Huge meta-study finds that transition helps trans people

Excellent post @DN4GeekingDerby.

Can't help giggling at the rabbit advice. "Scientists can now reveal that humans aren't rabbits"

People sometimes think DS is a girl because his name's non-gender-specific (the version I use, anyway) but that doesn't mean he is one.

Why is that in the news?

(I'm currently watching a news item about the Two Ronnies four candles sketch and I can't for the life of me think what it reminds me of.)

Typical idiotic trans gotcha.

Well, if we are going to get technical about it and refer to concepts that have commonly understood definitions - which is weird for some people, I know - this you're saying an infertile woman is not a woman baloney is a propositional fallacy of the if and only if variety.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Propositional_fallacies

All transactivist arguments are fallacies of one form or another. I think we should put logic onto the National Curriculum.

I'm grateful for these useful rabbit sexing tips, thanks Upstart! You learn so much on this forum.

But I don't have to agree with a belief system that in my view espouses dangerous lies, threatens my rights and especially not if it involves an attempt to make me participate in someone else's delusion of doing the impossible.

Exactly this.

A transwoman with a GRC is a man who has been classified as a woman for various legal purposes. However, they remain a man. I am not required by law to call them a woman or ignore the fact they are a transwoman. However, if I were an organisation providing services then I would be required to treat them as a woman in many (but not all) circumstances. If I were a doctor and treated them as a woman I could be had up for malpractice.

Rabbits are very easy to sex. If you can't do it its your inexperience. The males don't have hair over their testes, which are held internally. So they have two small bald patches either side of the penis.
The females have a similar looking sheathed vulva. but no bald patches.

Humans are not rabbits. The majority are not intersex and so are easy to sex, no matter how inexperienced you are, because we are sexually dimorphic.

Report away Gibberty.

That tribunal obligates companies and public services to recognise a legal fiction, just like other legal fictions that exist in our laws today.

It does not obligate me or anyone else here who acts in a private capacity. It also doesn't override my right to free speech and my right to share or refuse to share in a belief system. We can even say transwomen are male, are men, in public. No matter how many GRCs you wave in my face, there is no government mandate forcing me to accept your belief system. So transwomen are born male, they die male and there's really nothing else to it.

Now I wish you well, I support you being able to express femme if that's what you want to do and I even supported the GRC for post-op/medically transitioning transsexuals back when that was the best solution. But I don't have to agree with a belief system that in my view espouses dangerous lies, threatens my rights and especially not if it involves an attempt to make me participate in someone else's delusion of doing the impossible.

Much as some very religious people I know are allowed to say that they think homosexuals must not live in sin and have same-sex relationships and that those who do will go to hell and that they want nothing to do with such people. Totally free to say it, wherever they go. We argue about it, but I can't have them arrested for it if they are acting in a private capacity. And yet sexual orientation is as protected in law as gender reassignment is.

Presumably, like most other transactivist definitions, it's the reverse of anything commonly understood. If you redefine every word and term in the English language, you do realise that material reality will not be affected, right?

This!

There isn't a special third sex for all biologically infertile people. Intersex conditions are disorders of sex development.

So, by your definition post-menopausal women, or women who have had hysterectomies, aren't female because they can't produce ova? Similarly, anyone born infertile is neither male nor female. Sorry, but your definition doesn't work.

Typical idiotic trans gotcha.

It does work. Because there are two sexes. Infertile females are still females i.e. they are a member of the only one of the two sexes that can produce ova. And infertile males are still male, whether or not they produce sperm.

Dull.

That's a circular argument.

Please provide the transactivist definition of circular argument.

Presumably, like most other transactivist definitions, it's the reverse of anything commonly understood. If you redefine every word and term in the English language, you do realise that material reality will not be affected, right?

That's a circular argument Crap! Truth is not a circular argument no matter how much you try to twist it. You can tie your brain in knots trying to make truth a circular argument, I for one will enjoy watching you try.

How? Can you explain?

"No, they are female because they are of the sex that can produce ova. A person can only be post-menopausal because they are female. A woman who has had a hysterectomy needed one because she is female."

That's a circular argument

No, they are female because they are of the sex that can produce ova. A person can only be post-menopausal because they are female. A woman who has had a hysterectomy needed one because she is female.

"Disorders of sex development and other chromosome anomalies do not refute that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Female sex is a producer of large gametes (ova), Male sex produced small ones (sperm). There are no other sexes."

So, by your definition post-menopausal women, or women who have had hysterectomies, aren't female because they can't produce ova? Similarly, anyone born infertile is neither male nor female. Sorry, but your definition doesn't work.

Male and female are fuzzy sets.

Henceforth if people here describe women with GRCs as men, I will be reporting them

Report away, I will not be party to a lie that says men are women, GRC or none.

Rabbits are nothing like people and have similar appearing external genitals. This is the most bizarre and irrelevant comparison I think I've ever come across in this area.

Boys or adult human men who want to change gender presentation are not the same as female rabbits that were mistaken for male.

"How are trans women women?"

If you buy a male rabbit you might discover several months later that she is female. Sexing humans isn't a precise science and doctors get it wrong. If that didn't happen to you, rejoice, but it does happen to some people

"Because the person is male"

If you say that of someone with a GRC then I think that is a contempt of court since you are refusing to abide by a legal judgement - in law the Gender Recognition Panel is a tribunal. Free speech entitles you to say that you think the matter was wrongly decided, or that the law should be changed, but you can't just ignore a judgement because you dislike it. Henceforth if people here describe women with GRCs as men, I will be reporting them

"Not if they're all poor. See Mossandclover's post below. Perhaps you'd better read all of Matthews tweet thread because it's not actually mostly the sample size he's criticising."

I did. He is completely lacking in rigour. If someone wants to not take an ademic study at face value the counter argument needs to be presented to academic standards. He hasn't

More importantly the whole point of a meta study is to address any weaknesses in individual studies (such as a sample size which is less than ideal) by aggregating across them and he doesn't seem to understand or address that at all. It's a gestalt.

Not if they're all poor. See Mossandclover's post below. Perhaps you'd better read all of Matthews tweet thread because it's not actually mostly the sample size he's criticising.

It seems my society and my government already accept me as female

It's what's known as a legal fiction. As you will be aware there can be exemptions to it. Because the law recognises that you wish to change your sex but are biologically male, and that women have rights to some sex segregated services and spaces. In some cases we are permitted to exclude you. One of the examples given is a rape counsellor. The guidelines state that an exemption may potentially be permitted even when the person has a GRC. This is so as not to cause further distress to a female rape victim. Because the person is male. This is the heart of the matter. Do you respect this?

Disorders of sex development and other chromosome anomalies do not refute that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Female sex is a producer of large gametes (ova), Male sex produced small ones (sperm). There are no other sexes.

Society doesn't accept you as female on the whole. Most people know perfectly well what a woman is. But often they don't want to offend or get into trouble.