Peter Jukes picked his side. £££
And it's the creepy misogynist side. Disappointing. Predictable.
Peter Jukes, CEO of Byline times, which I quite liked, made a dick of himself the other day. And continues to. It seems he wanted to understand the trans debate, but there was a lot of confirmation bias happening.
Obviously, he listens to transwomen before women and dives into the pseudoscience these trans-identified people peddle, which drags people with disorders of sexual development (formerly known as “intersex”) into the argument.
People with DSDs come into the Twitter replies, asking him not to use this argument in the “gender spectrum” debate, because they’re humans not pawns and because people with DSDs are either male or female, not something in between. They simply have a variation.
When asked what he thinks the third sex cell or gamete is, of course he says he doesn’t think there are “speggs” and “spergs” in between sperm and eggs, but he still objects to the idea that male and female are absolutes.
I’m afraid, Peter, that they ARE. Dividing males and females into sexes is not reducing multifaceted humans to our reproductive organs and sex chromosomes, but it is a fact of life. Our reproductive capacity IS the one thing that defines us from each other and there is no getting away from it. It’s the basics of mammalian existence and there’s nothing you can say to make this untrue.
Anyway, he’s so determined to display that he believes trans people are telling the truth (and he knows it’s career suicide if he admits all the “TERFY” biologists in his Twitter mentions are correct) that he starts reaching for the crazy. Namely ancient old world apes from millions of years ago who were possibly hermaphrodites! Yes, really. When informed that these apes no longer exist and even if they did, they are on another branch of the evolutionary tree to humans, he begins waffling about primate harems. What has that got to do with being transgender?
Then he claimed to be reading peer-reviewed scientific papers, but it turned out to be a science magazine article, not peer-reviewed - simply a theory. He said he’d continue reading, sooooo….
It comes as no surprise that he’s come out on the side of the pastel flag screechers and the fake science gender woo woo. Finding himself well out of his depth when it comes to developmental biology, out he wheels those tired and lazy comparisons with Section 28 and gay rights in the 80s.
Peter, when were gay people changing language, demanding people pretend they’re something they’re not and demand access to women’s spaces? When were gay people demanding kids should be medicalised for non-conformity? It’s not comparable, especially when the people begging you to listen are women - a lot of them lesbians - who fought against Section 28. Women who looked after gay men dying from AIDS. Most of them are left-wing too which brings me to his second lazy statement - that feminists have links with the Christian right. No we fucking don’t. As if lefty radical feminists would be associating with religions that subjugate women!
His latest post is all about his love for gender neutral bathrooms.
He’s another fucking idiot who wants to deny women our hard-won single sex spaces; another male who wants to give female rights away. He’s a creep.