transgender medicine

No I didn't say it was. It provides some evidence disproving the statement:
It is true that innate 'sexed' identity has never been detected.

No it doesn't. Read the actual studies, not biased cherry picked op ed pieces.

What evidence there is has led most researchers, most health/ medical communities and most legal systems to a consensus.

There is no such consensus. May I suggest watching the linked video? It may clear a couple of things up. I'm sure you're quite capable of watching it without catching homophobia.

The law recognises you have a right to free speech. But the exemption is that you can't voice hate speech. Doesn't mean you don't have a right to free speech, legally.

You didn't grasp my point. The law recognises that you are not actually the opposite sex as there are exemptions permitted both to the GRA and the Equality Act.

The law recognises that you are not actually male.

The law explicitly states: if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man.
It's in black and white. Couldn't be more explicit.

Or there would be no exemptions possible.

The law recognises you have a right to free speech. But the exemption is that you can't voice hate speech. Doesn't mean you don't have a right to free speech, legally.

Which isn't the same thing as being the opposite sex.

No I didn't say it was. It provides some evidence disproving the statement:
It is true that innate 'sexed' identity has never been detected.

There are many articles that point to a biological and genetic component. You dismiss them because they don't fit with your ideology yet still provide no evidence that gender identity or gender dysphoria is entirely socially constructed.

Do you see the pitfall there?

Yes I do. The pitfall was in dismissing the role consensus has played in human history. Both in issues when there is no objective evidence, and when there is. A consensus on something without evidence doesn't make it true. What evidence there is has led most researchers, most health/ medical communities and most legal systems to a consensus.

"You can change sex legally"

What is legally accepted to be and what actually is can be two different things. 6-foot hairy 15-year-olds are legally children. That doesn't mean they are actual children.

"You can change sex hormonally. You can change the body to resemble the acquired sex as much as currently possible by medical science."

Resembling the other sex to some degree doesn't mean that you changed sex. You didn't.

Taking artificial hormones, a man can grow breasts, have less body hair and softer features - a more feminine appearance. Still, he will remain Of the sex that can make sperm and never Of the sex that can make eggs or bear young.

Likewise, a woman can take hormones to grow facial hair, undergo surgery to remove her breasts, spend years in gyms to bulk up. She may even look like a man. Still, she will always remain Of the sex that can make eggs or bear young and will never be Of the sex that can make sperm.

P.S.: "Oh but what about women who are infertile or in menopause?", I hear you say. They are still and always will be Of the sex that can make eggs or bear young and they are clearly not Of the sex that can make sperm.

There was a consensus that the earth was flat once. There is a consensus now that it's round.

Do you see the pitfall there?

Overall the weight of these studies and others points strongly toward a biological basis for gender dysphoria.

Which isn't the same thing as being the opposite sex.

Congratulations on posting one of the two biased op ed articles transactivists use to shore up their shaky case.

It's one definition. It is not the current legal definition. You can be legally male and not have a male reproductive role.

The law recognises that you are not actually male. Or there would be no exemptions possible.

Of course I don't support punching people including trans exclusionary people.

Pratchet
Supermatch your argument is empty and ridiculous.

No it's quite well reasoned and factual.

Neither allies nor consensus have any bearing on what is true, and what is not true.

Sorry consensus? There was a consensus that the earth was flat once. There is a consensus now that it's round. There is a consensus on climate change. There was a consensus in parliament when the GRA was voted through.

It is true that no one can change sex.

You can change sex legally - that is factually correct.
"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a manand, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)."

You can change sex hormonally. You can change the body to resemble the acquired sex as much as currently possible by medical science. It's adequate enough to relieve gender dysphoria for many. You can't change someone's chromosomal sex. No one is saying you can.

It is true that innate 'sexed' identity has never been detected.

Where is the evidence that there is no biological component to gender identity? Show us the evidence?

There is some evidence that there is a strong biological/ genetic component. www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
Overall the weight of these studies and others points strongly toward a biological basis for gender dysphoria.
Gender Identity Disorder in Twins: A Review of the Case Report Literature. Conclusions.  These findings suggest a role for genetic factors in the development of GID. Heylens G, De Cuypere G, Zucker KJ, Schelfaut C

It is true sex is binary and defined by reproductive role.

It's one definition. It is not the current legal definition. You can be legally male and not have a male reproductive role.

These things are true whether the American Christian Right, or you, or I, or anybody, or nobody, believes them or disbelieves them.

Nothing you have said is actually true. But you only seem to believe things to be true if you think they are true. But why let the evidence get in the way of a good story?

I didn't mean you.

I didn't share it. I believe the person who shared it was probably not doing so in good faith. But it is worth watching, because this clinician explains how the transgender medical community works to shore up poor scientific evidence. That is a useful piece of information. And for that I recommended it.

Sorry- make me support (obviously I hope - I know my typos are terrible)

Eresh- you are not bursting my bubble- nothing will support me punching anyone (unless it really is the only way to stop further harm).

The group is being promoted by sharing their material. It just is.

It's not about the group. No one is promoting them. It's about the unique perspective of the people as involved. You don't have to agree with anything they say.

And sorry to burst your bubble but the justification of TERF punching is really quite a mainstream opinion on the left, and among transactivists and their allies. I feel sure that some people certain posters support will agree.

Nobody here has suggested they support or even promote anything by people who say anyone should be punched.
Some particularly disturbed ot abusing trans person does not represent or speak for all trans people.
This thread however is promoting material created by a particularly oppressive group who actively seek to oppress women and gay people. There really is a difference.

Supermatch your argument is empty and ridiculous. Neither allies nor consensus have any bearing on what is true, and what is not true.

It is true that no one can change sex. It is true that innate 'sexed' identity has never been detected. It is true sex is binary and defined by reproductive role.

These things are true whether the American Christian Right, or you, or I, or anybody, or nobody, believes them or disbelieves them. Material reality is material reality whether or not it is described in language, or not described at all.

Saying .... “ooh Christian fundamentalists” and choosing what to think based on “cannot agree with them” is nonsensical.

They (American College of Pediatricians):
Campaign against abortion
Oppose emergency hormonal contraception (for adolescents)
Promote abstinence only sex education
Oppose 'cohabitation'. Just for a laugh read their position statement. They conclude:
research indicates living together before marriage (cohabitation) can bring significant harm to the relationship and the individuals involved.
Justify (at considerable length) Psychotherapy for Unwanted Homosexual Attraction Among Youth

Explicitly oppose adoption by same sex parents. This is a good one. They call it: Homosexual Parenting: Is it time for a change? They state: Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm. And conclude: This position is rooted in the best available science.

Do you not question how people with such biased repulsive views can reach credible opinions? Does their view of what makes 'best available science' not make you wonder if anything they say can be trusted?

What makes you think their views about gender identity and against sex reassignment are any more reliable?

Sorry if I have misunderstood but is there something wrong with the idea that not everyone is "born this way" with regards to their sexuality?

Not nothing, no. A cautious approach.

So does that mean we do nothing? There is other evidence even though it is weaker than rcts.

That's a fair point. But that's then a limitation of these studies, which can't be avoided.

From the McHugh article: None of the studies included the bias-limiting measure of randomization (that is, in none of the studies were sex-reassignment procedures assigned randomly to some patients but not to others)

This is a red herring. It's not going to happen. It's never going to be considered ethical to randomly assign sex-reassignment to some patients and not others. Ever.

I wasn't commenting on the analysis of research into sexual orientation. I am not informed enough about this subject to analyse it. I was specifically commenting on the overview of gender identity research, which I have made a point of informing myself about. I just said the piece was worth a read. Which it is.

Paul McHugh was also a founding member in the kind of psychiatry underlying transgender medicine. It's worthwhile to read his perspective whether you agree with him or not. With caveats, such as I have given about this video from the outset. Perhaps it's your own cognitive bias which assumes he doesn't have anything useful to add about this specific subject?

Soz please ignore the post at 15:16:20. I was distracted and corrected myself unnecessarily..