being sill now, since you love using this. Mrs x You’ve basically just reinforced what I said. The Socratic Method tests assumptions through questioning — that’s the entire mechanism by which we arrive at truth. Whether you call it “logic” or “evidence,” it’s the same process of challenging claims until only what stands up remains. It’s named after Socrates not for what he proved, but for what he started: a tradition of inquiry that eventually gave rise to empirical reasoning. The scientific method is its descendant. So yes — when I ask for evidence, I’m following the same principle Socrates used. You question, you test, you discard what fails. That’s the point." You've said... "The scientific method is its descendant" and thats not wrong. But its not the Socratic Method its the Evidentiary method. One evolved from the other correct but we evolved from fish, are we aquatic? No. I only mentioned Socrates to prove a point that arguments can be valid without evidence. I'm so glad I didn't use Aquinas and his work otherwise we'd have thrown religious belief in the mix to, that would blow your mind I think. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That’s the point. You aren't, not even in the slightest, as soon as you ask for facts, empire evidence and the like you are not using the Socratic Method. Here's another AI quote, I've left it just as it came so you know its AI. Please read carefully the bits were it states its NOT an evidence model. Go... "The Socratic method is a logic-based method, not an evidentiary one. Let’s unpack that carefully 👇 --- 🧠 1. What the Socratic Method actually is The Socratic method (developed by Socrates, c. 470–399 BCE) is a process of critical questioning used to test the reasoning and definitions behind someone’s beliefs. It involves: 1. Asking probing questions (“What do you mean by that?”) 2. Exposing contradictions or assumptions 3. Guiding the person to refine or change their position through reasoning Its goal is clarity and logical consistency, not data collection or proof. --- ⚙️ 2. Why it’s a logic method Feature Socratic Method Logic-Based Trait Focus Definitions, assumptions, reasoning ✔ Tests internal coherence Evidence used None — relies on dialogue and thought ✔ Logical inference only Goal To reach clearer understanding or expose fallacies ✔ Validity, not verification Tools Questions, reasoning, analogies ✔ Deductive reasoning, conceptual analysis Socrates didn’t measure or observe — he reasoned. For example: “If justice is giving people what they deserve, then what if someone deserves mercy?” That’s pure logic testing, not evidence-gathering. --- 🔬 3. Why it’s not evidentiary The evidentiary method depends on empirical verification — using data, observation, or experiment to test whether something is true in the real world. Example of evidentiary reasoning: “Objects fall at the same rate regardless of weight — as shown by Galileo’s experiments.” The Socratic method doesn’t involve experiments, data, or measurable claims — it’s philosophical reasoning, not scientific inquiry... --- 💡 In short The Socratic method is logical, not evidentiary. It’s about reasoning clearly, not proving empirically." So not evidentiary... Evidence used: NONE. It states that very clearly. Socrates didn't tell anyone WHAT to think. Thats the job of Evidence models, used by Aristotle when saying the Earth's a sphere. Socrates told people HOW to think, Critical Thinking, he's actually called the Father of Critical Thinking, something else you use incorrectly all the time. It's part of Jurisprudence, its amandatory module normally taught in year 1 to all Law students, something I found very interesting. Mrs x " You mention critical thinking. Do you really think that means “my feelings” instead of evidence? Belief without evidence is the antithesis of critical thinking. And when someone’s claim is challenged, how exactly should they show it stands up — by providing evidence, or by saying “because that’s how I feel”? I know that’s a false dichotomy, but it illustrates the point: your whole argument collapses under its own weight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have read the original post and I am somewhat confused. The frustration regarding feelings being presented as facts....is that in relation to people of one biological sex who feel they are the opposite sex - them presenting their feelings as facts? For a while now people have been expected to believe that a biological male is a woman because he 'feels' like a woman. Similarly, I am expected to believe that biological females are actually males because they feel like a man. They may been diagnosed with gender dysphoria which explains why they feel that way....but does feeling like one sex make them that sex? Definitely not in my opinion. Yet, I am expected by many to accept that it is fact because that is what they feel. OP, is it this that is causing you frustration? " Do you believe this post is born of frustration? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have read the original post and I am somewhat confused. The frustration regarding feelings being presented as facts....is that in relation to people of one biological sex who feel they are the opposite sex - them presenting their feelings as facts? For a while now people have been expected to believe that a biological male is a woman because he 'feels' like a woman. Similarly, I am expected to believe that biological females are actually males because they feel like a man. They may been diagnosed with gender dysphoria which explains why they feel that way....but does feeling like one sex make them that sex? Definitely not in my opinion. Yet, I am expected by many to accept that it is fact because that is what they feel. OP, is it this that is causing you frustration? " Here we go. I try to make a thread that isn’t about trans issues, because people say I’m one-tracked in that regard — and behold, someone else brings it up. The unfortunate thing is that your argument isn’t what you think it is. It’s not just feelings. Medicine, biology, neurology, and psychology all recognise that the trans experience is a real, measurable phenomenon. That’s based on empirical evidence — which is kind of my side of things, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you believe this post is born of frustration? Mrs x" Not frustration — curiosity. I wanted to understand why asking for evidence seems to bother people so much. Turns out, even that question generates evidence of its own. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That’s the point. You aren't, not even in the slightest, as soon as you ask for facts, empire evidence and the like you are not using the Socratic Method. Here's another AI quote, I've left it just as it came so you know its AI. Please read carefully the bits were it states its NOT an evidence model. Go... "The Socratic method is a logic-based method, not an evidentiary one. Let’s unpack that carefully 👇 --- 🧠 1. What the Socratic Method actually is The Socratic method (developed by Socrates, c. 470–399 BCE) is a process of critical questioning used to test the reasoning and definitions behind someone’s beliefs. It involves: 1. Asking probing questions (“What do you mean by that?”) 2. Exposing contradictions or assumptions 3. Guiding the person to refine or change their position through reasoning Its goal is clarity and logical consistency, not data collection or proof. --- ⚙️ 2. Why it’s a logic method Feature Socratic Method Logic-Based Trait Focus Definitions, assumptions, reasoning ✔ Tests internal coherence Evidence used None — relies on dialogue and thought ✔ Logical inference only Goal To reach clearer understanding or expose fallacies ✔ Validity, not verification Tools Questions, reasoning, analogies ✔ Deductive reasoning, conceptual analysis Socrates didn’t measure or observe — he reasoned. For example: “If justice is giving people what they deserve, then what if someone deserves mercy?” That’s pure logic testing, not evidence-gathering. --- 🔬 3. Why it’s not evidentiary The evidentiary method depends on empirical verification — using data, observation, or experiment to test whether something is true in the real world. Example of evidentiary reasoning: “Objects fall at the same rate regardless of weight — as shown by Galileo’s experiments.” The Socratic method doesn’t involve experiments, data, or measurable claims — it’s philosophical reasoning, not scientific inquiry... --- 💡 In short The Socratic method is logical, not evidentiary. It’s about reasoning clearly, not proving empirically." So not evidentiary... Evidence used: NONE. It states that very clearly. Socrates didn't tell anyone WHAT to think. Thats the job of Evidence models, used by Aristotle when saying the Earth's a sphere. Socrates told people HOW to think, Critical Thinking, he's actually called the Father of Critical Thinking, something else you use incorrectly all the time. It's part of Jurisprudence, its amandatory module normally taught in year 1 to all Law students, something I found very interesting. Mrs x You mention critical thinking. Do you really think that means “my feelings” instead of evidence? Belief without evidence is the antithesis of critical thinking. And when someone’s claim is challenged, how exactly should they show it stands up — by providing evidence, or by saying “because that’s how I feel”? I know that’s a false dichotomy, but it illustrates the point: your whole argument collapses under its own weight." A definition of Critical Theory, since you seem to think I mean it to mean 'feelings' when I dont, its a process to help you think 'logically', there's a huge difference. "The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action." It is and aid on how to think, not what to think. It has evolved to allow just like the scientic method. In its purest form, its a logic tool and it's origin is attributed to Socrates, the Father of Critical Thinking, a guy who taught this method without the use of evidence. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have read the original post and I am somewhat confused. The frustration regarding feelings being presented as facts....is that in relation to people of one biological sex who feel they are the opposite sex - them presenting their feelings as facts? For a while now people have been expected to believe that a biological male is a woman because he 'feels' like a woman. Similarly, I am expected to believe that biological females are actually males because they feel like a man. They may been diagnosed with gender dysphoria which explains why they feel that way....but does feeling like one sex make them that sex? Definitely not in my opinion. Yet, I am expected by many to accept that it is fact because that is what they feel. OP, is it this that is causing you frustration? Here we go. I try to make a thread that isn’t about trans issues, because people say I’m one-tracked in that regard — and behold, someone else brings it up. The unfortunate thing is that your argument isn’t what you think it is. It’s not just feelings. Medicine, biology, neurology, and psychology all recognise that the trans experience is a real, measurable phenomenon. That’s based on empirical evidence — which is kind of my side of things, right?" Your IDEOLOGICAL cherry picked evidence, truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth if you will, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's take a positive from all the AI driven threads, arguments and counters. I think we can confidently say, AI is no match for human reasoning and emotional consciousness. You can say it with all the confidence in the world - doesn’t make it true. That’s kind of the point I’ve been making all along. The easiest way to frame it is: 404 Critical thinking unavailable. Please contact your administrator." Hahaha, watch out its only early and you've just used up your best bit of funny for the day. Like it, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my last thread, someone said to me: "Again with the evidence - what is it with you? Not everything is about evidence." But evidence is how we separate truth from assumption. It’s the reason we have medicine instead of leeches, and maps instead of myths. So when did curiosity start sounding like arrogance? When did "show your sources" become rudeness instead of rigour? Somewhere along the line, "believing what feels true" began to outrank "checking what is true." Anecdotes get treated like data, opinion pieces like research, and those who ask for proof are told they’re being difficult. But asking for evidence isn’t pedantry. It’s respect - for the reader, for the argument, and for reality itself. There's an old Monty Python sketch called Argument. Give it a look at. " Just watched it, funny as fuck, maybe we should introduce a "Pay to Argue" model on here, yeah we should, shouldn't, should, shouldn't hahaha Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not just feelings. Medicine, biology, neurology, and psychology all recognise that the trans experience is a real, measurable phenomenon. That’s based on empirical evidence — which is kind of my side of things, right?" Using the well-established philosophical principle of Reductio ad Absurdum (utilised by all of Zeno, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, no less)... This implies that there are potentially many millions of biological males out there who are women and don't know it, because feeling like a woman isn't what makes a male a woman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not just feelings. Medicine, biology, neurology, and psychology all recognise that the trans experience is a real, measurable phenomenon. That’s based on empirical evidence — which is kind of my side of things, right? Using the well-established philosophical principle of Reductio ad Absurdum (utilised by all of Zeno, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, no less)... This implies that there are potentially many millions of biological males out there who are women and don't know it, because feeling like a woman isn't what makes a male a woman." Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox." How is trans experience empirically observable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable?" It's not, he's just using words and phrase he's seen, like Critical Thinking, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable?" You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand." You haven't answered. You just made this up. Is there any neural state of the brain that we can observe that tells us that someone is trans? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That’s quite a collection of posts, Mrs x. You’ve quoted AI, misread Socrates, declared evidence “ideological,” and then demanded it yourself — all while insisting you’re the reasonable one. That’s not curiosity versus arrogance; that’s contradiction versus comprehension." Were have I misread Socrates, he never wrote a word to begin with, so go on where. You quote evidence to support your ideology, thats what I said, you've set the bar low for yourself today havent you. Only problem is you dont know if your supposed to be jumping over it or limboing under it, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand." Your ideologically, cherry picked data, haha Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand. You haven't answered. You just made this up. Is there any neural state of the brain that we can observe that tells us that someone is trans?" I’ve mentioned multiple times that neurological studies show trans brains function in ways consistent with their gender identity, not their natal sex. Look them up and read them — that would be my suggestion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not, he's just using words and phrase he's seen, like Critical Thinking, Mrs x" Deliberate misgendering, huh? Hard to see anything you post now as being in good faith after that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand. You haven't answered. You just made this up. Is there any neural state of the brain that we can observe that tells us that someone is trans? I’ve mentioned multiple times that neurological studies show trans brains function in ways consistent with their gender identity, not their natal sex. Look them up and read them — that would be my suggestion." Considering the number of times you have bulshitted about "evidence", I would like to have a clear source. Tell me the website name and title of the study. Because if what you said were true, we should be able to provide gender recognition certificates by looking at their brain functions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not just feelings. Medicine, biology, neurology, and psychology all recognise that the trans experience is a real, measurable phenomenon. That’s based on empirical evidence — which is kind of my side of things, right? Using the well-established philosophical principle of Reductio ad Absurdum (utilised by all of Zeno, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, no less)... This implies that there are potentially many millions of biological males out there who are women and don't know it, because feeling like a woman isn't what makes a male a woman. Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. " Um... Yeah. The hint is in the name of the philosophical principle of "Reductio ad Absurdum". But, logically, it follows. However you feel about it. " The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox." Yes, for the purposes of argument, that is being treated as true, in order to reach the conclusion that there are biological males who are women but don't know it. Because it's not based on feelings, but rather other objective criteria. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not, he's just using words and phrase he's seen, like Critical Thinking, Mrs x Deliberate misgendering, huh? Hard to see anything you post now as being in good faith after that." Honest mistake, Im sorry believe me or not but its true, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand. You haven't answered. You just made this up. Is there any neural state of the brain that we can observe that tells us that someone is trans? I’ve mentioned multiple times that neurological studies show trans brains function in ways consistent with their gender identity, not their natal sex. Look them up and read them — that would be my suggestion." Read Plato would be mine, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have read the original post and I am somewhat confused. The frustration regarding feelings being presented as facts....is that in relation to people of one biological sex who feel they are the opposite sex - them presenting their feelings as facts? For a while now people have been expected to believe that a biological male is a woman because he 'feels' like a woman. Similarly, I am expected to believe that biological females are actually males because they feel like a man. They may been diagnosed with gender dysphoria which explains why they feel that way....but does feeling like one sex make them that sex? Definitely not in my opinion. Yet, I am expected by many to accept that it is fact because that is what they feel. OP, is it this that is causing you frustration? Here we go. I try to make a thread that isn’t about trans issues, because people say I’m one-tracked in that regard — and behold, someone else brings it up. The unfortunate thing is that your argument isn’t what you think it is. It’s not just feelings. Medicine, biology, neurology, and psychology all recognise that the trans experience is a real, measurable phenomenon. That’s based on empirical evidence — which is kind of my side of things, right?" Well, like I said the question came from a place of confusion. I was merely seeking clarification on what your beef actually was. I used trans as an example solely because I thought it was one you, as a trans woman, could easily identify with. If your issue is with people dismissing the data you present to back up your facts because they disagree with the findings (i.e they 'feel' differently) then my experience of that is somewhat limited. I have until very recently seen nothing of your threads. My first was your recent thread relating to the number of trans people feeling unsafe. You referenced an article in Pink News which reported on figures released by Yougov and The Good Law project. I read the article. I do not think I said at the time but it was probably the worst journalism I had ever read. I did not feel informed, I felt 'groomed'. I have looked, and perhaps I have missed it, but I see no definition of "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe"....and I did look, because I found the term "fairly unsafe" to be very odd. Do I dispute the figures reported? No. Do I think it stands as evidence? No. It is a poll asking trans people people how they feel living as a trans person in the UK. Having read the article and looked at the poll results published by the Good Law Project I felt I shouldn't contribute because all I would be doing is saying how I feel about how about how someone else feels. As I said previously, your post regarding the UK not being a safe place for trans people was the first I had read and is, therefore, the only instance that I have looked at the sources you have used. From the article I got the feeling that I was expected to form an opinion based on how other people feel. I was not comfortable forming an opinion based upon others feelings. If people are being expected to form opinions, with the feelings of others being presented as evidence, surely you can accept that other people may well feel differently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand. You haven't answered. You just made this up. Is there any neural state of the brain that we can observe that tells us that someone is trans? I’ve mentioned multiple times that neurological studies show trans brains function in ways consistent with their gender identity, not their natal sex. Look them up and read them — that would be my suggestion. Considering the number of times you have bulshitted about "evidence", I would like to have a clear source. Tell me the website name and title of the study. Because if what you said were true, we should be able to provide gender recognition certificates by looking at their brain functions." How many times you’ve called it bullshit — plenty. How many times you’ve shown an actual flaw in my data — once. There’s a difference. You asked for sources you can verify. Start here: Zhou et al., 1995, Nature — “A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality.” (BSTc size aligns with gender identity in trans women.) Kruijver et al., 2000, J Clin Endocrinol Metab — “Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus.” (BSTc neuron counts consistent with gender identity.) Rametti et al., 2011, Journal of Psychiatric Research — “The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment: a DTI study.” (White matter patterns consistent with identified gender, not natal sex.) Manzouri & Savic, 2018, Cerebral Cortex — “Structural brain differences in gender dysphoria: a multimodal comparison of male, female, and transgender individuals.” (Network-level differences consistent with gender identity.) Smith et al., 2015, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews — “The transsexual brain – a review of findings on the neural basis of transsexualism.” (Systematic review showing consistent brain organisation patterns aligning with gender identity across MRI, fMRI, and DTI studies.) Guillamon, Junque, & Gómez-Gil, 2016, Archives of Sexual Behavior — “A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism.” (Comprehensive review of converging structural and functional evidence.) Two points so we don’t talk past each other: 1. Group-level differences are real and replicable across methods and labs. That’s what “empirically observable” means. 2. None of this claims you can issue a certificate by brain scan. Population signals are not a diagnostic test. That straw man is yours, not mine. And just to be clear — I’ve personally checked each of these studies. They’re all real, peer-reviewed, and traceable through PubMed or Google Scholar. So anyone claiming they don’t exist might want to do the reading before shouting “bullshit” again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well, like I said the question came from a place of confusion. I was merely seeking clarification on what your beef actually was. I used trans as an example solely because I thought it was one you, as a trans woman, could easily identify with. If your issue is with people dismissing the data you present to back up your facts because they disagree with the findings (i.e they 'feel' differently) then my experience of that is somewhat limited. I have until very recently seen nothing of your threads. My first was your recent thread relating to the number of trans people feeling unsafe. You referenced an article in Pink News which reported on figures released by Yougov and The Good Law project. I read the article. I do not think I said at the time but it was probably the worst journalism I had ever read. I did not feel informed, I felt 'groomed'. I have looked, and perhaps I have missed it, but I see no definition of "fairly unsafe" or "very unsafe"....and I did look, because I found the term "fairly unsafe" to be very odd. Do I dispute the figures reported? No. Do I think it stands as evidence? No. It is a poll asking trans people people how they feel living as a trans person in the UK. Having read the article and looked at the poll results published by the Good Law Project I felt I shouldn't contribute because all I would be doing is saying how I feel about how about how someone else feels. As I said previously, your post regarding the UK not being a safe place for trans people was the first I had read and is, therefore, the only instance that I have looked at the sources you have used. From the article I got the feeling that I was expected to form an opinion based on how other people feel. I was not comfortable forming an opinion based upon others feelings. If people are being expected to form opinions, with the feelings of others being presented as evidence, surely you can accept that other people may well feel differently. " If I came across as dismissive, I apologise — truly. I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. What I take issue with is when disagreement is presented as fact without anything to support it beyond personal feeling. I actually like seeing data that contradicts my worldview. It might be my autism, but I genuinely can’t comprehend how people can be satisfied holding a belief that’s never tested. For me, evidence isn’t about validation — it’s about accuracy. As for the Pink News article, I agree it wasn’t the greatest piece of writing. But it accurately reported the poll’s results, and YouGov’s reputation for unbiased methodology speaks for itself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand. You haven't answered. You just made this up. Is there any neural state of the brain that we can observe that tells us that someone is trans? I’ve mentioned multiple times that neurological studies show trans brains function in ways consistent with their gender identity, not their natal sex. Look them up and read them — that would be my suggestion. Considering the number of times you have bulshitted about "evidence", I would like to have a clear source. Tell me the website name and title of the study. Because if what you said were true, we should be able to provide gender recognition certificates by looking at their brain functions. How many times you’ve called it bullshit — plenty. How many times you’ve shown an actual flaw in my data — once. There’s a difference. You asked for sources you can verify. Start here: Zhou et al., 1995, Nature — “A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality.” (BSTc size aligns with gender identity in trans women.) Kruijver et al., 2000, J Clin Endocrinol Metab — “Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus.” (BSTc neuron counts consistent with gender identity.) Rametti et al., 2011, Journal of Psychiatric Research — “The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment: a DTI study.” (White matter patterns consistent with identified gender, not natal sex.) Manzouri & Savic, 2018, Cerebral Cortex — “Structural brain differences in gender dysphoria: a multimodal comparison of male, female, and transgender individuals.” (Network-level differences consistent with gender identity.) Smith et al., 2015, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews — “The transsexual brain – a review of findings on the neural basis of transsexualism.” (Systematic review showing consistent brain organisation patterns aligning with gender identity across MRI, fMRI, and DTI studies.) Guillamon, Junque, & Gómez-Gil, 2016, Archives of Sexual Behavior — “A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism.” (Comprehensive review of converging structural and functional evidence.) Two points so we don’t talk past each other: 1. Group-level differences are real and replicable across methods and labs. That’s what “empirically observable” means. 2. None of this claims you can issue a certificate by brain scan. Population signals are not a diagnostic test. That straw man is yours, not mine. And just to be clear — I’ve personally checked each of these studies. They’re all real, peer-reviewed, and traceable through PubMed or Google Scholar. So anyone claiming they don’t exist might want to do the reading before shouting “bullshit” again." Are you allowed to post to specific sites like you have, just saying you dont want to end up with a potential ban Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How many times you’ve called it bullshit — plenty. How many times you’ve shown an actual flaw in my data — once. There’s a difference. " Not once. Multiple times in one thread. I will take a look at your sources. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not, he's just using words and phrase he's seen, like Critical Thinking, Mrs x Deliberate misgendering, huh? Hard to see anything you post now as being in good faith after that. Honest mistake, Im sorry believe me or not but its true, Mrs x" The third “honest mistake” in a week — you can’t be surprised I’m skeptical. I’ll accept your apology and take it in good faith, but apologies only mean something if they change future behaviour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you allowed to post to specific sites like you have, just saying you dont want to end up with a potential ban Mrs x" I haven’t posted any links — only the study names and publication details. That’s within forum rules. I’m being careful to stay compliant while still letting people verify the sources for themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How many times you’ve called it bullshit — plenty. How many times you’ve shown an actual flaw in my data — once. There’s a difference. Not once. Multiple times in one thread. I will take a look at your sources. " Yes, once. You showed the UK under austerity wasn’t as bad as I first claimed on growth. That’s fair. But you didn’t show that non-austerity would have been worse. That needs a like-for-like comparison. To make that case you’d need: same start-and-finish windows for comparator countries, the path between those points (not just endpoints), and controls for shocks and composition. In other words: equidistant time frames, comparable baselines, and the trajectory data. Your examples had mismatched end dates well after the austerity phase and no trajectory, so they don’t establish the counterfactual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not, he's just using words and phrase he's seen, like Critical Thinking, Mrs x Deliberate misgendering, huh? Hard to see anything you post now as being in good faith after that. Honest mistake, Im sorry believe me or not but its true, Mrs x The third “honest mistake” in a week — you can’t be surprised I’m skeptical. I’ll accept your apology and take it in good faith, but apologies only mean something if they change future behaviour." No its not, the other time I told you if you were going to not respect me when I said I found something offensive then I would do the same in return. Use that word to me and I'll do the same again. You justify it on your ideological grounds but if you follow Gender Critical theory my use of gender terms is acceptable, both beliefs, yours and mine are protected under the Equality Act. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you allowed to post to specific sites like you have, just saying you dont want to end up with a potential ban Mrs x I haven’t posted any links — only the study names and publication details. That’s within forum rules. I’m being careful to stay compliant while still letting people verify the sources for themselves." You'll be ok then, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its not, the other time I told you if you were going to not respect me when I said I found something offensive then I would do the same in return. Use that word to me and I'll do the same again. You justify it on your ideological grounds but if you follow Gender Critical theory my use of gender terms is acceptable, both beliefs, yours and mine are protected under the Equality Act. Mrs x" Two “honest mistakes” and one deliberate misgendering actually make it worse. Your belief may be a protected one, but that doesn’t exempt you from responsibility — it’s still classed as discrimination when used to target individuals. I’ve only ever spoken about the gender-critical movement and its public figures. I’ve never made it personal, and I’ve never misgendered or targeted an individual deliberately. Protected belief doesn’t mean protected behaviour. The Equality Act protects both gender identity and gender-critical belief, but it also states that when a belief is manifested in a way that targets or harasses someone, that protection no longer applies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its not, the other time I told you if you were going to not respect me when I said I found something offensive then I would do the same in return. Use that word to me and I'll do the same again. You justify it on your ideological grounds but if you follow Gender Critical theory my use of gender terms is acceptable, both beliefs, yours and mine are protected under the Equality Act. Mrs x Two “honest mistakes” and one deliberate misgendering actually make it worse. Your belief may be a protected one, but that doesn’t exempt you from responsibility — it’s still classed as discrimination when used to target individuals. I’ve only ever spoken about the gender-critical movement and its public figures. I’ve never made it personal, and I’ve never misgendered or targeted an individual deliberately. Protected belief doesn’t mean protected behaviour. The Equality Act protects both gender identity and gender-critical belief, but it also states that when a belief is manifested in a way that targets or harasses someone, that protection no longer applies." I'm not saying anything to harass you and how have I discriminated against you? If I followed you and did it constantly its harassment but I haven't. You use the word CIS and its almost a slur, I've told you what I am so dont use it towards me. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not saying anything to harass you and how have I discriminated against you? If I followed you and did it constantly its harassment but I haven't. You use the word CIS and its almost a slur, I've told you what I am so dont use it towards me. Mrs x" Don’t start on this again. If you hadn’t noticed, when talking to you I have actually shifted to “natal” instead of “cis.” It is less accurate, but you explained discomfort with the latter, and I did that despite common linguistic, legal, and societal consensus being that it is not, in fact, a slur. Whereas misgendering someone is a listed example of discrimination based on gender reassignment. That’s the difference between preference and respect. I’ve made the effort to meet you halfway. You can disagree with my views, but you don’t get to redefine who I am, without me correctly calling it discrimination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not saying anything to harass you and how have I discriminated against you? If I followed you and did it constantly its harassment but I haven't. You use the word CIS and its almost a slur, I've told you what I am so dont use it towards me. Mrs x Don’t start on this again. If you hadn’t noticed, when talking to you I have actually shifted to “natal” instead of “cis.” It is less accurate, but you explained discomfort with the latter, and I did that despite common linguistic, legal, and societal consensus being that it is not, in fact, a slur. Whereas misgendering someone is a listed example of discrimination based on gender reassignment. That’s the difference between preference and respect. I’ve made the effort to meet you halfway. You can disagree with my views, but you don’t get to redefine who I am, without me correctly calling it discrimination." Why can't you simply say woman? I'm curious why you need to add the prefix? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can't you simply say woman? I'm curious why you need to add the prefix? " Because when discussing trans topics, that’s even less clear. Not everyone defines “woman” the same way — roughly half of people use it interchangeably with “female,” while the rest treat it as a gender term distinct from sex. Using “natal” makes it clear which context I’m referring to, without assuming everyone shares one definition. It’s about clarity, not ideology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Making that assumption is reductive and absurd. The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality, not a philosophical paradox. How is trans experience empirically observable? You’ve asked a question that’s been answered many times before. If you’re genuinely curious, the data is easy to find on the other trans related threads. I’m not here to repeat basic research on demand. You haven't answered. You just made this up. Is there any neural state of the brain that we can observe that tells us that someone is trans? I’ve mentioned multiple times that neurological studies show trans brains function in ways consistent with their gender identity, not their natal sex. Look them up and read them — that would be my suggestion." There are studies that show that thats not the case for all Trans brains, its very subjective. ", the hypothesis of self-referential thinking and body perception doesn't postulate a distinctive neurobiological trait for all trans* people." In layman's terms this means that the idea (or theory) that how people think about themselves and perceive their bodies affects gender identity does not claim that all transgender people have the same unique brain feature or biology. Scientists aren’t saying there’s one special brain type that makes a person trans, people’s experiences of gender and body identity are more complex and varied. See, that's from National Library of Medicine. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are studies that show that thats not the case for all Trans brains, its very subjective. ", the hypothesis of self-referential thinking and body perception doesn't postulate a distinctive neurobiological trait for all trans* people." In layman's terms this means that the idea (or theory) that how people think about themselves and perceive their bodies affects gender identity does not claim that all transgender people have the same unique brain feature or biology. Scientists aren’t saying there’s one special brain type that makes a person trans, people’s experiences of gender and body identity are more complex and varied. See, that's from National Library of Medicine. Mrs x" I’ve never claimed otherwise. No one credible argues that every trans person has identical brain features — brains vary within any group. What the studies show is a statistical trend: trans populations display neuroanatomical and connectivity patterns that align more closely with their gender identity than with their natal sex. That’s what “empirically observable” means. Outliers don’t invalidate the trend — they’re part of why science uses population data instead of anecdotes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can't you simply say woman? I'm curious why you need to add the prefix? Because when discussing trans topics, that’s even less clear. Not everyone defines “woman” the same way — roughly half of people use it interchangeably with “female,” while the rest treat it as a gender term distinct from sex. Using “natal” makes it clear which context I’m referring to, without assuming everyone shares one definition. It’s about clarity, not ideology." I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? " Yes — because as I pointed out, that 50/50 split means half would see “woman” as the whole group, with “trans woman” as a subgroup within it. When you’re discussing sex and gender together, precision matters. Using “natal” keeps the meaning clear for everyone, not just those who interpret “woman” the same way you do. And tell me this — what’s wrong with being precise? What is there to be offended about in wanting clarity? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What the studies show is a statistical trend: trans populations display neuroanatomical and connectivity patterns that align more closely with their gender identity than with their natal sex. That’s what “empirically observable” means. " I went through some of the studies. But that's not what they say. While most parts of the brain are similar between a transwoman and a man, there are some small traits where the transwoman's brain is similar to a woman's brain. I don't think there is enough to say they "align more closely with their gender identity than with their natal sex". And just to clarify, I do believe that gender dysphoria is real and it has something to do with the brain. Getting clear understanding of what that is would be a great way to validate someone's gender and providing recognition that someone is a transwoman. It still doesn't prove that a transwoman has to be treated as a woman in all the social situations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can't you simply say woman? I'm curious why you need to add the prefix? Because when discussing trans topics, that’s even less clear. Not everyone defines “woman” the same way — roughly half of people use it interchangeably with “female,” while the rest treat it as a gender term distinct from sex. Using “natal” makes it clear which context I’m referring to, without assuming everyone shares one definition. It’s about clarity, not ideology." Do about 3.5 billion people use this redundant adjective as you describe. When discussing Trans topics? Really? So were in the definition of the word does it mention or compare its self to Trans? Oxford Dictionary "... a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to their sex assigned at birth". Collins "Someone who is cis has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth." Merriam-Webster "A person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex they were identified as having at birth." It defines a state of being in accordance to how someone feels at birth and now. Same dictionary definitions for woman. Oxford Dictionary "...An adult female human being." Collins "...an adult female human being." Merriam-Webster "...an adult female person." So why not use woman, no need for any prefix because as you know a Trans woman is not a female because that term relates to sex not gender. And every definition states "female" in it when describing a woman. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I went through some of the studies. But that's not what they say. While most parts of the brain are similar between a transwoman and a man, there are some small traits where the transwoman's brain is similar to a woman's brain. I don't think there is enough to say they "align more closely with their gender identity than with their natal sex". And just to clarify, I do believe that gender dysphoria is real and it has something to do with the brain. Getting clear understanding of what that is would be a great way to validate someone's gender and providing recognition that someone is a transwoman. It still doesn't prove that a transwoman has to be treated as a woman in all the social situations." I never said it was universal — I said it was a trend, and I was repeating what other scientists have said about the researchers’ work through the peer-review process. All of those studies indicate that it isn’t as clear-cut as “gender equals natal sex” when it comes to brain organisation — far from it. You’re right that the differences are typically subtle and region-specific, but that’s precisely what makes them scientifically significant. The recurring patterns in the BSTc, insula, and white-matter connectivity are what give the data weight. “Align more closely” doesn’t mean identical — it means statistically nearer to the identified gender than to natal averages. As for the rest, that’s not what I’ve been arguing here. I deliberately tried not to make this thread about trans issues — I was talking about evidence and reasoning in general. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can't you simply say woman? I'm curious why you need to add the prefix? Because when discussing trans topics, that’s even less clear. Not everyone defines “woman” the same way — roughly half of people use it interchangeably with “female,” while the rest treat it as a gender term distinct from sex. Using “natal” makes it clear which context I’m referring to, without assuming everyone shares one definition. It’s about clarity, not ideology. I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? " That seems perfectly acceptable, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? Yes — because as I pointed out, that 50/50 split means half would see “woman” as the whole group, with “trans woman” as a subgroup within it. When you’re discussing sex and gender together, precision matters. Using “natal” keeps the meaning clear for everyone, not just those who interpret “woman” the same way you do. And tell me this — what’s wrong with being precise? What is there to be offended about in wanting clarity?" Woman is precise as is trans woman, it can't be any more precise. I'm not following the subset argument. Woman” has a defined meaning, an adult human female. “Trans woman” adds a prefix that is precise too, a person who identifies and lives as a woman but is biologically male. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I went through some of the studies. But that's not what they say. While most parts of the brain are similar between a transwoman and a man, there are some small traits where the transwoman's brain is similar to a woman's brain. I don't think there is enough to say they "align more closely with their gender identity than with their natal sex". And just to clarify, I do believe that gender dysphoria is real and it has something to do with the brain. Getting clear understanding of what that is would be a great way to validate someone's gender and providing recognition that someone is a transwoman. It still doesn't prove that a transwoman has to be treated as a woman in all the social situations. I never said it was universal — I said it was a trend, and I was repeating what other scientists have said about the researchers’ work through the peer-review process. All of those studies indicate that it isn’t as clear-cut as “gender equals natal sex” when it comes to brain organisation — far from it. You’re right that the differences are typically subtle and region-specific, but that’s precisely what makes them scientifically significant. The recurring patterns in the BSTc, insula, and white-matter connectivity are what give the data weight. “Align more closely” doesn’t mean identical — it means statistically nearer to the identified gender than to natal averages. As for the rest, that’s not what I’ve been arguing here. I deliberately tried not to make this thread about trans issues — I was talking about evidence and reasoning in general." Thats ok but you started a thread, you can't complain where it goes, so long as posters are talking about evidence or reasoning as you put it. Both are equally important in a debate, yet you dont seem to want to accept this. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? Yes — because as I pointed out, that 50/50 split means half would see “woman” as the whole group, with “trans woman” as a subgroup within it. When you’re discussing sex and gender together, precision matters. Using “natal” keeps the meaning clear for everyone, not just those who interpret “woman” the same way you do. And tell me this — what’s wrong with being precise? What is there to be offended about in wanting clarity? Woman is precise as is trans woman, it can't be any more precise. I'm not following the subset argument. Woman” has a defined meaning, an adult human female. “Trans woman” adds a prefix that is precise too, a person who identifies and lives as a woman but is biologically male. " This is so correct, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do about 3.5 billion people use this redundant adjective as you describe. When discussing Trans topics? Really? So were in the definition of the word does it mention or compare its self to Trans? Oxford Dictionary "... a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to their sex assigned at birth". Collins "Someone who is cis has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth." Merriam-Webster "A person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex they were identified as having at birth." It defines a state of being in accordance to how someone feels at birth and now. Same dictionary definitions for woman. Oxford Dictionary "...An adult female human being." Collins "...an adult female human being." Merriam-Webster "...an adult female person." So why not use woman, no need for any prefix because as you know a Trans woman is not a female because that term relates to sex not gender. And every definition states "female" in it when describing a woman. Mrs x" No — I don’t think there are 3.5 billion English speakers, let alone that many who use the language the same way. When you’re discussing topics that mix sex and gender, precision matters. The dictionary definitions you quoted describe general usage, not how language is used in academic, medical, or policy settings — where terms like “natal” or “assigned at birth” are standard for clarity. And most of those same dictionaries also include entries that cover trans identities directly. Limiting yourself to the one definition you agree with isn’t exactly honest — it’s selective reading. Even your own citations acknowledge the distinction. “Assigned at birth” implies the classification can differ from lived gender — that’s why the extra wording exists. It isn’t about ideology; it’s about being precise in context. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? Yes — because as I pointed out, that 50/50 split means half would see “woman” as the whole group, with “trans woman” as a subgroup within it. When you’re discussing sex and gender together, precision matters. Using “natal” keeps the meaning clear for everyone, not just those who interpret “woman” the same way you do. And tell me this — what’s wrong with being precise? What is there to be offended about in wanting clarity? Woman is precise as is trans woman, it can't be any more precise. I'm not following the subset argument. Woman” has a defined meaning, an adult human female. “Trans woman” adds a prefix that is precise too, a person who identifies and lives as a woman but is biologically male. " So when I use “natal female woman,” I’m adding the exact same level of clarity as when someone says “trans woman.” Both phrases specify context within the broader term “woman.” “Woman” by itself doesn’t differentiate — it simply describes an adult human woman without indicating whether she’s trans or natal. If “trans woman” is accepted as a precise descriptor, then “natal female woman” serves the same function — clarity, not hierarchy. It just makes explicit which reference point we’re talking about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I never said it was universal — I said it was a trend, and I was repeating what other scientists have said about the researchers’ work through the peer-review process. " You said "The trans experience is empirically observable — that’s evidence of reality". Far from what you are claiming now. " All of those studies indicate that it isn’t as clear-cut as “gender equals natal sex” when it comes to brain organisation — far from it. " That depends on how you define gender. But anyways, none of it shows that transwomen have to be treated as women in all circumstances. " “Align more closely” doesn’t mean identical — it means statistically nearer to the identified gender than to natal averages. " It's not even statistically nearer. Most part of the brain is same as that of their natal sex. It's only a very small part that's similar to women. How does that make it align more closely with the other sex? " As for the rest, that’s not what I’ve been arguing here. I deliberately tried not to make this thread about trans issues — I was talking about evidence and reasoning in general." When it comes to social phenomenon like language and meanings of the words, this kind of evidence doesn't help much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thats ok but you started a thread, you can't complain where it goes, so long as posters are talking about evidence or reasoning as you put it. Both are equally important in a debate, yet you dont seem to want to accept this. Mrs x" Where did I complain? I simply pointed out that I hadn’t intended the trans topic to come up — that’s observation and commentary, not complaint. I’ve said repeatedly that I’m fine with where a thread goes as long as people engage honestly. The issue isn’t the direction — it’s when people conflate reasoning with feeling and call it evidence. That’s exactly the kind of distinction this thread was meant to explore. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When it comes to social phenomenon like language and meanings of the words, this kind of evidence doesn't help much." It actually lines up exactly. I’m defining gender the same way the researchers and wider medical community do — as a neuropsychological and social identity construct distinct from natal sex. And yes, most human brain functions are shared across sexes. The structural overlap between male and female brains is estimated to be around 90–95%. That’s been shown repeatedly — for example, Eliot et al., 2021 (“Dump the Dimorphism,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews). But the remaining variation, though small, is consistent — which is why those sex-linked and gender-linked patterns are studied in the first place. That’s what I’ve been referring to all along: not absolute difference, but statistical trend supported by empirical observation. And again — that wasn’t even the main topic here. I was talking about how we form and test claims, not reopening a debate about social treatment or identity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do about 3.5 billion people use this redundant adjective as you describe. When discussing Trans topics? Really? So were in the definition of the word does it mention or compare its self to Trans? Oxford Dictionary "... a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to their sex assigned at birth". Collins "Someone who is cis has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth." Merriam-Webster "A person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex they were identified as having at birth." It defines a state of being in accordance to how someone feels at birth and now. Same dictionary definitions for woman. Oxford Dictionary "...An adult female human being." Collins "...an adult female human being." Merriam-Webster "...an adult female person." So why not use woman, no need for any prefix because as you know a Trans woman is not a female because that term relates to sex not gender. And every definition states "female" in it when describing a woman. Mrs x No — I don’t think there are 3.5 billion English speakers, let alone that many who use the language the same way. When you’re discussing topics that mix sex and gender, precision matters. The dictionary definitions you quoted describe general usage, not how language is used in academic, medical, or policy settings — where terms like “natal” or “assigned at birth” are standard for clarity. And most of those same dictionaries also include entries that cover trans identities directly. Limiting yourself to the one definition you agree with isn’t exactly honest — it’s selective reading. Even your own citations acknowledge the distinction. “Assigned at birth” implies the classification can differ from lived gender — that’s why the extra wording exists. It isn’t about ideology; it’s about being precise in context." I never said English speakers, you are just being pedantic. I thought I'd save you the trouble of translating Mandorin or Urdu definitions because it seems you have real difficulty with English. So I was helping you out. As for these being the definitions for general usage you are spot on, correct. And the reason I used them is because we are not academics, medical professionals or policy writers, although some seem like to pretend they are experts in the field. We are the "General Public", using general language, so this is our level of precision. You dont need to know you've had a cerebral haemotoma or an infarct to know somethings not right with you. When you go weak on one side, slur your speech and your face drops most people know it could be a stroke. Do you criticise them for saying they've had a stroke and not the precise medical terms that an expert would use? Plain words are used daily and are clearly understood, so woman is an adult female human being, its precise, accurate and universally understood. You can see how mixed up you can get when you dont use language correctly, by trying to look smarter than you are. Socrates Methodology you got wrong, Zenos paradoxes totally bemused you, keep it simple, it suits you. And whenever you post something on here it's based on your ideological leanings, which isn't wrong just admit it. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When it comes to social phenomenon like language and meanings of the words, this kind of evidence doesn't help much. It actually lines up exactly. I’m defining gender the same way the researchers and wider medical community do — as a neuropsychological and social identity construct distinct from natal sex. " Do all medical professionals use the term "women" to also include transwomen? There are numerous journals which don't use the term women that way. And society uses gender/sex to decide separation in social activities like sports, toilets, events, etc. It doesn't have to align with how scientists use the terms because they serve two different purposes. " And yes, most human brain functions are shared across sexes. The structural overlap between male and female brains is estimated to be around 90–95%. That’s been shown repeatedly — for example, Eliot et al., 2021 (“Dump the Dimorphism,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews). But the remaining variation, though small, is consistent — which is why those sex-linked and gender-linked patterns are studied in the first place. " That's not what the studies say. Even in the remaining part which differentiates male brain from female brain, there is only a very small part where a transgender person's brain looks like the opposite sex " And again — that wasn’t even the main topic here. I was talking about how we form and test claims, not reopening a debate about social treatment or identity." We are talking about this for two reasons: 1) Very often, the "evidence" you claim to possess is proven to be AI slop that doesn't really prove what you are saying. So there is no reason to trust your evidence as you have broken trust multiple times. 2) Social phenomenon like words and meanings are decided based on the society's convenience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Facts are important, but when they’re on no absolute truths anymore it’s how people feel about something that is more important. Compare how crime is reported to daily mail readers versus the residents of DUBAI and you will understand why everyone feels Dubai is the safest place in the world to live, but DM readers fear of being attacked by immigrants. Dubai has something like 95% immigrant population. "Asian construction workers may not feel Dubai is tge safest place in the World, especially before a World Cup, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Facts are important, but when they’re on no absolute truths anymore it’s how people feel about something that is more important. Compare how crime is reported to daily mail readers versus the residents of DUBAI and you will understand why everyone feels Dubai is the safest place in the world to live, but DM readers fear of being attacked by immigrants. Dubai has something like 95% immigrant population. "I can’t see anything there I’d disagree with. But that’s exactly the problem — somewhere along the way, we started treating how people feel about something as more important than what can be demonstrated with data. That shift doesn’t make societies safer or wiser; it just makes them more easily manipulated. Fear and comfort are powerful motivators, but they’re terrible substitutes for truth. And that’s what I’m asking — how did we get from evidence shaping opinion to opinion shaping “evidence”? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Facts are important, but when they’re on no absolute truths anymore it’s how people feel about something that is more important. Compare how crime is reported to daily mail readers versus the residents of DUBAI and you will understand why everyone feels Dubai is the safest place in the world to live, but DM readers fear of being attacked by immigrants. Dubai has something like 95% immigrant population.
I can’t see anything there I’d disagree with.
But that’s exactly the problem — somewhere along the way, we started treating how people feel about something as more important than what can be demonstrated with data.
That shift doesn’t make societies safer or wiser; it just makes them more easily manipulated.
Fear and comfort are powerful motivators, but they’re terrible substitutes for truth.
And that’s what I’m asking — how did we get from evidence shaping opinion to opinion shaping “evidence”?"You post this but isn't this the exact rationale behind being Trans? It's so important to just allow feelings, in this case to alter things rather than accept that this is not actually possible in reality. What I mean is that you have protection under the Equality Act as soon as you believe you are Trans, before any procedures, treatments, medical interventions. Trans woman claim they are woman but at this point its all based upon feelings, which is in direct opposition to what you've just said. "...we started treating how people feel about something as more important than what can be demonstrated with data." Your words, not mine. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are talking about this for two reasons: 1) Very often, the "evidence" you claim to possess is proven to be AI slop that doesn't really prove what you are saying. So there is no reason to trust your evidence as you have broken trust multiple times. 2) Social phenomenon like words and meanings are decided based on the society's convenience." Actually, in medical and research contexts, “man” and “woman” aren’t used much outside of direct patient interaction. Professionals usually refer to reproductive categories — male, female, or intersex — because in those settings, precision matters more than everyday language. By your own admission, you didn’t read all of the studies — which means you’re working from a smaller sample size. So I don’t know what you read, but your takeaway was very different from mine. And “very often” is doing a lot of work there. You’ve shown my interpretation of data to be wrong once — I acknowledged that at the time. Every other time, you’ve simply declared it wrong without evidence. At least give me the respect to admit that distinction. Calling it “AI slop” isn’t a rebuttal — it’s a deflection. If it really were that, it would be easy to refute. But you haven’t, beyond that one instance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a side note, has anyone heard of the phrase, "Well everyone else can't be wrong." Just wondering what others think this means and whether it applies here, Mrs x" Yeah — it also goes by the name appeal to popularity fallacy. The idea that “everyone else can’t be wrong” has been used to defend everything from flat Earth theory to witch trials. Consensus doesn’t make something true — evidence does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You post this but isn't this the exact rationale behind being Trans? It's so important to just allow feelings, in this case to alter things rather than accept that this is not actually possible in reality. What I mean is that you have protection under the Equality Act as soon as you believe you are Trans, before any procedures, treatments, medical interventions. Trans woman claim they are woman but at this point its all based upon feelings, which is in direct opposition to what you've just said. "...we started treating how people feel about something as more important than what can be demonstrated with data." Your words, not mine. Mrs x" No, it’s not the same. Being trans isn’t just a feeling — it’s a clinically recognised condition with decades of empirical study behind it, across neurology, endocrinology, and psychology. That’s why it’s protected under the Equality Act: because it’s evidence-based, not belief-based. If it were belief alone, there’d be no need for the separate “gender reassignment” category — it could sit under the same section that protects your gender-critical outlook. The fact that it doesn’t is precisely the point: the law recognises it as a real, observable phenomenon, not a philosophical stance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Professionals usually refer to reproductive categories — male, female, or intersex — because in those settings, precision matters more than everyday language. " Not really. I have come across numerous medical journals about prostate cancer which use the word "men". " By your own admission, you didn’t read all of the studies — which means you’re working from a smaller sample size. " At least I read the thing I was talking about and was honest about what I read. " And “very often” is doing a lot of work there. You’ve shown my interpretation of data to be wrong once — I acknowledged that at the time. " Not once. Multiple times in one thread. You are making up one lie after another in that thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a side note, has anyone heard of the phrase, "Well everyone else can't be wrong." Just wondering what others think this means and whether it applies here, Mrs x Yeah — it also goes by the name appeal to popularity fallacy. The idea that “everyone else can’t be wrong” has been used to defend everything from flat Earth theory to witch trials. Consensus doesn’t make something true — evidence does." Theres a reason why popular sayings are popular. As for you and your evidence about making something true is not always true, The evidence used to approve and market thalidomide was later shown to be deeply flawed not fraudulent, but scientifically inadequate and dangerously incomplete. Remember all those poor kids in the 70"s and 70's, whose Mums were told it was perfectly safe, following the trials the drug had undergone. But yeah you are always right, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You post this but isn't this the exact rationale behind being Trans? It's so important to just allow feelings, in this case to alter things rather than accept that this is not actually possible in reality. What I mean is that you have protection under the Equality Act as soon as you believe you are Trans, before any procedures, treatments, medical interventions. Trans woman claim they are woman but at this point its all based upon feelings, which is in direct opposition to what you've just said. "...we started treating how people feel about something as more important than what can be demonstrated with data." Your words, not mine. Mrs x No, it’s not the same. Being trans isn’t just a feeling — it’s a clinically recognised condition with decades of empirical study behind it, across neurology, endocrinology, and psychology. That’s why it’s protected under the Equality Act: because it’s evidence-based, not belief-based. If it were belief alone, there’d be no need for the separate “gender reassignment” category — it could sit under the same section that protects your gender-critical outlook. The fact that it doesn’t is precisely the point: the law recognises it as a real, observable phenomenon, not a philosophical stance." You are protected as soon as you believe you are Trans, thats belief based, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not once. Multiple times in one thread. You are making up one lie after another in that thread. " That’s still one thread — and in that thread, you only proved one point inaccurate, which I acknowledged at the time. The rest were assumptions drawn from incomplete data. I could question the good-faith nature of your approach too, but I won’t. I’m not here to score points — I’m here to focus on what’s true and verifiable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres a reason why popular sayings are popular. As for you and your evidence about making something true is not always true, The evidence used to approve and market thalidomide was later shown to be deeply flawed not fraudulent, but scientifically inadequate and dangerously incomplete. Remember all those poor kids in the 70"s and 70's, whose Mums were told it was perfectly safe, following the trials the drug had undergone. But yeah you are always right, Mrs x" That’s the thing about science — it knows it doesn’t have all the answers. If it ever claimed to, it would stop. The thalidomide case actually proves my point, not yours. The original data was incomplete, and when new evidence emerged, the scientific community changed its position. That’s what evidence-based reasoning is supposed to do — correct itself when better information appears. And yes, there’s always a reason things are popular — because people like them. That’s what popularity means. It says nothing about whether they’re true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are protected as soon as you believe you are Trans, thats belief based, Mrs x" You’re oversimplifying the law. Protection under the Equality Act starts at the point of transition — that includes intention, process, or completion. It’s recognition that gender reassignment is a real, measurable process, not just a belief. If it were belief alone, it would fall under the same category as religion or philosophical conviction. It doesn’t — because it’s based on medical, psychological, and social evidence, not faith or opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It doesn’t — because it’s based on medical, psychological, and social evidence, not faith or opinion. " What is social evidence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It doesn’t — because it’s based on medical, psychological, and social evidence, not faith or opinion. What is social evidence?" It may have a better technical name, but “social evidence” refers to observable patterns in behaviour, identity, and outcomes within society — things that can be studied, measured, and replicated. For example: longitudinal studies showing consistent mental-health improvements after transition, population-level data on social acceptance and wellbeing, or patterns in how gender identity develops across cultures and time. It’s “social” because it’s about human experience, but it’s still evidence — gathered through research, not anecdote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? Yes — because as I pointed out, that 50/50 split means half would see “woman” as the whole group, with “trans woman” as a subgroup within it. When you’re discussing sex and gender together, precision matters. Using “natal” keeps the meaning clear for everyone, not just those who interpret “woman” the same way you do. And tell me this — what’s wrong with being precise? What is there to be offended about in wanting clarity? Woman is precise as is trans woman, it can't be any more precise. I'm not following the subset argument. Woman” has a defined meaning, an adult human female. “Trans woman” adds a prefix that is precise too, a person who identifies and lives as a woman but is biologically male. So when I use “natal female woman,” I’m adding the exact same level of clarity as when someone says “trans woman.” Both phrases specify context within the broader term “woman.” “Woman” by itself doesn’t differentiate — it simply describes an adult human woman without indicating whether she’s trans or natal. If “trans woman” is accepted as a precise descriptor, then “natal female woman” serves the same function — clarity, not hierarchy. It just makes explicit which reference point we’re talking about." By adding “natal” as a prefix, you’re introducing ambiguity into what was already a well understood definition. The only reason that prefix now seems necessary is because you see "trans" has been added in front of woman, which makes me believe you now see “woman” as a secondary or umbrella term rather than defined. Therefore your addition of a prefix is tit for tat, which goes against your OP calling for factual precision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres a reason why popular sayings are popular. As for you and your evidence about making something true is not always true, The evidence used to approve and market thalidomide was later shown to be deeply flawed not fraudulent, but scientifically inadequate and dangerously incomplete. Remember all those poor kids in the 70"s and 70's, whose Mums were told it was perfectly safe, following the trials the drug had undergone. But yeah you are always right, Mrs x That’s the thing about science — it knows it doesn’t have all the answers. If it ever claimed to, it would stop. The thalidomide case actually proves my point, not yours. The original data was incomplete, and when new evidence emerged, the scientific community changed its position. That’s what evidence-based reasoning is supposed to do — correct itself when better information appears. And yes, there’s always a reason things are popular — because people like them. That’s what popularity means. It says nothing about whether they’re true." Fuck me thats a callous thing to claim, that Thalidomide proves your point. It certainly doesn't, this horrible drug was released with all the available date, nobody knew this was wrong at the time, it was given to pregnant Mums because they believed the data was correct. And your assertion that the scientists changed their minds upon new data, fo you mean those poor babies born with those horrendous limb abnormalities, that new evidence? So this happened due to bad data, data the scientists said was good enough for the drug to be released. It's one of histories biggest examples of when data and evidence fucked up spectacularly. Your attempt at point scoring is not only, evidentially wrong but extremely distasteful, just think there's probably someone affected by this issue on here and you should apologise, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? Yes — because as I pointed out, that 50/50 split means half would see “woman” as the whole group, with “trans woman” as a subgroup within it. When you’re discussing sex and gender together, precision matters. Using “natal” keeps the meaning clear for everyone, not just those who interpret “woman” the same way you do. And tell me this — what’s wrong with being precise? What is there to be offended about in wanting clarity? Woman is precise as is trans woman, it can't be any more precise. I'm not following the subset argument. Woman” has a defined meaning, an adult human female. “Trans woman” adds a prefix that is precise too, a person who identifies and lives as a woman but is biologically male. So when I use “natal female woman,” I’m adding the exact same level of clarity as when someone says “trans woman.” Both phrases specify context within the broader term “woman.” “Woman” by itself doesn’t differentiate — it simply describes an adult human woman without indicating whether she’s trans or natal. If “trans woman” is accepted as a precise descriptor, then “natal female woman” serves the same function — clarity, not hierarchy. It just makes explicit which reference point we’re talking about. By adding “natal” as a prefix, you’re introducing ambiguity into what was already a well understood definition. The only reason that prefix now seems necessary is because you see "trans" has been added in front of woman, which makes me believe you now see “woman” as a secondary or umbrella term rather than defined. Therefore your addition of a prefix is tit for tat, which goes against your OP calling for factual precision." Thats the whole premise about the use of the prefix Cis. The attributed author even said so. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are protected as soon as you believe you are Trans, thats belief based, Mrs x You’re oversimplifying the law. Protection under the Equality Act starts at the point of transition — that includes intention, process, or completion. It’s recognition that gender reassignment is a real, measurable process, not just a belief. If it were belief alone, it would fall under the same category as religion or philosophical conviction. It doesn’t — because it’s based on medical, psychological, and social evidence, not faith or opinion. " Describe what intention means here then? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would expect 99.5% of people over the age of 21 to know what is meant by woman and trans woman. Would you disagree with that? Yes — because as I pointed out, that 50/50 split means half would see “woman” as the whole group, with “trans woman” as a subgroup within it. When you’re discussing sex and gender together, precision matters. Using “natal” keeps the meaning clear for everyone, not just those who interpret “woman” the same way you do. And tell me this — what’s wrong with being precise? What is there to be offended about in wanting clarity? Woman is precise as is trans woman, it can't be any more precise. I'm not following the subset argument. Woman” has a defined meaning, an adult human female. “Trans woman” adds a prefix that is precise too, a person who identifies and lives as a woman but is biologically male. So when I use “natal female woman,” I’m adding the exact same level of clarity as when someone says “trans woman.” Both phrases specify context within the broader term “woman.” “Woman” by itself doesn’t differentiate — it simply describes an adult human woman without indicating whether she’s trans or natal. If “trans woman” is accepted as a precise descriptor, then “natal female woman” serves the same function — clarity, not hierarchy. It just makes explicit which reference point we’re talking about. By adding “natal” as a prefix, you’re introducing ambiguity into what was already a well understood definition. The only reason that prefix now seems necessary is because you see "trans" has been added in front of woman, which makes me believe you now see “woman” as a secondary or umbrella term rather than defined. Therefore your addition of a prefix is tit for tat, which goes against your OP calling for factual precision.Thats the whole premise about the use of the prefix Cis. The attributed author even said so. Mrs x"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By adding “natal” as a prefix, you’re introducing ambiguity into what was already a well understood definition. The only reason that prefix now seems necessary is because you see "trans" has been added in front of woman, which makes me believe you now see “woman” as a secondary or umbrella term rather than defined. Therefore your addition of a prefix is tit for tat, which goes against your OP calling for factual precision." Here’s the important part: that’s your opinion. My opinion is that adding “natal” is clarifying — and it’s not just mine. Medical and legal bodies use similar distinctions to maintain precision when sex and gender are discussed together. (They often use “cis” for the same purpose, but I’ve avoided that here since people have said they dislike it.) It isn’t tit for tat — it’s about accuracy. “Trans woman” and “natal female woman” both narrow the broader category of “woman” by adding context. In discussions where sex and gender overlap, that level of precision prevents confusion, which is exactly what factual clarity demands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It isn’t tit for tat — it’s about accuracy. “Trans woman” and “natal female woman” both narrow the broader category of “woman” by adding context. " Would you agree that the same could be achieved through the use of "woman" and "trans woman"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me thats a callous thing to claim, that Thalidomide proves your point. It certainly doesn't, this horrible drug was released with all the available date, nobody knew this was wrong at the time, it was given to pregnant Mums because they believed the data was correct. And your assertion that the scientists changed their minds upon new data, fo you mean those poor babies born with those horrendous limb abnormalities, that new evidence? So this happened due to bad data, data the scientists said was good enough for the drug to be released. It's one of histories biggest examples of when data and evidence fucked up spectacularly. Your attempt at point scoring is not only, evidentially wrong but extremely distasteful, just think there's probably someone affected by this issue on here and you should apologise, Mrs x" You’ve completely misunderstood my point — or worse, deliberately reframed it. What’s offensive isn’t what I said, but how you’ve chosen to twist it. Nothing in my post dismissed the tragedy; quite the opposite. Thalidomide is one of the clearest examples of why reasoning must always remain open to correction — evidence-based and opinion-based alike. When the evidence was later shown to be incomplete, medicine didn’t double down; it changed course. That’s how we ended up with far stricter drug-safety protocols today. The lesson of thalidomide isn’t that evidence failed — it’s that refusing to revise conclusions when better data appears is what causes real harm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thats the whole premise about the use of the prefix Cis. The attributed author even said so. Mrs x" Except you’ve already conceded that it was in use almost a century earlier by Magnus Hirschfeld, who used “cis” and “trans” descriptively — not politically — to distinguish positional relationships within sex and gender research. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It isn’t tit for tat — it’s about accuracy. “Trans woman” and “natal female woman” both narrow the broader category of “woman” by adding context. Would you agree that the same could be achieved through the use of "woman" and "trans woman"?" Asked and answered already in this thread. “Woman” alone doesn’t differentiate — that’s why both “trans woman” and “natal female woman” exist as clarifying terms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thats the whole premise about the use of the prefix Cis. The attributed author even said so. Mrs x Except you’ve already conceded that it was in use almost a century earlier by Magnus Hirschfeld, who used “cis” and “trans” descriptively — not politically — to distinguish positional relationships within sex and gender research." It wasn't, it made the dictionary after Defosseys work, being Trans you should know this, it forms part of your communities history. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Evidence has led to some really horrendous things. Remember the evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Super Gun prior to the Gulf War. But worst still, Eugenics. This gave 'evidence' which ultimately led to the Final Solution and the murder of 6 million Jews. Prior to being called Eugenics, proto-eugenics used theories and evidence of early scientists to establish claims that Africans were biologically inferior based on skull measurements or supposed intelligence differences. So the work of Samuel George Moreton, Josiah Nott, and Louis Agassiz provided a scientific veneer, which allowed sl@very to claim it was justifiable and legal. So the North Atlantic Sl@ve Trade continued due to the 'evidence' of this scientific work. You going to claiming this proves your point to or you going to accept evidence is not always a universal position of truth? I've an idea which way you'll jump this time to. So, if this evidence wasn't debunked would it still be ok to bomb Iraq into oblivion, gas millions of more Jews and ensl@ve African and send them across the Atlantic. Mrs x" Yes, but you’re overlooking the key point — all of those examples started with people’s opinions of superiority, not neutral inquiry. They built biased research to justify a belief they already held. That’s exactly what the gender-critical movement does: start with a conclusion and then cherry-pick data to make it look “scientific.” The lesson from eugenics and every other misuse of evidence isn’t that evidence is bad — it’s that bad faith masquerading as science is dangerous. The cure for that isn’t abandoning evidence; it’s insisting on better methods and honest reasoning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Both phrases specify context within the broader term “woman.” " It doesn't have to be. There are people with males's genitals, there are people with women's genitals, there are people with males genitals but have some mental properties which are inclined more towards women and vice versa. Society has historically called the first group as men, the second group as women and the third group as trans men/women. You are trying to expand the definition of the word "women" because it's mightily convenient for you. This way, you will get automatic entry to every place where only women are allowed . You think it's clever and a nice shortcut to get what you want. But when you take shortcuts in politics, it will blowback on you big time, which is what is happening today. I will give you an example. Take women's boxing. If you just say that transwomen are women because you expanded the definition of women, transwomen should be allowed into women's boxing. But why are there separate categories for boxing in the first place? It's because of the physical differences between men and women, not because of mental differences. So people will be against allowing trans women in women's boxing. Instead of trying to take shortcuts by redefining the word "women", the right thing to do would be to keep trans women as a separate category and have good faith discussions about which of the women's spaces, transwomen have to be allowed. The approach that's taken today by the trans activists to redefine the word "women" was bound to receive major push back from people and that's what's happening now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It isn’t tit for tat — it’s about accuracy. “Trans woman” and “natal female woman” both narrow the broader category of “woman” by adding context. Would you agree that the same could be achieved through the use of "woman" and "trans woman"? Asked and answered already in this thread. “Woman” alone doesn’t differentiate — that’s why both “trans woman” and “natal female woman” exist as clarifying terms." It wasn't asked and answered. The question was "same could be achieved". It seems clear that it can, you've provided no evidence that it cannot. It's simple - "woman" can be an adult* female. "Trans woman" can be a biological male (adult*?) who has/is transitioned/ing. What evidence do you have that this logical statement is not true? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thats the whole premise about the use of the prefix Cis. The attributed author even said so. Mrs x Except you’ve already conceded that it was in use almost a century earlier by Magnus Hirschfeld, who used “cis” and “trans” descriptively — not politically — to distinguish positional relationships within sex and gender research.It wasn't, it made the dictionary after Defosseys work, being Trans you should know this, it forms part of your communities history. Mrs x" And yet “cis” and “trans” were both used descriptively at the Berlin Institute of Sexology under Magnus Hirschfeld in the early 1900s — decades before Defosse’s work. That’s not a community myth; it’s documented in Hirschfeld’s own taxonomy of “Transvestiten” and related case studies. Words often take time to reach dictionaries — the OED reflects usage, it doesn’t invent it. Just because a term was codified later doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Language evolves; that’s history, not politics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Both phrases specify context within the broader term “woman.” It doesn't have to be. There are people with males's genitals, there are people with women's genitals, there are people with males genitals but have some mental properties which are inclined more towards women and vice versa. Society has historically called the first group as men, the second group as women and the third group as trans men/women. You are trying to expand the definition of the word "women" because it's mightily convenient for you. This way, you will get automatic entry to every place where only women are allowed . You think it's clever and a nice shortcut to get what you want. But when you take shortcuts in politics, it will blowback on you big time, which is what is happening today. I will give you an example. Take women's boxing. If you just say that transwomen are women because you expanded the definition of women, transwomen should be allowed into women's boxing. But why are there separate categories for boxing in the first place? It's because of the physical differences between men and women, not because of mental differences. So people will be against allowing trans women in women's boxing. Instead of trying to take shortcuts by redefining the word "women", the right thing to do would be to keep trans women as a separate category and have good faith discussions about which of the women's spaces, transwomen have to be allowed. The approach that's taken today by the trans activists to redefine the word "women" was bound to receive major push back from people and that's what's happening now." No, and no again. You’re assuming that “woman” was ever an immutable biological term — it wasn’t. Across cultures and eras, “woman” has always referred to social role and identity, not simply anatomy. That’s why historians, anthropologists, and linguists treat it as a gendered category, not a fixed biological one. Nobody is “expanding” the definition for convenience; we’re recognising what’s already true — that trans women exist, that their identity is supported by decades of medical, psychological, and neurological research, and that society already differentiates between sex and gender when it matters (like in sport or medicine). And as for “shortcuts,” that’s a strange word for “using evidence and law.” The Equality Act doesn’t redefine womanhood on a whim; it codifies protection for those undergoing or having undergone gender reassignment because reality doesn’t fit into your neat binary. If you want a good-faith discussion about inclusion, great. But pretending that the entire definition of “woman” is your personal property isn’t an argument — it’s nostalgia for a world that never actually existed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wasn't asked and answered. The question was "same could be achieved". It seems clear that it can, you've provided no evidence that it cannot. It's simple - "woman" can be an adult* female. "Trans woman" can be a biological male (adult*?) who has/is transitioned/ing. What evidence do you have that this logical statement is not true?" It could work — if everyone agreed on those definitions. But half of English speakers treat “woman” as a gender term distinct from “female.” That’s why law, medicine, and linguistics all separate sex and gender in their frameworks. So yes, your phrasing makes internal sense within your definition, but it doesn’t hold universally — and that’s precisely why clarifying terms like “trans woman” and “natal female woman” exist. They bridge two different uses of the same word. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me thats a callous thing to claim, that Thalidomide proves your point. It certainly doesn't, this horrible drug was released with all the available date, nobody knew this was wrong at the time, it was given to pregnant Mums because they believed the data was correct. And your assertion that the scientists changed their minds upon new data, fo you mean those poor babies born with those horrendous limb abnormalities, that new evidence? So this happened due to bad data, data the scientists said was good enough for the drug to be released. It's one of histories biggest examples of when data and evidence fucked up spectacularly. Your attempt at point scoring is not only, evidentially wrong but extremely distasteful, just think there's probably someone affected by this issue on here and you should apologise, Mrs x You’ve completely misunderstood my point — or worse, deliberately reframed it. What’s offensive isn’t what I said, but how you’ve chosen to twist it. Nothing in my post dismissed the tragedy; quite the opposite. Thalidomide is one of the clearest examples of why reasoning must always remain open to correction — evidence-based and opinion-based alike. When the evidence was later shown to be incomplete, medicine didn’t double down; it changed course. That’s how we ended up with far stricter drug-safety protocols today. The lesson of thalidomide isn’t that evidence failed — it’s that refusing to revise conclusions when better data appears is what causes real harm." Cant believe that you are treating this as an evidentiary triumph and not the damping evidentiary failing it was. Your last paragraph is so distasteful, absolutely abscence of morally decency. You said... "The lesson of thalidomide isn’t that evidence failed — it’s that refusing to revise conclusions when better data appears is what causes real harm." So the lesson isn't that the evidence failed you say but it, absolutely, is that the evidence failed. However its your second sentence thats reprehensible. Firstly no one is refusing to accept revision upon better evidence, but to say that this is what causes real harm. Thats outrageous. The 'real' harm is using incorrect data and evidence for profit and the expense of tiny babies arms and legs. Surely thats the real harm. Ending up with "...far stricter drug-safety protocols today.", seems to be your way of saying that this issue was actually a benefit, rather than an absolute tragedy. You really will say anything to try and prove a point, throwing behind you disfigured babies as you go along. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wasn't asked and answered. The question was "same could be achieved". It seems clear that it can, you've provided no evidence that it cannot. It's simple - "woman" can be an adult* female. "Trans woman" can be a biological male (adult*?) who has/is transitioned/ing. What evidence do you have that this logical statement is not true? It could work — if everyone agreed on those definitions. But half of English speakers treat “woman” as a gender term distinct from “female.” That’s why law, medicine, and linguistics all separate sex and gender in their frameworks. So yes, your phrasing makes internal sense within your definition, but it doesn’t hold universally — and that’s precisely why clarifying terms like “trans woman” and “natal female woman” exist. They bridge two different uses of the same word." Half of English speakers dont agree with this, where are you getting your figures from? Mrs c | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cant believe that you are treating this as an evidentiary triumph and not the damping evidentiary failing it was. Your last paragraph is so distasteful, absolutely abscence of morally decency. You said... "The lesson of thalidomide isn’t that evidence failed — it’s that refusing to revise conclusions when better data appears is what causes real harm." So the lesson isn't that the evidence failed you say but it, absolutely, is that the evidence failed. However its your second sentence thats reprehensible. Firstly no one is refusing to accept revision upon better evidence, but to say that this is what causes real harm. Thats outrageous. The 'real' harm is using incorrect data and evidence for profit and the expense of tiny babies arms and legs. Surely thats the real harm. Ending up with "...far stricter drug-safety protocols today.", seems to be your way of saying that this issue was actually a benefit, rather than an absolute tragedy. You really will say anything to try and prove a point, throwing behind you disfigured babies as you go along. Mrs x" You’re still misrepresenting what I said. At no point did I describe thalidomide as a “benefit.” I described how the response to its tragedy reshaped medical ethics and regulation. That’s not celebration — it’s historical fact. The evidence didn’t “fail” because evidence is a process, not a verdict. The failure was institutional — the misuse, misinterpretation, and lack of ongoing scrutiny. And yes, that harm came from people treating early data as final truth instead of remaining open to correction. If you read what I wrote honestly, you’d see I was condemning exactly that kind of complacency. The fact that medicine learned from it doesn’t erase the suffering; it proves why critical, self-correcting reasoning matters in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Both phrases specify context within the broader term “woman.” It doesn't have to be. There are people with males's genitals, there are people with women's genitals, there are people with males genitals but have some mental properties which are inclined more towards women and vice versa. Society has historically called the first group as men, the second group as women and the third group as trans men/women. You are trying to expand the definition of the word "women" because it's mightily convenient for you. This way, you will get automatic entry to every place where only women are allowed . You think it's clever and a nice shortcut to get what you want. But when you take shortcuts in politics, it will blowback on you big time, which is what is happening today. I will give you an example. Take women's boxing. If you just say that transwomen are women because you expanded the definition of women, transwomen should be allowed into women's boxing. But why are there separate categories for boxing in the first place? It's because of the physical differences between men and women, not because of mental differences. So people will be against allowing trans women in women's boxing. Instead of trying to take shortcuts by redefining the word "women", the right thing to do would be to keep trans women as a separate category and have good faith discussions about which of the women's spaces, transwomen have to be allowed. The approach that's taken today by the trans activists to redefine the word "women" was bound to receive major push back from people and that's what's happening now. No, and no again. You’re assuming that “woman” was ever an immutable biological term — it wasn’t. Across cultures and eras, “woman” has always referred to social role and identity, not simply anatomy. That’s why historians, anthropologists, and linguists treat it as a gendered category, not a fixed biological one. Nobody is “expanding” the definition for convenience; we’re recognising what’s already true — that trans women exist, that their identity is supported by decades of medical, psychological, and neurological research, and that society already differentiates between sex and gender when it matters (like in sport or medicine). And as for “shortcuts,” that’s a strange word for “using evidence and law.” The Equality Act doesn’t redefine womanhood on a whim; it codifies protection for those undergoing or having undergone gender reassignment because reality doesn’t fit into your neat binary. If you want a good-faith discussion about inclusion, great. But pretending that the entire definition of “woman” is your personal property isn’t an argument — it’s nostalgia for a world that never actually existed." But it did, and still does, exist. Take marriage, what does that contain? The unions of a man and a woman and this from a ceremony that 4xsited long before any theory of gender identity. You just want to create sunsets of the yerm woman so you can believe you are actually one type of woman, even though you'll only ever be a Trans woman. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Half of English speakers dont agree with this, where are you getting your figures from? Mrs c" I’ve already explained this in other threads. But if you’re asking again, then answer this in return — what makes you so sure your definition is correct, other than personal conviction? The 50/50 figure comes from polling and corpus analyses that show roughly half of respondents use woman interchangeably with female, while the rest treat it as a gender term distinct from sex. That’s why the distinction appears in law, medicine, and linguistics — because usage is split, not universal. You don’t have to like that, but pretending your view is the only legitimate one is the very thing you accuse others of doing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cant believe that you are treating this as an evidentiary triumph and not the damping evidentiary failing it was. Your last paragraph is so distasteful, absolutely abscence of morally decency. You said... "The lesson of thalidomide isn’t that evidence failed — it’s that refusing to revise conclusions when better data appears is what causes real harm." So the lesson isn't that the evidence failed you say but it, absolutely, is that the evidence failed. However its your second sentence thats reprehensible. Firstly no one is refusing to accept revision upon better evidence, but to say that this is what causes real harm. Thats outrageous. The 'real' harm is using incorrect data and evidence for profit and the expense of tiny babies arms and legs. Surely thats the real harm. Ending up with "...far stricter drug-safety protocols today.", seems to be your way of saying that this issue was actually a benefit, rather than an absolute tragedy. You really will say anything to try and prove a point, throwing behind you disfigured babies as you go along. Mrs x You’re still misrepresenting what I said. At no point did I describe thalidomide as a “benefit.” I described how the response to its tragedy reshaped medical ethics and regulation. That’s not celebration — it’s historical fact. The evidence didn’t “fail” because evidence is a process, not a verdict. The failure was institutional — the misuse, misinterpretation, and lack of ongoing scrutiny. And yes, that harm came from people treating early data as final truth instead of remaining open to correction. If you read what I wrote honestly, you’d see I was condemning exactly that kind of complacency. The fact that medicine learned from it doesn’t erase the suffering; it proves why critical, self-correcting reasoning matters in the first place." Please, anybody else have a view on this, I dont want to say anymore to someone who says the evidence didnt fail. It fucking did, the evidence used to sell this horrible drug did fail pregnant Mums and their unborn children. It makes no difference that the evidence changed, the original evidence was a spectacular failure, you are being vile saying otherwise. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But it did, and still does, exist. Take marriage, what does that contain? The unions of a man and a woman and this from a ceremony that 4xsited long before any theory of gender identity. You just want to create sunsets of the yerm woman so you can believe you are actually one type of woman, even though you'll only ever be a Trans woman. Mrs x" Again, when you move from general statements to ones targeting me personally, it stops being protected belief and starts being discrimination. And citing marriage as proof of what woman “really” means ignores that marriage itself has changed definitions countless times — from property transfer, to religious covenant, to legal contract between equals, and now between any two partners. Society evolves, and language follows. Offering one historic example doesn’t make your definition universal, especially when that same history spent centuries erasing evidence of gender diversity. Anthropology, law, and medicine all acknowledge that now — the world’s just catching up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But it did, and still does, exist. Take marriage, what does that contain? The unions of a man and a woman and this from a ceremony that 4xsited long before any theory of gender identity. You just want to create sunsets of the yerm woman so you can believe you are actually one type of woman, even though you'll only ever be a Trans woman. Mrs x Again, when you move from general statements to ones targeting me personally, it stops being protected belief and starts being discrimination. And citing marriage as proof of what woman “really” means ignores that marriage itself has changed definitions countless times — from property transfer, to religious covenant, to legal contract between equals, and now between any two partners. Society evolves, and language follows. Offering one historic example doesn’t make your definition universal, especially when that same history spent centuries erasing evidence of gender diversity. Anthropology, law, and medicine all acknowledge that now — the world’s just catching up." It shows that historically people know what woman means. And how have I discriminated against you, I've just quoted a general principle of Gender Criticism, when I said you I mean all Trans woman, you are not unique or discriminated against. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No, and no again. You’re assuming that “woman” was ever an immutable biological term — it wasn’t. " Just because it can be changed doesn't mean it has to change. " Across cultures and eras, “woman” has always referred to social role and identity, not simply anatomy. " Did we have women's boxing separately because of social roles or for physical reasons? " Nobody is “expanding” the definition for convenience; we’re recognising what’s already true — that trans women exist, that their identity is supported by decades of medical, psychological, and neurological research, and that society already differentiates between sex and gender when it matters (like in sport or medicine). " Trans women exist, yes. But it doesn't mean they should automatically get rights to all women only spaces. " And as for “shortcuts,” that’s a strange word for “using evidence and law.” The Equality Act doesn’t redefine womanhood on a whim; it codifies protection for those undergoing or having undergone gender reassignment because reality doesn’t fit into your neat binary. " If the law is changed, will you agree with the new law? That's the problem with the "because the law says so" argument. The law is not worth anything if you don't have the society's support. " If you want a good-faith discussion about inclusion, great. But pretending that the entire definition of “woman” is your personal property isn’t an argument — it’s nostalgia for a world that never actually existed." Take a poll and ask how many people believe that trans women are just a sub category of women and let me know which world never existed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Opinions are often also based on facts, just not ones that can be cited by an Internet hyperlink. Opinions are also based on lived experience, again not linkable. You want to discuss how explosives work? Good luck citing sources. Likewise, what is posted online is not irrefutable, no matter who posted it. Most government authorities and institutions have been involved in some sort of scandal." You’re absolutely right — and in the current UK climate it’s somehow easier to find a bomb-making guide than to access a trans advice subreddit, because LGBTQIA+ spaces keep getting shoved behind the same age-verification walls meant to block pornography. But an opinion isn’t automatically true just because it’s sincerely held. The only way to tell if something’s true is to challenge it and test it. That’s the basis of reasoning — you evaluate through questioning, observation, and data. In other words, evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It shows that historically people know what woman means. And how have I discriminated against you, I've just quoted a general principle of Gender Criticism, when I said you I mean all Trans woman, you are not unique or discriminated against. Mrs x" That defence doesn’t hold up. The moment you say “you’ll only ever be a trans woman,” you’ve moved from describing a general belief to making a statement about me personally. That’s the distinction the Equality Act makes — belief is protected, targeting individuals with it is not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Take a poll and ask how many people believe that trans women are just a sub category of women and let me know which world never existed " My understanding is that in most sports, the original male/female split wasn’t purely biological — a big part of it was social. Historically, many male athletes didn’t want to risk losing to women because it was seen as humiliating. That context shaped policy long before we had modern performance data. I don’t know the specific case for boxing, though. As for your comments about women’s spaces — I’ve never argued what you’re pushing back against. I’ve said consistently (including in the EHRC guidance thread) that exclusion must meet the legal test to be lawful. That’s it. And on your final point: yes, if the law changes, I’ll acknowledge the new law, whether I agree or not. That’s the distinction between principle and ideology. The problem is that your question assumes the conclusion — that the majority agrees with you and defines the truth. But evidence and law aren’t popularity contests; they exist precisely to correct us when popular opinion gets things wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It shows that historically people know what woman means. And how have I discriminated against you, I've just quoted a general principle of Gender Criticism, when I said you I mean all Trans woman, you are not unique or discriminated against. Mrs x That defence doesn’t hold up. The moment you say “you’ll only ever be a trans woman,” you’ve moved from describing a general belief to making a statement about me personally. That’s the distinction the Equality Act makes — belief is protected, targeting individuals with it is not." Im not targeting you. What do you think Gender Critical theory thinks about this, is it anything different from what I've said. Trans woman are Trans woman, woman are woman ergo, you as a Trans woman wont be a woman, that my belief. That doesn't mean you have to believe that, it just means I dont believe what you do, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So do you believe Eugenics is an example of evidence that was incorrect, or are you just going to ignore this. Or maybe argue that it led to positive changes in International law or upgraded the economic privileges of a group by taking them from Africa and transporting them to America, the land of opportunity? Mrs x" That’s a fucking vile line of questioning, and it bears no resemblance to what I actually said. You’ve taken a discussion about how evidence corrects human error and twisted it into some grotesque caricature about genocide and sl@very. That’s not argument — it’s character assassination. If this is how far you have to go to avoid engaging with what I actually said, then maybe it’s time to stop pretending you’re arguing in good faith. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im not targeting you. What do you think Gender Critical theory thinks about this, is it anything different from what I've said. Trans woman are Trans woman, woman are woman ergo, you as a Trans woman wont be a woman, that my belief. That doesn't mean you have to believe that, it just means I dont believe what you do, Mrs x" And that’s exactly what makes it discrimination. You’re not just stating a belief — you’re applying it directly to me in a way that denies a characteristic protected under law. You’re free to believe what you like about gender in general, but when you direct it toward an individual with “you’ll never be a woman,” it crosses from belief into conduct. That’s not how protected beliefs work — it’s how harassment works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So do you believe Eugenics is an example of evidence that was incorrect, or are you just going to ignore this. Or maybe argue that it led to positive changes in International law or upgraded the economic privileges of a group by taking them from Africa and transporting them to America, the land of opportunity? Mrs x That’s a fucking vile line of questioning, and it bears no resemblance to what I actually said. You’ve taken a discussion about how evidence corrects human error and twisted it into some grotesque caricature about genocide and sl@very. That’s not argument — it’s character assassination. If this is how far you have to go to avoid engaging with what I actually said, then maybe it’s time to stop pretending you’re arguing in good faith." Do you want me to keep quoting you, what you said? If you just answered the question rather than challenging my motivations you could have proved to be reasonable. But you havent, in fact you are mirroring my posts. It's hard to spin anything positive about Eugenics and thats why I've used it. It's proof that evidence isn't the be all and end all of an argument. But I was right in thinking you'd actually answer it, that speaks volumes, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im not targeting you. What do you think Gender Critical theory thinks about this, is it anything different from what I've said. Trans woman are Trans woman, woman are woman ergo, you as a Trans woman wont be a woman, that my belief. That doesn't mean you have to believe that, it just means I dont believe what you do, Mrs x And that’s exactly what makes it discrimination. You’re not just stating a belief — you’re applying it directly to me in a way that denies a characteristic protected under law. You’re free to believe what you like about gender in general, but when you direct it toward an individual with “you’ll never be a woman,” it crosses from belief into conduct. That’s not how protected beliefs work — it’s how harassment works." But it's not harassment, you've just been trying to say its discrimination, its like you are not sure what it is. It's not directed at you, It's directed at my beliefs that sex and gender are not discrete, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At this point, I have concluded that whenever one forumite creates or comments on a thread, another forumite joins in, but not in an intellectual or educational manner, or even one of good will. And still, I wonder why they do this? I suggest Socrates for you, Mrs x Oh, I fully understand Socratic questioning. It would be nice to see it being used in the politics threads. It would make for far better discussions. I agree, so why have you posted your post this morning? It's not related to the thread? So if you are going to attack a poster, I presume its me, what evidence have you got to back this up? Mrs x " "You really are a special case" "Troll" Threats to deliberately miss gender. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" My understanding is that in most sports, the original male/female split wasn’t purely biological — a big part of it was social. Historically, many male athletes didn’t want to risk losing to women because it was seen as humiliating. That context shaped policy long before we had modern performance data. I don’t know the specific case for boxing, though. " That's quite a story. Today, do you think we should allow trans women into women's boxing? Do you think people are supportive of such a thing? It's outright dangerous. This is why trying to take the shortcut of just redefining the word women for your convenience receives a lot of push back because it's a dangerous precedent in many cases where gender is used. " As for your comments about women’s spaces — I’ve never argued what you’re pushing back against. I’ve said consistently (including in the EHRC guidance thread) that exclusion must meet the legal test to be lawful. That’s it. And on your final point: yes, if the law changes, I’ll acknowledge the new law, whether I agree or not. That’s the distinction between principle and ideology. " You have been making arguments based on law. It's not just acknowledging it. You are relying on it to make moral arguments. " The problem is that your question assumes the conclusion — that the majority agrees with you and defines the truth. But evidence and law aren’t popularity contests; they exist precisely to correct us when popular opinion gets things wrong." Democracy is a popularity contest. Definitions of words come from society. Not from some suit wearing bureaucrats. If you want to change things like this, you have to get the people's support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you want me to keep quoting you, what you said? If you just answered the question rather than challenging my motivations you could have proved to be reasonable. But you havent, in fact you are mirroring my posts. It's hard to spin anything positive about Eugenics and thats why I've used it. It's proof that evidence isn't the be all and end all of an argument. But I was right in thinking you'd actually answer it, that speaks volumes, Mrs x" Not it isn’t. It’s proof that people with vile intentions can fabricate propaganda, disguise it as science, and weaponise it to justify atrocities. That’s not a failure of evidence — it’s a failure of ethics. Eugenics wasn’t “evidence gone wrong,” it was ideology masquerading as evidence. If anything, the fact it was later disproven by real scientific scrutiny is exactly why testable, verifiable evidence matters. You’re not exposing a flaw in empiricism — you’re showing what happens when people abandon it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you want me to keep quoting you, what you said? If you just answered the question rather than challenging my motivations you could have proved to be reasonable. But you havent, in fact you are mirroring my posts. It's hard to spin anything positive about Eugenics and thats why I've used it. It's proof that evidence isn't the be all and end all of an argument. But I was right in thinking you'd actually answer it, that speaks volumes, Mrs x Not it isn’t. It’s proof that people with vile intentions can fabricate propaganda, disguise it as science, and weaponise it to justify atrocities. That’s not a failure of evidence — it’s a failure of ethics. Eugenics wasn’t “evidence gone wrong,” it was ideology masquerading as evidence. If anything, the fact it was later disproven by real scientific scrutiny is exactly why testable, verifiable evidence matters. You’re not exposing a flaw in empiricism — you’re showing what happens when people abandon it." No matter what the Nazis did with the evidence, it was produced and followed. It makes no difference to the 6 million victims of the Fin1 mal solution or to those sl@ves transported across oceans. These decisions were made using evidence. All you have to say is that the evidence was wrong in this instance, Obviously only the original flawed evidence but in this case, just like in Thalidomide, it was wrong and it led to atrocities. It's just an example of evidence not being correct. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
