"Gender identity has a durable biological underpinning"

Even if the brain were pink or blue and we could actually see gender on a PET scan, it still wouldn’t explain why gender identity should have more salience than reproductive sex when it comes to creating safe spaces and positive discrimination to rectify millennia of sex-based subjugation.

What Materialist said. File this away as your go-to answer whenever TRAs try to derail with suspect science about innate 'gender identity' (which even they don't believe in, otherwise they would be pushing for a diagnostic test for 'transness').

We don't need to waste time and and bore everyone with a hopelessly convoluted debate about neuroscience and brain sex. We just need to keep bringing it back to the reality and social significance of sexed bodies.

Absolutely Materialist. If observable, reliable biological differences between classes of human are gold-standard evidence allowing us to categorise ourselves into types (as implied here) then why the hell are we being told to ignore biological sex as a category system?

We are instantiated in biological matter. Everything we think or feel has a biological underpinning. Skills and life experiences (e.g., musical training, reading Braille, being a taxi driver ) are represented and can be observed in the matter of our brains. Does this mean learning an instrument or being a taxi driver or a reader of Braille is a hardwired immutable identity? Nope.

Rereading... I don't mean to imply that I think this basis has been found, just that it would be good if there was solid evidence one way or another.

Identifying a biological basis for gender dysphoria is a good thing, if it can lead to:
A) rapid and accurate diagnosis of whether an individual is or isn't dysphoric
B) appropriate treatment (counselling and medical interventions if necessary) for those who are dysphoric
C) appropriate treatment (probably counselling) for those who aren't dysphoric

And an end to the nonsense of non dysphoric people being able to 'self id' as 'trans'.

The Endocrine Society position statement was discussed in this thread. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228447-Transing-children

I went through their reference list to see if there was any evidence for their claims - there wasn't.

The first reference, which they use to support their statement that "Data are strong for a biological underpinning to gender identity" is a very short literature review (Saraswat A, et al. Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. Endocr Pract. 2015 Feb;21(2): 199-204.)

It concludes: 'Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity.'

You cannot conclude from this that "Data are strong for a biological underpinning to gender identity".

Sorry this is the part suggesting puberty blockers as soon as possible.
It's alarming but not surprising seeing as it is in their interest to do this sort of thing.

Interesting that none of the "biological underpinnings" relate to endocrinology.

I wonder why lots of endocrinologists would say that treatment is medically necessary and should be covered by medical insurance?

Aren't endocrinologists in the business of prescribing hormones and development of hormone treatments. They are very eager to prescribe puberty blockers at the earliest opportunity and supply a growing market for cross sex hormones. Presumably this approach to gender non conformity gives them a lot of business.

Thats interesting. I don't think anyone here has said transgender people don't exist.
Just that women only spaces should be just that. Women only.

growinguptransgender.com/2017/11/18/endocrine-society-consensus-on-a-durable-biological-underpinning-to-gender-identity/

Clicky link (I hope)