So ... Does this indicate that you CAN be 'born the wrong gender'?

Humans love to categorise. That's all.

nino if you squint a bit a testosterone and oestrogen levels they look a bit different?

A bit different? Totally disingenuous.

bertie fair enough we disagree.

Not really sure why gender identity makes you think of people saying different races have different characteristics (can't see any link at all personally).

Okay When, fair enough, but I disagree. I don't think gender has any biological basis at all. To me it sounds as ludicrous as stating that different races have different characteristics, aside from shared culture (environmental, not biological) and propensity to different medical issues (entirely biological).

Emma I will read it but I don't promise to agree with the conclusions formed from that person's experience.

Glossy has written another timely blog

Testosterone. Oestrogen. The hypothalamus. Oxytocin. Left and right hemispheres. MRI scans. Look, here’s some stuff that sometimes, when you squint a bit, looks different in one group than it does in another. So there. Except, as has been pointed out a million times, evidence of difference is not evidence of gendered difference. There is no “wifework“ section lighting up the female MRI scan. Believe me, we’d know if there was.

Not everyone identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth, hence some brains just “are” female. Except this demonstrates, not that gender is innate, but that dividing people into groups based on perceived reproductive potential tells us nothing about their personal preferences, desires and needs.

I recently came across a really interesting blog (gendermom.wordpress.com) written by the mum of an American child who was born a boy but transitioned to a girl at a young age. I think it would be good for a lot of you to read it. It primarily focuses on the mum's journey learning about gender identity. You will see that it is nothing like a 4 year old pretending to be a cat or a boy wanting to wear dresses just to get attention!

Perhaps self expression is not the right word but the point is whether you feel gender comes from the self or whether it is something which is extrinsic

I think gender identity is mostly down to biology. Similar to sexuality it's the way your brain was formed in the womb.

But feeling one way or another is internal or self expression. It's not somebody saying hey, you're blue. Stay in the blue corner. It's you saying I feel blue, I know I am blue, why are people calling me red?

Perhaps self expression is not the right word but the point is whether you feel gender comes from the self or whether it is something which is extrinsic.

Oh yes of course. I didn't say that I'm immune to confirmation bias. I don't find much of the research very compelling TBH so it's difficult to call. But for me the idea that an activity, colour or style could be linked in any way to biological sex is ludicrous so I lean towards the rad fem perspective because it makes more sense to me. I'm not expecting you to persuade me or make an argument to me - ultimately I can always look into the research myself, which I have dipped into from time to time.

Ultimately that is all we can do - make sense of things in a way that works for ourselves. It's just a shame that we feel so attacked by others in the process.

But basically it boils down to whether you see gender as a form of self-expression

I don't see gender identity as a form of self expression.

I think it just means that a person feels female / male (or gender fluid or asexual or whatever) and wants to be treated as such (correct pronoun).

Hi bertie I think if you are going to suggest I am guilty of confirmation bias (it's a valid point). Then you have to accept that you too are guilty of confirmation bias.

At least I've shown you some of the reasoning behind my thinking. I'm not going to show you the 60 years worth of research into fetal hormone levels and sexual behaviour because, there's absolutely loads and there's not a hope of putting it all across on an Internet forum even if I had the time and energy to do, which I don't

There is still absolutely loads that is unknown about human sexuality and gender identity. It's an extremely interesting research area.

Yep I paraphrased from Buffy (should have said, sorry ) but there was another quote about the incompatability of the two PsOV which was brilliant but I can't find it now. I was reading the two threads side by side on a rubbish connection so got them a bit confused.

I think that was Buffy - on the first page of www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2456630-Can-we-please-talk-about-Gender-I-seem-to-find-myself-in-a-muddle-thinking-about-it

I can't find the quote now. But basically it boils down to whether you see gender as a form of self-expression, which clearly comes from the person themselves, ie, it's innate, and also means that different activities and identities can legitimately be classed as masculine or feminine. With this viewpoint it makes sense that gender would be on a spectrum and it's still okay for people to move or flip between gender roles. I don't know what this POV is called, I used gender activists earlier but was told that was definitely wrong.

The other POV in the debate is that you see gender as a tool used to oppress, police and restrict people, ie, it's external, and possibly non-existent. Biological sex clearly exists but there is no such thing as a masculine/feminine activity other than those restricted by biology, e.g. childbirth. Cooking, engineering, fairies, gardening, music, make up are all just interests that people might have and have no relevance to their sex. This is the Radical Feminist position.

Then there is the conservative POV which is that biological sex and gender are inextricably linked and should never be broken, but I don't think we are talking about that at all (though sometimes I think the RadFem POV is mistaken for this one, which it absolutely is not).

As I understand it, the first two views are totally incompatible. You can't hold both at once. The problem with talking about the issue is that we use the same words to denote biological sex as those we use to denote gender, so you get people talking at cross purposes and thinking that the other person is being totally ridiculous when actually you just aren't respecting where the other is coming from.

It might be useful on these debates to specify whether we are talking about biological sex or gender when we mention "men" "women" "boys" or "girls". For example, the part of the RadFem argument which often appears to be anti-trans is concern that issues which disproportionately affect bio-women are becoming more difficult to talk about because of either laws which allow people to change their legally recognised gender, which in everyday life does translate to sex, or language issues, for instance stating that both men and women can have wombs and so face the issue of abortion. Well, perhaps people of a male gender and people of a female gender might both have wombs, but it's not true that bio-men have wombs, only bio-women. It's not anti anybody living any lifestyle they wish, it's anti minimising of women's issues.

I find it very difficult because I do think that there is some common ground but both sides are so very offended by the others' point of view that it's very difficult to arrive at that place where we can work together and so it's become some sort of battleground.

I understand why the sample size is small, just saying you can't use that study for any kind of proof. If you personally feel that it backs up your gut feeling then fine, but that is confirmation bias, nothing else.

Somebody put it so much better on the other thread, perhaps I can find it.

Gay people also don't require other people to participate in their being gay.

Gay people don't ask for hormones or surgery to be themselves. It is nothing like being gay.

Kids get such strange obsessions and worries, it's not hard to imagine that you can guide the outcome a bit with nurture.

When I think back to my teenage years I was just a bundle of dysfunction - concerned about my height as I said before, body shape, school, my glasses, my fitness, money, where my life was going etc.

I can completely imagine that if doctors, and online communities had seemed welcoming, told me that this was my problem and they could solve it with some pills and surgery, then perhaps I would have gone for it and not had the lovely life I have now.

4yos are just as likely to insist they are a cat or a dog or a horse as they are a boy or a girl.

My niece was a dog for about 2 years, mostly a dalmatian.

I wonder how many times this little boy was told, "no that's for girls"nbefore he decided to be one?

Gender as in "Girls love pink and play tea party games, they are soft and gentle, then they grow up and cook/clean" etc is entirely socially constructed.

This ^^

I wanted to be a boy so that I didn't have to wear dresses, could climb trees, do more exciting things. Then I worked out I could do those things anyway.

"ou know, not that long ago the same sort of arguments could have been put forward about gay people. Just a phase. They will grow out of it."

Coco, that's not what people are saying. This child may grow up to be trans or not; indeed, his twin may be the one who does, or neither, or both. No doubt many adults who are gay went through a phase of playing at opposite sex marriage etc. To use the word phase about a child of this age is not judgemental - I agree to use it about an adult is more likely to be patronising.

"He was a boy and knew it - because his brain told him so."

Every cell in his body, including his brain, was developed from XY chromosomes - he was a biological male, just as a grown man with an amputated penis would be.

At this age, lots of children decide they want to be cats, dogs or other animals, and sometimes insist to their parents that they are that animal, sometimes for a long time.
Under 5s who are identified as trans, do seem to get a lot of attention for it. I am sure this boy does naturally like things labelled as for girls, but the attention he is getting will also be a pay off. Many people underestimate under 5s and how they respond to their environment.

Fascinating debate.

Very sad to read about those poor boys who suffered with Cloacal Exstrophy. But surely they were/are male. It was not just a penis that made them male, however small that penis was, and the lack of penis did not make them female. They were were born male. Being male or female is not a construct it is a fact. So I don't see it as unusual that any of them may feel male, even without a penis.

I'm really struggling with this topic myself, not personally but just getting my head around it. I am very much a live and let live person, and I can see the suffering that people go through with issues of identity etc.

I think there are probably a variety of reasons why people identify as trans, there is not just one narrative. But I just not sure that these boys, male children with Cloacal Exstrophy, who did not identify themselves as females independently but were 'forced' to be 'girls' due to a sad fact of nature and the ignorance of doctors is much of a help. It's a bit like bringing in intersex people into a debate about trans. It's not comparing like for like.

Thanks