Graham Linehan

[ClaphamFox]

24 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Still where is semenya supposed to go? 

As I said, I don't have strong opinions on this issue in general, just don't like that the voice of women is generally being assumed by men, and serious assaults are being assumed linked to the trans community without any evidence given to support that. Feel like it's more about people not liking trans people than anything else.

It really isn’t. It’s about the fact that sex is binary, it is etched in your chromosones and biology, and you cannot change it. The existence of rare conditions such as DSDs are biological anomalies. They do not amount to a third sex. Some people prefer to present in a way traditionally associated with the opposite sex - and good luck to them. Nobody should be allow to discriminate against them because of this choice. 
 

But the ‘rights’ that trans people believe they have are not the only rights, and in a pluralistic society when subjective notions of identity collide with objective reality, most people would agree that it is reality, not identity, that should inform law and policy. As a general rule, the demands of a tiny minority of people should not force the vast majority to make profound changes to customs, law and policy. So trans-identifying people are welcome to believe that they are the opposite sex, and present as such if they wish, but that does not mean everyone else has to go along with it. 

Edited 21 October 2025 by ClaphamFox

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It really isn’t. It’s about the fact that sex is binary, it is etched in your chromosones and biology, and you cannot change it. The existence of rare conditions such as DSDs are biological anomalies. They do not amount to a third sex. Some people prefer to present in a way traditionally associated with the opposite sex - and good luck to them. Nobody should be allow to discriminate against them because of this choice. 
 

But the ‘rights’ that trans people believe they have are not the only rights, and in a pluralistic society when subjective notions of identity collide with objective reality, most people would agree that it is reality, not identity, that should inform law and policy. As a general rule, the demands of a tiny minority of people should not force the vast majority to make profound changes to customs, law and policy. So trans-identifying people are welcome to believe that they are the opposite sex, and present as such if they wish, but that does not mean everyone else has to go along with it. 

In fairness, you've put your argument well

[Spudulike]

Thank you @ClaphamFox for taking the time to explain that better than I could've done. Perhaps it's because of my my simplistic world view. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It really isn’t. It’s about the fact that sex is binary, it is etched in your chromosones and biology, and you cannot change it. The existence of rare conditions such as DSDs are biological anomalies. They do not amount to a third sex. Some people prefer to present in a way traditionally associated with the opposite sex - and good luck to them. Nobody should be allow to discriminate against them because of this choice. 
 

But the ‘rights’ that trans people believe they have are not the only rights, and in a pluralistic society when subjective notions of identity collide with objective reality, most people would agree that it is reality, not identity, that should inform law and policy. As a general rule, the demands of a tiny minority of people should not force the vast majority to make profound changes to customs, law and policy. So trans-identifying people are welcome to believe that they are the opposite sex, and present as such if they wish, but that does not mean everyone else has to go along with it. 

Agreed. 

 

So there should be no problem showing the scientific consensus of data that proves this reality, right? 

 

Additionally, the same consensus of data should be trusted in other cases when it comes to policymaking, right?

 

Asking for the sake of clarity because sometimes there does seem to be a certain element of... cherry-picking regarding exactly what defines a scientific consensus and whether that consensus should be used to craft policy and decision making or not. 

 

And of course, some decent people simply trying to live their lives without actually harming anyone are viewed as at best a laughable anomaly and at worst a degenerate target of violence by many. 

[dsr-burnley]

6 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Are there any statistics for the number of assaults perpetrated by trans men? I haven't seen any so no idea what they'd show but I'm also doubtful many people using this argument have seen any.

Like I said earlier,. trans men aren't the problem. The problem is male predators.

 

The trans lobby want to make a rule that any trans woman with a full set of male genitalia can go into women's changing rooms and strip off in front of naked women.  But what are their proposals to ensure that the only people with a full set of male genitalia who want to strip off in front of women are trans women?  Have they a foolproof system for telling the difference between a trans woman and a pervert who claims to be a trans woman?

 

Maybe I'm just old fashioned.  Back in the day, if a man dropped his trousers in front of a woman, the woman was entitled to scream and call for help and (as Linehan suggested) hit him where it hurts, because he might be an abuser.  Now, she is expected to nod and smile because he might not be an abuser.  Can any good come frm giving rapists, abusers, and perverts free access to the women's changing rooms?

[ClaphamFox]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Agreed. 

 

So there should be no problem showing the scientific consensus of data that proves this reality, right? 

 

Additionally, the same consensus of data should be trusted in other cases when it comes to policymaking, right?

 

Asking for the sake of clarity because sometimes there does seem to be a certain element of... cherry-picking regarding exactly what defines a scientific consensus and whether that consensus should be used to craft policy and decision making or not. 

 

And of course, some decent people simply trying to live their lives without actually harming anyone are viewed as at best a laughable anomaly and at worst a degenerate target of violence by many. 

As far as I’m aware, no scientist has even claimed to have discovered the existence of a third gamete, which is about as consensus as it gets.

 

This article provides a very good explanation of how activists have tried to use the existence of rare biological abnormalities to falsely claim that sex is a spectrum. It’s worth reading in full if you have time, but here are a couple of key paragraphs:

 

“It is important to note here that the binary nature of sex is compatible with sex ambiguity because ambiguity with respect to sex is not itself a third sex. However, many gender activists falsely assert that the “sex binary” must mean something like “every human who has ever existed and will ever exist can be unambiguously categorized as either male or female.” Given this, they contend that providing examples of people with ambiguous sexual anatomy (i.e., “intersex” conditions) not only disproves the sex binary but also demonstrates that biological sex is a meaningless and even oppressive categorization scheme. (We will leave aside for now the fact that many of these same activists do recognize an alternative version of “biological sex” in the form of gender-identity bio-essentialism, or the theory that a person’s subjective self-conception of male or female is rooted in the brain itself.)

 

“This desire to extrapolate a small blur at a boundary to the entire picture is rooted in the postmodern impulse to “queer,” and thereby eliminate, natural categories. In the queer-theory worldview, categories are themselves oppressive, and human liberation requires the “troubling” of categories (to borrow Judith Butler’s term), including those of sex. Yet…the existence of “questionable” cases with respect to sex classification does not automatically cast a degree of doubt onto everyone’s sex. For most people, their sex is obvious.

“Besides, our society is not currently experiencing a sudden dramatic surge in people stricken with ambiguous genitalia; we are experiencing a surge in people who are unambiguously one sex claiming to “identify” as the opposite sex, or neither sex.”

 

And with regard to your wider point, yes, I believe that scientific evidence should always be prioritised when it comes to crafting policy.

[leicsmac]

49 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

As far as I’m aware, no scientist has even claimed to have discovered the existence of a third gamete, which is about as consensus as it gets.

 

This article provides a very good explanation of how activists have tried to use the existence of rare biological abnormalities to falsely claim that sex is a spectrum. It’s worth reading in full if you have time, but here are a couple of key paragraphs:

 

“It is important to note here that the binary nature of sex is compatible with sex ambiguity because ambiguity with respect to sex is not itself a third sex. However, many gender activists falsely assert that the “sex binary” must mean something like “every human who has ever existed and will ever exist can be unambiguously categorized as either male or female.” Given this, they contend that providing examples of people with ambiguous sexual anatomy (i.e., “intersex” conditions) not only disproves the sex binary but also demonstrates that biological sex is a meaningless and even oppressive categorization scheme. (We will leave aside for now the fact that many of these same activists do recognize an alternative version of “biological sex” in the form of gender-identity bio-essentialism, or the theory that a person’s subjective self-conception of male or female is rooted in the brain itself.)

 

“This desire to extrapolate a small blur at a boundary to the entire picture is rooted in the postmodern impulse to “queer,” and thereby eliminate, natural categories. In the queer-theory worldview, categories are themselves oppressive, and human liberation requires the “troubling” of categories (to borrow Judith Butler’s term), including those of sex. Yet…the existence of “questionable” cases with respect to sex classification does not automatically cast a degree of doubt onto everyone’s sex. For most people, their sex is obvious.

“Besides, our society is not currently experiencing a sudden dramatic surge in people stricken with ambiguous genitalia; we are experiencing a surge in people who are unambiguously one sex claiming to “identify” as the opposite sex, or neither sex.”

 

I must admit I was looking for something more along the lines of Lynas et al involving an assessment of the peer reviewed literature and showing clear consensus of data on the chromosomal definition of sex as an absolute arbiter (if that's what we're using) as well as what was said in that article, but I appreciate the time and effort taken. 

 

52 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

 

And with regard to your wider point, yes, I believe that scientific evidence should always be prioritised when it comes to crafting policy.

Glad there's agreement there. 

 

It's unfortunate, however, that quite a few folks appear to have a great deal of trust in scientific findings (such as they are) on this matter, but a remarkable lack of trust on other matters where an even greater scientific consensus exists - to the point of affecting policy decisions in a negative fashion for most everyone. It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind that particular dichotomy. 

[The Doctor]

19 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It really isn’t. It’s about the fact that sex is binary, it is etched in your chromosones and biology, and you cannot change it. The existence of rare conditions such as DSDs are biological anomalies. They do not amount to a third sex. 

what it does however mean is that sex is not binary (2 discrete groups with no overlap) but is rather bimodal (continuum with two maxima). 

 

also, you absolutely can change your biology (that is the point of medicine) and if biological sex is to mean anything, it must be mutable. Let's take the example of a post op trans woman - how exactly is she of a different biological sex to a cis woman with swyer syndrome? they have the same chromosomal pairings, both are endocrinologically female and have female molecular biology, and female genitalia. If we say it's because the trans women is not capable of getting pregnant, then we have to say that infertility is a different sex. Or, we have to resort to what is fundamentally a creationist argument around intelligent design, which is out of the remite of a scientific discussion. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

what it does however mean is that sex is not binary (2 discrete groups with no overlap) but is rather bimodal (continuum with two maxima). 

 

also, you absolutely can change your biology (that is the point of medicine) and if biological sex is to mean anything, it must be mutable. Let's take the example of a post op trans woman - how exactly is she of a different biological sex to a cis woman with swyer syndrome? they have the same chromosomal pairings, both are endocrinologically female and have female molecular biology, and female genitalia. If we say it's because the trans women is not capable of getting pregnant, then we have to say that infertility is a different sex. Or, we have to resort to what is fundamentally a creationist argument around intelligent design, which is out of the remite of a scientific discussion. 

On this topic, it still rather baffles me how the idea of demographic mutability worries, and therefore intimidates and angers, so many people. 

 

It's almost like they have to have humanity dispersed into easily defined groups so there's always an "out-group" to exert power over, isn't it?

 

It'll be an auspicious day for our species when that kind of discrimination is rendered utterly obsolete, through whatever method. 

[ClaphamFox]

6 hours ago, The Doctor said:

what it does however mean is that sex is not binary (2 discrete groups with no overlap) but is rather bimodal (continuum with two maxima). 

 

also, you absolutely can change your biology (that is the point of medicine) and if biological sex is to mean anything, it must be mutable. Let's take the example of a post op trans woman - how exactly is she of a different biological sex to a cis woman with swyer syndrome? they have the same chromosomal pairings, both are endocrinologically female and have female molecular biology, and female genitalia. If we say it's because the trans women is not capable of getting pregnant, then we have to say that infertility is a different sex. Or, we have to resort to what is fundamentally a creationist argument around intelligent design, which is out of the remite of a scientific discussion. 

Medical intervention can change some secondary sex characteristics such as hormones, but it cannot change the underlying chromosomal sex, which remains XX or XY (or another karyotype, in intersex variations) This matters because “biological sex,” is defined by gamete production and reproductive role, not just by phenotype.

 

DSDs like Swyer syndrome are exceptions, not redefinitions. People with Swyer syndrome have a nonfunctional Y chromosome (46,XY) but develop phenotypically female because the SRY gene or related pathways don’t trigger testicular differentiation. Biologically, they are intersex (a rare variation in sexual development). This is not evidence that sex itself is “mutable”. Comparing a post-op trans-identified male to someone with Swyer syndrome conflates phenotypic similarity with developmental equivalence.

 

The argument that “if we define sex by fertility, then infertile women are a different sex” is a specious false dichotomy. Infertility is a functional limitation within a sex, not a different sex category. A bird that cannot fly due to an injured wing is still a bird; infertility doesn’t change one’s sex any more than injury changes one’s species. 

 

Finally, regarding your comment about ‘intelligent design’, the biological definition of sex is empirical and descriptive, not teleological. Scientists don’t argue that there’s a “design” behind sex; they observe that sexually reproducing species have consistent patterns of reproductive differentiation, which form the basis for the category “male” and “female”. That pattern doesn’t rely on purpose or creation — just reproductive role.

Edited 22 October 2025 by ClaphamFox