Tomorrow a family camp we attended for decades, gets underway in Seabeck, Washington without me and my partner Bruce. As discussed in a prior article, we’ve been expelled for our gender critical views.
All absolutely spot on, but tragically the gender sheep are unlikely to listen, precisely because, as you say, no matter what you say to them "It’s as if we haven’t said what we’ve said". I don't know how to get through to people that what they're saying makes no sense. Even more sadly, if the spell is ever broken, I don't know if I want to have these people back in my life
Well put. Once one knows that another will willfully ignore a harmful truth, and through silence if not active embrace collude in perpetuating that harm, one can't unknow it. It seems more a character trait -- a kind of moral cowardice -- than an opinion.
That's right. Believing in gender ideology is more like an absence of an opinion. If you ask a believer to explain their belief, all you will get is hysterical emotional blackmail
My experience is more that they ignore evidence-based arguments -- i.e. the scientific reality of an innate, immutable sex binary, legitimate concerns about "gender-affirming care" for minors, documented harms done to females by male trespass -- and offer nothing of substance to legitimize gender ideology, just squishy "kindness" and 'Inclusion" stuff. Those I've engaged are strikingly uninformed, and evince no serious desire to rectify that, no matter what resources I offer. I suspect the cognitive dissonance of engaging the facts -- which contradict an ideology of the "progressive" tribe to which they belong -- is just too uncomfortable for them.
Yes that's all the kind of thing I mean. Behind any calls for 'kindness' or 'inclusion' is the emotional manipulation of suggesting that by objecting to these things (for good reasons!) you are NOT kind or inclusive. They've already accepted the nonsense as fact, so the way they justify it is by accusing everyone else of some sort of character flaws. Lots of projection in there too
Funny that you say that (about maybe not wanting some people back in your life). I'm in the same boat. Between covid and the cult major rifts have been exposed.... I have two brothers who believe in the gender woo and see no problem with it and refuse to read anything I send them, ridicule me when I try and explain what's happening, etc. Both have 3 daughters, a sister, a mother, aunts. I think they hate women. There's no way to get around it. Oh, and my niece declared herself "non binary" and chopped off body parts, so, a third brother also has been captured, together with his silly former spouse. My daughter's husband's sister and parents are teachers and are committed to this rot. The sister was telling somebody at a family event that they were waiting for their son to decide what "gender" he was, that there was no rush for him to figure it out. Their other child is a trans too and does drag (as if that's going to be a good career down the road). I guess they also believe in "sex work is work" when it's just been prostitution and now sex trafficking all along. It makes me ill to think about the societal damage these people are causing. I'm sure it's all going according to plan. None of this is by accident. It's by design. The tell is they're changing the law to FORCE society to accept all this non sense. There is nothing more important than standing up and speaking truth about these atrocities. This article is a particularly good read and piece of research. Thank you.
I really struggle to see how any women can see anything positive in it. I don't think that the men who go along with it all hate women, although some may, but I think most men who declare themselves women or 'not-men' are misogynists. I think a lot of it simply comes down to not wanting to single oneself out as a target of ridicule and accusations of bigotry. That's the most charitable explanation I have
I feel so upset and angry about this situation: women in prison having men imposed on them and being unable to escape because they are incarcerated. It is incredible that so many people are tolerant of this. Here in the UK it has been rolled back to some extent but not completely. I have just heard that there will be a day of action outside all the women's prisons but I don't know how to find out about when it will be, as I am not on twitter.
Find your local Women's Rights Network via the WRN website and join. They'll have all the deets! I'm with the Liverpool & Merseyside branch. Date still to be confirmed as yet but all branches have WhatsApp group for info exchange, posts, networking and sisterhood 💪✊🤝👊🫶
Another man has just been placed in Downview women's prison. This was meant to have stopped. There are also a few other men still in women's prisons that were never moved out when Conservatives changed the policy.
Northern Radfem Network are organising a mass protest at all women's prisons around the country on the same day. Date TBC soon. Nearest in the North West is HMP Styal which is very close to Manchester Airport.
I'll pass on the dates as soon as it's confirmed if anyone would like to attend.
If anyone has any contacts with women's groups other than WRN that are close to a women's prison, please could you ask them to contact @femnorthern if they are interested in joining in.
We'll be working along the same model as we did when we were representing KPSS."
I really wish I had the answer. I know women who have sons who are trans ans they actively campaign to get these men into our spaces.
While the daughter is ignored the son is applauded.
I just can't put myself in these women's mind,I could never begin to understand why the don't see how dangerous this who shitshow is and that these trans activists want our blood. No question.
Those women are not very smart and they are enablers. This all goes against Gods laws and eternity is a long time. Enablers are just like The people that God talks about in the Bible … whoever harms the least of us will be wearing a millstone around their neck…. Not verbatim from the Bible …For me it’s God first then my adult son. He is making the choice but I won’t enable him and lead us both to Hell.
That this gross abuse of women is being allowed to happen in allegedly "developed "countries makes me incandescent with rage !! Anyone who supports this horror ,for any reason is,at best , an abject COWARD ,at worst a woman hating ,predatory MONSTER. There can no longer be ANY EXCUSE for promoting or supporting this abhorrent ideology ,as the evidence of harm to women becomes ever greater and more visible. Progressive ?? It's state sanctioned medieval TORTURE and should NEVER be permitted in ANY civilized society. There will surely be a special place in hell for the architects of this misogynistic ,homophobic,anti human movement. Thank you for speaking up . Keep fighting x
I'm a grifter because I mentioned Colin Wright? What a rude thing to say! My reply to you was not rude and does not merit rudeness.
Please share the dictionary definition that you think supports your bizarre statement that a castrated male ceases to be male or that a woman without ovaries or with non-working ovaries ceases to be female. I've never seen a definition that says that older women are no longer female. Maybe that's not what you're trying to say, but it seems like it is.
You might try putting your comments in the relevant thread -- this one of yours is at the top level. Though Substack is partly to blame -- too easy to mistake a top level for a lower one when commenting.
But I think I was sort of careful to differentiate between you and Wright -- he's the grifter, not you, for peddling definitions that are flatly contradicted by more reputable sources. Unless you're trying to make money out of peddling the same bogus definitions as he is? But I've quoted the standards elsewhere here, though as a point of reference:
But it's not necessary to say that "a castrated male ceases to be male" --it's how definitions work. You think it's necessary to say, in the definition for teenager, that someone who's had their 20th birthday is no longer a teenager? It's implicit in the definition -- if someone isn't 13 to 19 then they simply don't qualify. Try thinking about this Wikipedia article on definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
The biological definitions stipulate that "produces gametes" (present tense) is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the terms "male" and "female". The same way that the definition for "teenager" stipulates that "being 13 to 19" is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the term "teenager".
But y'all might have some interest in this Wiley Online Library article, by a trio of reputable biologists, that underlines the point:
Wiley: "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles ....
Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it maybe a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
Many members of many anisogamous species -- including the human one -- pass into and out of the sex categories depending on whether they meet the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership -- i.e., having functional gonads.
This particular article deals with the issue of men (males) identifying as women (ie transwomen) being incarcerated with women (ie females). As noted in the article a majority of these transwomen are still anatomically intact males.
So how does the definition of sex you cite relate to this particular issue?
Good question, though the answer turns on the more fundamental question of what it takes to qualify as males and females in the first place. Which the definitions I've quoted speak direct and unequivocally to: i.e., no gonads, no sex. Period.
As you say, if somewhat indirectly, some of those transwomen -- i.e., those who've had "gender affirming surgery 🙄" -- are NOT males, they're sexless eunuchs. Arguably, prisons and toilets should be segregated by penises and vaginas, or reasonable facsimiles thereof.
Carol's more or less justified argument is largely against the prospect of "intact males" in women's prisons raping the women inmates. Which is precluded if they're castrated first. A relevant quote from her post:
CD: "According to the guard 'once the precedent was set that men can pretend to be women and get into the women's prison, it was like that door opened, and there was a flood of men trying to get over to the women's prison.' ..."
Kinda think the number of "applicants" would be greatly reduced if they had to first cut off their dicks and balls.
You do not leave your sex category if you lose your genitals. Every cell in your body is male. The "blueprint" for your physical body includes the male reproductive strategy of producing small motile gametes. Even a person who has lost their hands was designed to have 10 fingers. Humans are bipedal even if some people are in wheelchairs.
1) Taking your middle point first: "Every cell in your body is male."
Nope, sorry. That might be partially true IF the criterion to qualify as male was simply and only to have a Y chromosome. But that latter is simply NOT true as the standard biological definitions for the sexes make the actual production of small gametes into that criterion -- no gametes, no sex. See:
"female, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
male, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
And no individual cell produces any gametes -- of either type -- so can't possibly be male or female themselves. Only bodies have a sex, not individual cells.
Further, you might try this Google search -- "what percentage of the human body is nucleated cells?" -- which points out that the "majority of cells in the human body are not nucleated human cells" and that it's the nucleus that contains the chromosomes including the Y one.
2) Third part second: "Humans are bipedal even if some people are in wheelchairs."
Bipedality is a trait TYPICAL of humans, but it is clearly not true of all of them if some are in wheelchairs. Bipedality is what is called, in philosopher-speak, an "accidental" property of humans, not an "essential" one. A common example of an essential property is something like having compatible karyotypes, like being able to interbreed, potentially at least, with other members of the species. See:
3) First part third: "You do not leave your sex category if you lose your genitals."
Yup, you do, although it is more accurate is to say that if you "lose your gonads (testicles or ovaries)" then you no longer have a sex. At least if you're going to subscribe to those standard biological definitions. They SAY -- as above -- that to have a sex is to be producing either small gametes (male) or large gametes (female). And if someone is producing neither, like transwomen who cut their nuts off, then they are sexless, they are neither male nor female.
For examples, consider a couple of more or less reputable biologists, and a philosopher of biology, who endorse that viewpoint, in part or in whole:
First, US biologists Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, although they both tend to talk out of both sides of their mouths:
JC: "Those 1/6000 individuals are intersexes, neither male nor female."
And a trio of German biologists writing in the reputable Wiley Online Library:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
Such important work. Thank you for your research and clear articulation of this issue. The degree to which gender zealots deny these harms is maddening, and the persistence with which many others choose to look away is disheartening. More and more, I get the feeling that female experience -- whether on the playing field or behind bars -- just doesn't matter to most people, women as well as men, if it conflicts with what any male wants.
Couldn't agree more! I'm away far away on Skye Scotland or I'd be outside those prisons with you all.
It's starting to turn around-much too late for the women locked in with predatory men right now,much too late for the women already raped and beaten (yes,some jailed women have been beaten badly by these men).
I'm sick and tired of the screeching about trans being so precious,sparkly and gentle-how many school shootings now?
How many trantifa lunatics?
I genuinely believe the cross sex hormones cannot be tolerated and therefore send both men and woman stark staring insane.
It used to be that there would perhaps be a pregnancy once a decade,usually an 'affair' with a guard,and consensual although wrong in so so many ways.
As you point out,the self same people who used to champion women's rights have swept them all aside for men-i wouldn't have believed we would end up here,not in a month of Sundays but here we are and enough was enough 10 years ago.
This is absolutely awful! That is the thing with progressives… you may be in their ‘in group’ one day… next day you are an oppressor. It’s kinda like high school. This gender ideology fixation is dangerous to women and children. What the trans person wants takes precedent over safety. And of course male prisoners are going to want to get into the women’s prisons. Like duh
I was a liberal for most of my life, but I would be more than happy to vote for actual fascists if they would execute every male prisoner who has transferred into a Women's prison and every politician and bureaucrat who had a hand in enabling it to happen.
Every day I get hit up by Gavin Newsom's fundraising through multiple channels. I won't donate while there are males in women's prisons (sorry, 'correctional facilities') in CA or WA, where Newsom and Ferguson are still in office. An organized group -- DIAG? -- needs to make the connection for them, out loud and specifically. We know the D establishment is functionally unable to note any correlation between voter opinions and their fundraising performance.
All absolutely spot on, but tragically the gender sheep are unlikely to listen, precisely because, as you say, no matter what you say to them "It’s as if we haven’t said what we’ve said". I don't know how to get through to people that what they're saying makes no sense. Even more sadly, if the spell is ever broken, I don't know if I want to have these people back in my life
Well put. Once one knows that another will willfully ignore a harmful truth, and through silence if not active embrace collude in perpetuating that harm, one can't unknow it. It seems more a character trait -- a kind of moral cowardice -- than an opinion.
That's right. Believing in gender ideology is more like an absence of an opinion. If you ask a believer to explain their belief, all you will get is hysterical emotional blackmail
My experience is more that they ignore evidence-based arguments -- i.e. the scientific reality of an innate, immutable sex binary, legitimate concerns about "gender-affirming care" for minors, documented harms done to females by male trespass -- and offer nothing of substance to legitimize gender ideology, just squishy "kindness" and 'Inclusion" stuff. Those I've engaged are strikingly uninformed, and evince no serious desire to rectify that, no matter what resources I offer. I suspect the cognitive dissonance of engaging the facts -- which contradict an ideology of the "progressive" tribe to which they belong -- is just too uncomfortable for them.
Yes that's all the kind of thing I mean. Behind any calls for 'kindness' or 'inclusion' is the emotional manipulation of suggesting that by objecting to these things (for good reasons!) you are NOT kind or inclusive. They've already accepted the nonsense as fact, so the way they justify it is by accusing everyone else of some sort of character flaws. Lots of projection in there too
It's a cult
Funny that you say that (about maybe not wanting some people back in your life). I'm in the same boat. Between covid and the cult major rifts have been exposed.... I have two brothers who believe in the gender woo and see no problem with it and refuse to read anything I send them, ridicule me when I try and explain what's happening, etc. Both have 3 daughters, a sister, a mother, aunts. I think they hate women. There's no way to get around it. Oh, and my niece declared herself "non binary" and chopped off body parts, so, a third brother also has been captured, together with his silly former spouse. My daughter's husband's sister and parents are teachers and are committed to this rot. The sister was telling somebody at a family event that they were waiting for their son to decide what "gender" he was, that there was no rush for him to figure it out. Their other child is a trans too and does drag (as if that's going to be a good career down the road). I guess they also believe in "sex work is work" when it's just been prostitution and now sex trafficking all along. It makes me ill to think about the societal damage these people are causing. I'm sure it's all going according to plan. None of this is by accident. It's by design. The tell is they're changing the law to FORCE society to accept all this non sense. There is nothing more important than standing up and speaking truth about these atrocities. This article is a particularly good read and piece of research. Thank you.
I really struggle to see how any women can see anything positive in it. I don't think that the men who go along with it all hate women, although some may, but I think most men who declare themselves women or 'not-men' are misogynists. I think a lot of it simply comes down to not wanting to single oneself out as a target of ridicule and accusations of bigotry. That's the most charitable explanation I have
I've always been amazed to see how easily manipulated and brainwashed people are. It's really quite bizarre.
My God you are living under an unparalleled curse!
Watch Ted Cruz and John Neely Kennedy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWcQSTMz2BA
They fight for us.
I feel so upset and angry about this situation: women in prison having men imposed on them and being unable to escape because they are incarcerated. It is incredible that so many people are tolerant of this. Here in the UK it has been rolled back to some extent but not completely. I have just heard that there will be a day of action outside all the women's prisons but I don't know how to find out about when it will be, as I am not on twitter.
Find your local Women's Rights Network via the WRN website and join. They'll have all the deets! I'm with the Liverpool & Merseyside branch. Date still to be confirmed as yet but all branches have WhatsApp group for info exchange, posts, networking and sisterhood 💪✊🤝👊🫶
OK, thanks! I have joined already so I will check their website. I am in Greater Manchester and joined a demo outside Styal a few years ago.
Cool ✊. This was the info from yesterday -
"Just a heads up for an upcoming action.
Another man has just been placed in Downview women's prison. This was meant to have stopped. There are also a few other men still in women's prisons that were never moved out when Conservatives changed the policy.
Northern Radfem Network are organising a mass protest at all women's prisons around the country on the same day. Date TBC soon. Nearest in the North West is HMP Styal which is very close to Manchester Airport.
I'll pass on the dates as soon as it's confirmed if anyone would like to attend.
If anyone has any contacts with women's groups other than WRN that are close to a women's prison, please could you ask them to contact @femnorthern if they are interested in joining in.
We'll be working along the same model as we did when we were representing KPSS."
Hey Shauna and Sarah, Glad to hear of the planned actions over there. Best of luck.
Thank you and thanks for your sterling work compiling all this "ammo" 🫶✊💪
Thank you! I'll keep an eye out and Hope I can make it on the day.
There need to be tribunals, investigations, sackings, and massive fines! No one will pay attention until there are
I'm not on X either and would very much want to be part of this too-id appreciate a heads up if you can find any info?many thank yous😘
A travesty letting make bodies into female prisons..
It starts with compulsory pronoun sharing and ends with men being accepted as women: https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/escalation-of-commitment-to-a-losing
Yes, the pronoun fascism is the start.
https://georgeqtyrebyter.substack.com/p/the-singular-they-is-not
Subjecting women to prison rape by males has got to be a violation of the 8th ammendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
No one is fighting for these women where are the damn feminists? Silent crickets 👉👉👉👉Gloria Stineman hello!!!???
https://womensliberationfront.org/our-work
Unfortunately alot of the so called feminists are too busy helping pornsick men pick a dress to put on.
What’s wrong with those women?!
I really wish I had the answer. I know women who have sons who are trans ans they actively campaign to get these men into our spaces.
While the daughter is ignored the son is applauded.
I just can't put myself in these women's mind,I could never begin to understand why the don't see how dangerous this who shitshow is and that these trans activists want our blood. No question.
Those women are not very smart and they are enablers. This all goes against Gods laws and eternity is a long time. Enablers are just like The people that God talks about in the Bible … whoever harms the least of us will be wearing a millstone around their neck…. Not verbatim from the Bible …For me it’s God first then my adult son. He is making the choice but I won’t enable him and lead us both to Hell.
That this gross abuse of women is being allowed to happen in allegedly "developed "countries makes me incandescent with rage !! Anyone who supports this horror ,for any reason is,at best , an abject COWARD ,at worst a woman hating ,predatory MONSTER. There can no longer be ANY EXCUSE for promoting or supporting this abhorrent ideology ,as the evidence of harm to women becomes ever greater and more visible. Progressive ?? It's state sanctioned medieval TORTURE and should NEVER be permitted in ANY civilized society. There will surely be a special place in hell for the architects of this misogynistic ,homophobic,anti human movement. Thank you for speaking up . Keep fighting x
I'm a grifter because I mentioned Colin Wright? What a rude thing to say! My reply to you was not rude and does not merit rudeness.
Please share the dictionary definition that you think supports your bizarre statement that a castrated male ceases to be male or that a woman without ovaries or with non-working ovaries ceases to be female. I've never seen a definition that says that older women are no longer female. Maybe that's not what you're trying to say, but it seems like it is.
Are you referring to this earlier statement of mine?
"You, and grifters like Wright, can peddle your own definitions -- but it ain't biology."
https://caroldansereau.substack.com/p/males-pour-into-womens-prisons-as/comment/64296090
You might try putting your comments in the relevant thread -- this one of yours is at the top level. Though Substack is partly to blame -- too easy to mistake a top level for a lower one when commenting.
But I think I was sort of careful to differentiate between you and Wright -- he's the grifter, not you, for peddling definitions that are flatly contradicted by more reputable sources. Unless you're trying to make money out of peddling the same bogus definitions as he is? But I've quoted the standards elsewhere here, though as a point of reference:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
But it's not necessary to say that "a castrated male ceases to be male" --it's how definitions work. You think it's necessary to say, in the definition for teenager, that someone who's had their 20th birthday is no longer a teenager? It's implicit in the definition -- if someone isn't 13 to 19 then they simply don't qualify. Try thinking about this Wikipedia article on definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
The biological definitions stipulate that "produces gametes" (present tense) is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the terms "male" and "female". The same way that the definition for "teenager" stipulates that "being 13 to 19" is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the term "teenager".
But y'all might have some interest in this Wiley Online Library article, by a trio of reputable biologists, that underlines the point:
Wiley: "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles ....
Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it maybe a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Many members of many anisogamous species -- including the human one -- pass into and out of the sex categories depending on whether they meet the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership -- i.e., having functional gonads.
This particular article deals with the issue of men (males) identifying as women (ie transwomen) being incarcerated with women (ie females). As noted in the article a majority of these transwomen are still anatomically intact males.
So how does the definition of sex you cite relate to this particular issue?
Good question, though the answer turns on the more fundamental question of what it takes to qualify as males and females in the first place. Which the definitions I've quoted speak direct and unequivocally to: i.e., no gonads, no sex. Period.
As you say, if somewhat indirectly, some of those transwomen -- i.e., those who've had "gender affirming surgery 🙄" -- are NOT males, they're sexless eunuchs. Arguably, prisons and toilets should be segregated by penises and vaginas, or reasonable facsimiles thereof.
Carol's more or less justified argument is largely against the prospect of "intact males" in women's prisons raping the women inmates. Which is precluded if they're castrated first. A relevant quote from her post:
CD: "According to the guard 'once the precedent was set that men can pretend to be women and get into the women's prison, it was like that door opened, and there was a flood of men trying to get over to the women's prison.' ..."
Kinda think the number of "applicants" would be greatly reduced if they had to first cut off their dicks and balls.
You do not leave your sex category if you lose your genitals. Every cell in your body is male. The "blueprint" for your physical body includes the male reproductive strategy of producing small motile gametes. Even a person who has lost their hands was designed to have 10 fingers. Humans are bipedal even if some people are in wheelchairs.
1) Taking your middle point first: "Every cell in your body is male."
Nope, sorry. That might be partially true IF the criterion to qualify as male was simply and only to have a Y chromosome. But that latter is simply NOT true as the standard biological definitions for the sexes make the actual production of small gametes into that criterion -- no gametes, no sex. See:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326191905/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
"female, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
male, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
And no individual cell produces any gametes -- of either type -- so can't possibly be male or female themselves. Only bodies have a sex, not individual cells.
Further, you might try this Google search -- "what percentage of the human body is nucleated cells?" -- which points out that the "majority of cells in the human body are not nucleated human cells" and that it's the nucleus that contains the chromosomes including the Y one.
2) Third part second: "Humans are bipedal even if some people are in wheelchairs."
Bipedality is a trait TYPICAL of humans, but it is clearly not true of all of them if some are in wheelchairs. Bipedality is what is called, in philosopher-speak, an "accidental" property of humans, not an "essential" one. A common example of an essential property is something like having compatible karyotypes, like being able to interbreed, potentially at least, with other members of the species. See:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/accidental-and-essential-properties
3) First part third: "You do not leave your sex category if you lose your genitals."
Yup, you do, although it is more accurate is to say that if you "lose your gonads (testicles or ovaries)" then you no longer have a sex. At least if you're going to subscribe to those standard biological definitions. They SAY -- as above -- that to have a sex is to be producing either small gametes (male) or large gametes (female). And if someone is producing neither, like transwomen who cut their nuts off, then they are sexless, they are neither male nor female.
For examples, consider a couple of more or less reputable biologists, and a philosopher of biology, who endorse that viewpoint, in part or in whole:
First, US biologists Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, although they both tend to talk out of both sides of their mouths:
JC: "Those 1/6000 individuals are intersexes, neither male nor female."
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/04/sf-chronicle-sex-and-gender-are-not-binaries/#comment-2048737
PZM: “ ‘female’ is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female.”
https://x.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
And a trio of German biologists writing in the reputable Wiley Online Library:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R
And the well-regarded philosopher of science (retired), Paul Griffiths:
Griffiths: "Sex is real; Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other"
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Wonderful, complete article. Thank you, Carol!
Keep saying it and writing it. It is beyond comprehension that people who think they are progressive think men in women's prisons is justified.
Such important work. Thank you for your research and clear articulation of this issue. The degree to which gender zealots deny these harms is maddening, and the persistence with which many others choose to look away is disheartening. More and more, I get the feeling that female experience -- whether on the playing field or behind bars -- just doesn't matter to most people, women as well as men, if it conflicts with what any male wants.
Couldn't agree more! I'm away far away on Skye Scotland or I'd be outside those prisons with you all.
It's starting to turn around-much too late for the women locked in with predatory men right now,much too late for the women already raped and beaten (yes,some jailed women have been beaten badly by these men).
I'm sick and tired of the screeching about trans being so precious,sparkly and gentle-how many school shootings now?
How many trantifa lunatics?
I genuinely believe the cross sex hormones cannot be tolerated and therefore send both men and woman stark staring insane.
It used to be that there would perhaps be a pregnancy once a decade,usually an 'affair' with a guard,and consensual although wrong in so so many ways.
As you point out,the self same people who used to champion women's rights have swept them all aside for men-i wouldn't have believed we would end up here,not in a month of Sundays but here we are and enough was enough 10 years ago.
This whole shambles needs put to bed,for good
This is absolutely awful! That is the thing with progressives… you may be in their ‘in group’ one day… next day you are an oppressor. It’s kinda like high school. This gender ideology fixation is dangerous to women and children. What the trans person wants takes precedent over safety. And of course male prisoners are going to want to get into the women’s prisons. Like duh
Such good research & analysis. Infuriating but important to know. Subscribed.
I was a liberal for most of my life, but I would be more than happy to vote for actual fascists if they would execute every male prisoner who has transferred into a Women's prison and every politician and bureaucrat who had a hand in enabling it to happen.
The argument that the numbers are so few it should be beyond notice is absurd, cruel and willfully negligent. https://open.substack.com/pub/grahamlinehan/p/this-never-happens?r=ez5o2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Every day I get hit up by Gavin Newsom's fundraising through multiple channels. I won't donate while there are males in women's prisons (sorry, 'correctional facilities') in CA or WA, where Newsom and Ferguson are still in office. An organized group -- DIAG? -- needs to make the connection for them, out loud and specifically. We know the D establishment is functionally unable to note any correlation between voter opinions and their fundraising performance.