robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
For some balance this is quite an interesting article too. It argues against the notion that sex (or what used to be called gender) is binary on grounds of genetics, neurobiology and endocrinology.
I am no expert on the subject but I am puzzled by the line of argument presented. Surely what above all or most completely defines a female is possession of reproductive sexual organs that enable her to bear children (irrespective of whether these organs malfunction or at not used for this purpose in the case of say a celibate nun)
The article points out that XX individuals (chromosomally female) could present with male gonads while XY individuals (chromosomally male) can have ovaries. But these are very rare exceptions to the rule that surely prove the rule. Assertions about the binary nature of sex are generalisations but you dont say a generalisation is invalid because exceptions can be found to contradict the generalisation. That’s not a reasonable argument. Its like saying we don’t live in a class divided society because some own enough capital that makes it difficult to determine whether they are workers or capitalists
The article also makes this point:
Especially alarming is that these “intellectual” assertions are used by nonscientists to claim a scientific basis for the dehumanization of trans people. The real world consequences are stacking up: the trans military ban, bathroom bills, and removal of workplace and medical discrimination protections, a 41-51 percent suicide attempt rate and targeted fatal violence . It’s not just internet trolling anymore.
I frankly fail to see how describing biological sex differentiation in broadly binary terms leads to the “dehumanisation of trans people”. This is the sort of woolly minded PC nonsense we have had to put with over at the Ultras v Tankies FB group. Human beings are not defined by their sexuality. Their sexuality is but one component part of their self identity, not the whole of it. And nobody is denying transpeople – or at least I am not – their right to express their sexuality as trans people
It is totally possible to see transgenderism as an essentially social construct while at the same time being vigorously opposed to the expression of transphobic prejudices directed against such people. Human beings are social animals and the emergence of a social construct like transgenderism in no way diminishes our humanity
LBird
Ok so you’ve come out and said it clearly – there will be specialists in a socialist society
Good
So on to the next step. You say:
If you argue ‘the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically‘, that’s fine, it’s a political and philosophical position which I don’t share.
Lets look at this
firstly I don’t really know what you are getting at when you say this. What do you mean by “control”? Theorizing a creative spontaneous process. Trying to control it as the Church did with Galileo – to give my example – is completely antithetical to the very spirit of scientific enquiry which must be open-ended and self critical. You cant have some official dogma being imposed from above to which the scientists are expected to dutifully conform. That’s surely not what you are suggesting is it?
Secondly, since you now clearly agree that there will be a specialists in a socialist society then I assume you agree with the logically corollary of this which is that specialists are privy to information, theories or ideas which are not generally known to the general public. They wouldn’t be specialists otherwise
Now since by definition the general public is not familiar with the substance of these theories known only to the specialists how on earth do you suppose they – the general public – can make a democratic decision as to whether these theories are “true” or not. The idea is ludicrous on many grounds. Democracy depends on information. You cant vote for something unless you know what it is you are actually voting for
See, when you say the theories of the specialists should be “democratically controlled” by society as a whole this sounds very much like you are saying that society as a whole will consider each of these theories in turn and adjudicate on them – determine whether they are true or not. Amongst other things that’s just not possible if you as a lay person are completely unfamiliar with what it is the specialists are talking about
Perhaps what you mean is that society as a whole should “democratically control” the priorities or direction of scientific research – not the actual substance of the theories the scientists come out with. For instance more emphasis should be placed on tackling climate change than space travel
If so, then that is a much more reasonable argument to make but the way you construct your argument makes it very difficult to know what it is you are actually saying. Perhaps you need to clarify this. Do you mean simply that the general public in socialism democratically controls the broad direction in which scientific research is headed rather than the substantive content of scientific theorising??
When it comes to sex/gender i always felt an affinity with Marge Pierce’s book, ‘Woman on the Edge of Time’ where differences are so blurred that sexual identity became an irrelevance. Isn’t socialism ultimately about unisex?
Alan
I am not quite sure what you have in mind by this last comment. I cant honestly see sexual identity ever becoming an irrelevance. It is so closely bound up with our own sense of ourselves. We are biological beings as well as social beings and, as such, are subject to biological urges that push us in some directions rather than others albeit mediated as ever by social context. For the majority of us, we do tend to discriminate as to whom we find sexually attractive which then shapes our own sense of sexual identity in particular ways
For me transgenderism is a social construct – which doesn’t make it any the less valid. It is only in the very basic biological sense that transwomen cannot be considered women because they lack the reproductive organs that define a woman and enable her to bear children. This is hardly controversial and no trans-woman would disagree with this statement. Controversy only arises in the context of particular situations such as the examples we have already referred to like sporting events , the use of public toilets, prisons and the behaviour of prison inmates etc etc, It is in these particular situations that I think there is some reason to be concerned as the links Jordan has supplied demonstrate
In general though I think this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion and is a fuss about nothing really – or, at any rate, is just fuss over the meaning of words. Like I said the word “gender”, a few decades ago meant something quite different to what it means today and if you are going to define gender as a social construct as tends to be the case today then there is little argument that the “gender£ of a transwoman is a woman. On the other hand if you define gender as it used to be defined as a biological construct – so only females can bear children, males cant – then a transwoman clearly is not a woman
Pick your own definition and run with it
There is quite a useful explanation here which puts the matter in context and addresses the question of what might be called exceptions to the rule
https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Chap1.pdf
But while we think of sex as biological and
gender as social, this distinction is not clear-cut. People tend to think of gender as the result of nurture – as social and hence fluid – while sex is the result of nature, simply given by biology. However, nature and nurture intertwine, and there is no obvious point at which sex leaves off and gender begins. But the sharp demarcation fails because there is no single objective biological criterion for male or female sex. Sex is based in a combination of anatomical, endocrinal and chromosomal features, and the selection among these criteria for sex assignment is based very much on cultural beliefs about what actually makes someone male or female. Thus the very definition of the biological categories male and female, and people’s understanding of themselves and others as male or female, is ultimately social. Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000) sums
up the situation as follows:labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision. We may use scientific knowledge to help us make the decision, but only our beliefs about gender – not science – can define our sex.
Furthermore, our beliefs about gender affect what kinds of knowledge scientists produce about sex in the first place. (p. 3)Biology offers up dichotomous male and female prototypes, but it also offers us many individuals who do not fit those prototypes in a variety of ways. Blackless et al. (2000) estimate that 1 in 100 babies are born with bodies that differ in some way from standard male or female.
These bodies may have such conditions as unusual chromosomal makeup (e.g., 1 in 1,000 male babies are born with two X chromosomes as well as a Y, hormonal differences such as insensitivity to androgens (1 in 13,000 births), or a range of configurations and combinations of genitals and reproductive organs. The attribution of intersex does not end at birth – for example, 1 in 66 girls experience growth of the clitoris in childhood or adolescence (known as late onset adrenal hyperplasia)Well, I’ve never ‘tried to get around this point’, robbo!
My whole point is that it’s a political and philosophical stance that I don’t share, and that I argue Marx didn’t, either.
Your political and philosophical ideology separates society into two (‘specialists’ and ‘us’), and takes present social production (‘they have’ and ‘we don’t’) as eternal.So are you now backtracking on your earlier position when you seemed to agree there would indeed be specialists in a socialist society in the sense of individuals who have undergone intensive training over a long period of time to equip them with the particular skills required to accomplish certain very complex tasks?
Take for example a neurosurgeon. If you are saying there will be no specialists in a socialist society then presumably you mean
1) there will be no neurosurgeons in socialism – a very bad idea particularly for people in need of neurosurgery!
or
2) We will all be neurosurgeons – also a very bad idea for reasons that are all too obvious
I frankly don’t care what Marx had to say on the subject. Some of his observations relating to the emergence of the “polytechnic worker” able to perform any task society required was complete baloney. You cannot operate a large scale complex modern society without some degree of specialisation, some division of labour. The difference in socialism is that 1) it wont be a coerced division of labour and 2) it will be less well defined in the sense that everyone, specialists included , will be able to undertake a greater variety of jobs. That is to say there will be a greater tendency towards generalist work – work that anybody can do
So, if you argue that ‘theories’ will not be subject to democratic controls, you must specify to whose control they will be subject. This is a political (and thus philosophical) question.
Why does the formulation of theories have to be “controlled” in the first place??? Whats with this control freakery? Why cannot people just contribute spontaneously and freely to scientific discourse as and when their thought processes dictate and voluntarily engage with their peers as and when they see fit? Why should this be seen as a problem? Subjecting these thought processes to any control let alone democratic control will kill off scientific curiosity and scientific theorising. Its what the Catholic Church did to Galileo. Is this what you want?
Ironically, robbo, I see this as an argument for the democratisation of science.There are, even at present, no ‘specialists’ who can out-think the rest of society. This will be even more the case in the future.
No, you are missing the point. The rest of society does not know about neurosurgery than the the community of neurosurgeons themselves. I wouldn’t know where to begin if I were given a scalpel and confronted with someone’s exposed brain. Nor would you. Nor would 99.99% of the population. We have no choice but to put our fate in the hands of specialists like neurosurgeons if we need a brain tumour removed.
My point is that the neurosurgeons, though being specialists in their own field , are complete lay people like the rest of us when it comes to some other field or scientific discipline. They would be just as incapable of deciding whether the theory of anti-matter in astrophysics was true or not as the rest of us. No one individual can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge and yet you are expecting everyone in society to pronounce in the virtues of every scientific theory that arises in society and put it to a vote.
This is simply no possible by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it needed. Democracy has a role in the practical application of scientific theory in the form of technological innovation but emphatically not in the formulation of scientific theories themselves
Any knowledge of the history and social importance of ‘science’ makes me wonder how you can assume those three beliefs: ‘practice’ (no, it’s a ‘theory and practice’), ‘obscure’ (no, this is a conscious product of bourgeois science, to hide it from the majority), and ‘no practical impact’ (no, the impact on society of science is enormously important).
LBird
I didn’t suggest the impact of science on society was not enormously important. That’s not my argument. Scientific research for example leads to technological innovations which often have significant practical impacts on society – which impacts, I agree, should be subject to some measure of democratic control
But we are not talking the application or implementation of such innovations, we are talking solely about the development of scientific theories themselves which you want to subject to democratic control. I would argue this is neither desirable – it would inhibit scientific enquiry and investigation as well as serve no purpose – nor is it remotely practical. How can 8 billion people vote on some arcane theory such the concept of anti- matter when the overwhelmingly majority of us know little or nothing about this concept? How do you even go about organising such a global plebiscite anyway for this and thousands and thousands of other scientific theories anyway
You say
I would regard Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’ as a fundamental part of democratic socialism, the theory and practice of which would be taught through a democratic education system, to enable all to understand and participate in this ‘science’.
I am not opposed to the idea of a broad brush approach to raising people’s interest in science and encouraging them to become more scientific literate but at the end of the day its still going to be the specialists who are going to be, perforce, the ones who will be involved in expanding the frontiers of science, rather than us, if only because they have the necessary expertise and training to do so in their specialized field of science and we don’t. There is no getting around this point however much you try to, LBird
For the general population, and even the scientists themselves, large chunks of science will inevitably remain obscure if only because the whole body of scientific knowledge has grown so huge and complex that no one individual is capable of absorbing anything more than a tiny fraction of it.
Hi Jordan
Some very interesting stuff you present. Relevant to some of the links you gave concerning the unfair advantage trans women have over cis women in such areas as competitive sports there is this link I came across
Its actually quite a minefield walking through this whole topic of transgenderism. While the biological basis of transgenderism on which you have been focussing is fundamentally questionable – a man cannot literally become a woman in a biological sense or vice versa – there is this question of gender identity we have to grapple with
While you and I may use the term gender in its original sense as against the rather sloppy contemporary usage, referring to what sex one subjectively prefers to identify with, there is the question of how to address what is essentially the social phenomenon that is transgenderism
While trans folk may not be able to present a definition of gender identity that is falsifiable, as you say, I think it is important to separate this issue from the question of transphobia which is a prejudice against these folk. The word phobia means “an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something”
Like you, I have been accused of harbouring transphobic views on the Ultra vs Tankies FB group simply for questioning the biological basis of transgenderism. I actually think the charge of transphobia is quite outrageous and insulting since I made it absolutely clear that I have nothing whatsoever against people wanting to identify as trans people and I strongly oppose any victimisation of or discrimination against these people whatsoever.
However, it seems that merely to question the biological basis of transgenderism is tantamount to transphobia in the eyes of the Idpol Stalinists that administer the above FB group. I just don’t get it. Until a trans-women, born a man, is able to give birth to a child, there is no way she can be considered a woman in a biological sense, only in a social sense.
Ironically there was a transwoman on that forum who freely acknowledged this point and yet still accused me of harbouring transphobic views for making this very point! I think if anything is going to bring transgenderism into disrepute it is people like this who want to suppress scientific facts lest it it undermines their narrative. They are their own worst enemies. They actually make it easy for transphobes to attack them
For myself, I see nothing wrong with acknowledging and celebrating transgenderism as a social construction rather than a biological construction. If people want to identify as trans why not? Its up to them surely?
There are admittedly some problems arising from this and you point to the case of trans woman competing against cis women in sports which I refer to above (there is the notable example of that South African athlete in the news at the moment). Broadly based phenotypical differences linked to differences in biological sex, would clearly seem to afford such individuals an unfair advantage. Can it really be the case that preventing such individuals competing in these events amounts to victimisation? To use an analogy, would it be acceptable for an athlete to use a performance enhancing drug in competition with other athletes who refrain using this drug? The parallels are obvious
Really, to be consistent supporters of trans woman participating in women-only sport events should call for the removal of any and all sex discrimination in any and all sporting events including, say, boxing or rugby. I am not aware of any who do and I am not surprised that they don’t appear to either…
This is “cancel culture” gone potty. Kicking a teenager out of school for arguing that there are only two genders is ridiculous. The modern official definition of gender may include more varieties but this is only a very recent development. Go back 20, 30 or 40 years and the view of the teenager would be the conventional view. Its like us arguing for the classical Marxian definition of socialism. Are we wrong to persist with this definition when a majority of people think socialism has something to do with the state owning or controlling the economy
Its interesting that the teacher should have said the teenager was entitled to hold his views but he was still removed from the class (and eventually the school after the video went viral), I’ve had similar treatment at the hands of the Idpol Stalinists that run the Ultras v Tankies Facebook Group from which our comrade, Jordan, was expelled. When I challenged these bigots to produce any evidence that Jordan was “transphobic” I too was expelled – despite making clear that I had no problem whatsoever with trans folk and indeed strongly oppose the kind of victimisation many of these individuals experience
The problem with some (not all) of those individuals on that FB group is that they don’t understand what the argument is about over gender. nor do they have much of a clue of what “transphobia” is. They should look up the word “phobia” in a dictionary
“Cancel culture” has provided the Right with a great opportunity to make a laughing stock of the Left. Not that we identify as Left, of course, since we oppose both wings of the capitalist spectrum. But in this case the Left has only itself to blame for the lease of life its own stupidities have given to the Right
A simple answer to your point LBird
I believe there will specialists in socialism – for instance not everyone, or even most people, would be an astrophysicist in socialism – and I had thought you had already agreed that this would be the case. However, the knowledge that a astrophysicist possesses in his/her field of specialisation will give that person no social power whatsoever over the general public unfamiliar with astrophysical theories in a socialist society. So, very largely, the merits of any particular astrophysical theory will, in practice, tend to be debated by only by those with the necessary knowledge to engage in such a debate.
I don’t see any problem with this at all. Nor does this prevent any layperson or novice/amateur astrophysicist joining in the debate if they so wish. Of course astrophysicists will themselves be laypersons like the general public when it comes to some other specialised branch of science (such as, say, molecular biology or neurology) so the notion of a “scientific elite” is questionable for this reason too.
You then go on to make an unwarranted inference. You say “You seem to believe that there will be no social power, no politics, within democratic socialism“. Well, there wont be politics in the sense that this is bound up with the existence of a state (which wont exist in socialism) but power? That’s a different matter. It is not my view that there wont be “social power” in a socialist society
As I recall having pointed out to you in the past – there will be plenty of democratic decision-making in socialism but it will be focused on practical decisions that impact on the interests of individuals and communities.
THIS is where social power will be wielded – not in obscure (for most people) scientific debates about whether string theory is true or not. Whether it is true or not has no practical impact on the lives of individuals and communities and so there will be no need for scientific theories to be subject to democratic decision-making anyway – even assuming any purpose was served in making scientific theory subject to such decision-making in the first place. As I said, far better to just let the scientists agree to disagree
Whenever I ask ‘Who determines truth within socialism’, you don’t answer that it will be brought “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
You answer that truth will be determined by ‘Specialists’, an elite separate from “the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
The scientific method “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat” is democracy.LBird,
I thought you had agreed many moons ago that there would indeed be specialists in socialism along with generalists (More realistically I think we will all be part specialists/part generalists – its a matter of degree). That could hardly NOT be the case otherwise you would be saying that we could all be completely knowledgeable about branch of science whatsoever – and any theory arising within any such branch. Meaning we would all be fully able to “democratically” determine the truth of the theory being debated.
After all you cant say the theory is true or false if you are not even aware of the theory or are even motivated to find out what the theory is about. No individual , even the most gifted scientist, can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge.
Given this constraint could you please explain how the truth of any particular scientific theory is going to determined “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat” in socialism.
Also would you to explain why it is even necessary that the truth of a theory should be “democratically determined”. What is the purpose? I can understand and fully support democratic decision making in the case of some practical decision that will effect people in some practical way but why should the “truth” of scientific theories be “democratically decided”. Why can we not just agree to differ? You can never win over a minority by imposing a majority view on them and it seems pointless even trying
Thanks TM
Well it couldn’t have been the Angelus because I can recall us kids filing into chapel in the evenings for short spell of prayers of some sort
I guess one reason the Catholic Church is inordinately targeted by comparison with Protestantism is that it is more formidably institutionalised along hierarchical lines. Protestantism takes a more individualistic approach to religion without the church mediating so conspicuously between you and God. So it sits more comfortably with capitalism.
That, I believe, was part of the argument Max Weber used in his 1905 text “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. Protestantism was more amenable to the accumulation of capital and worldly wealth
Started in the just pre Vatican II era, Latin mass, once a week in school, marched off to benediction every Thursday afternoon (replaced by Stations of the Cross during Lent).
You lucky sod, BD! At my old catholic school in South Africa we had to endure compulsory mass TWICE a week plus prayers – I think it was called “angelus” or something like that – every evening. It was the sheer boredom of it all that put me off religion eventually
You mention confession. I remember around the age of 11 or so being inordinately obsessed with the distinction between venial sin and mortal sin – the former (for those not aware of the difference) landing you in purgatory; the latter condemning you to everlasting hellfire. You certainly wouldn’t want to be struck down dead just having committed a mortal sin.
So it became quite imperative to clean your slate ASAP or at least weekly. Then you could start all over again the following week = ‘cos, lets face it, committing a sin was fun (particularly when the hormones started kicking in) but you wouldn’t want it to get out of hand. For instance, you wouldn’t want to commit a mortal sin on Monday and have to wait anxiously till Friday when your confession was heard in case you were knocked over and killed by the number 56 bus on Wednesday. The prospect of going to purgatory on the other hand, was bearable because it was only temporary – a bit like detention after school hours – and, besides, nobody’s perfect.
I once broke a wooden post on the school site playing “tossing the caber” when there was some building work being done on the school with building materials lying which us kids loved to get our hands on. I recall fretting over the monetary value of the wooden post and wondering whether it was sufficient to warrant the charge of having committed a mortal sin. Somehow I had got it into my head that the monetary value of a mortal sin was in the region of ten South African Rands and I nervously enquired of the priest in the confession box the following Friday whether he could confirm this was the case
Its quite extraordinary what religious beliefs can do to young impressionable minds!
Here’s another explanation of the etymology of the word gender
from the link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938009If you research the etymology of the word gender you discover that the word gender, up until the 1970’s in academia, and up until the 2010’s in the general populace, had an identical meaning to sex. Gender meant sex. Gender was used in writing and conversation in preference to the word sex, because sex also meant sexual intercourse. So to prevent confusion and so as to not evoke the thought of sex, the word gender was used. Gender meant “sex and I don’t mean fucking”. This meaning of gender originated back in the 17th century if I recall correctly.
In the 1970s, certain non-scientific branches of academia invented an entirely new concept and attached the label “gender” to it. The concept was that the way one presents themselves in society is “gender”. This historically has never been the meaning of gender. The public at large continued to use gender in the original meaning (as you will see with official forms asking for ‘gender’. If they asked for ‘sex’, people would add a box with “yes please” on it and tick it).In the 2010s this new meaning of gender leaked out of academic circles and into the general vernacular. But it is a concept that is entirely the invention of left-leaning academics, cross citing each other repeatedly in echo chamber journals.
You say there is “great variety in both”, but this is not true. There is great variety in “gender as a social construct”, that is, the cosmetic way people dress, do their hair etc. But there is not great variety in “sex and I don’t mean fucking”. Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are extremely rare and do not constitute a new sex and are recognised medically as disorders. For example, XXYY occurs in 1 in 18,000 to 40,000 male births. XXXXY occurs in 1 in 85,000 to 100,000 male births. Compare that to the “normal” male sex characteristics, or the “normal” female sex characteristics, that each occur in about 1 in 2 births.
People erroneously make the claim that other conditions, like triple X syndrome, constitute a DSD (occurs in 1 in 1000 females), but because it causes no health issues or abnormal development it is not considered a DSD by the medical community. The DSD Guideline documents [http://www.dsdguidelines.org] are a trustworthy source of information and definitions.
Thomas and Jordan
Like I say, I’m no expert on the subject but it seems , Thomas, you may be right about the meaning of the word “gender” having changed. Here’s an excerpt from https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
“gender (n.)
c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle’s Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).
The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
As far as the World Health Organisation’s definition of gender as the socially constructed characteristics of individuals this does seem to be quite a widely used definition
See for example the following links
https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363(this article says “Historically, the terms “sex” and “gender” have been used interchangeably, but their uses are becoming increasingly distinct, and it is important to understand the differences between the two”)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
https://genderspectrum.org/articles/understanding-gender
My wife who is Spanish tells me that at least in Spain the term “gender” refers to biological differences rather social constructs This would be more in line with your understanding of the term Thomas and how it used to be widely understood in the past
You may have misread me. Gender is a biological fact, and I was asking how do all these “woke” (?) people explain that, according to them, humans, who are animals, have 27+ (?) genders,
Hi Thomas,
I think you might have the terms the wrong way round but I am no expert on this subject. Still, according to WHO:
“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities. Gender-based discrimination intersects with other factors of discrimination, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. This is referred to as intersectionality.
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.”
(https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1)One final comment – I became aware of the controversy surrounding Jordan’s Twitter post because someone on the Ultras v Tankies FB group tagged me to get me to explain how or where Jordan acquired what he called these transphobic views. I have challenged this group to explain in what way Jordan was being transphobic and have yet to receive a coherent response. It seems many people in this FB group don’t understand the meaning of the term phobic. That didn’t stop them expelling Jordan from the group in a typical display of woke intolerance.
No wonder the Left is in such disarray
We wouldn’t qualify (not enough followers, at least not yet) and wouldn’t accept the condition to carry advertising as well ( would we?).
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en
I think the American comrades were discussing the possibility of advertising on FB so it might be possible…
