GCSE Biology

I wouldn't say they are marking down children for correct answers. It's not the answer that's the problem so much as the question.

The language of the question has been changed (since 2015, see my screenshot above).

Why?

The point a page or so back, that all this is like Lysenkoism, with science playing second fiddle to political ideology, is in a nutshell what this thread is about. And it's fucking horrifying.

Yes, yes it is. A national exam board is taking advice on its science curriculum from a political lobby group, regardless of scientific accuracy, and is marking down children for scientifically correct but politically unacceptable answers.

Genderists can rock up and post endless nonsense about the sudden and miraculous (well, non existent) confluence between feminist and MRA political aims all they like. It's bluster and deflection. Because this is the point of the thread:

A national exam board is taking advice on its science curriculum from a political lobby group, regardless of scientific accuracy, and is marking down children for scientifically correct but politically unacceptable answers.

It’s definitely Bunbury time.

Back to the topic.

We may be a woman, but identify with the outlook and social norms of men.

When we feel this way, we are transgender.

On the BBC?!? My god. What a load of stereotyping nonsense. This is so blatantly sexist. Is it so hard for these morons to grasp the idea that nobody fits into neat little boy girl boxes and that we have unique personalities that have nothing to do with pink and blue brains? This is so damn annoying.

Attached file is an Edexcel Biology exam question from 2015 (disclaimer - this is IGCSE biology so a slightly different specification).

You're mad There! Fixed that for you 7Days

You're mad keen on getting people to look at mra websites.

Transactivism does seem to be a men's rights movement, though.

Again, this is nonsense and there is no evidence for this. Go and look at MRA websites; I won't name them and you know what ones I would link you to anyway.

Supporting both homosexuality and transgenderism makes no sense. You can oppose both, or support one or the other, but it makes no sense to support both, because they are in opposition to each other. If you support the idea that people can change sex, what does it mean to have a same-sex relationship?

Just... what...

Supporting transgenderism does not mean wanting everybody to be transgender. Only a tiny fraction of people are transgender. For everyone else, well, what it means to be gay or straight is obvious.

This is from the Times article which is behind a paywall.

So many potentially gay children were being sent down the pathway to change gender, two of the clinicians said there was a dark joke among staff that “there would be no gay people left”.

"It feels like conversion therapy for gay children,” one male clinician said. “I frequently had cases where people started identifying as trans after months of horrendous bullying for being gay,” he told The Times.

“Young lesbians considered at the bottom of the heap suddenly found they were really popular when they said they were trans.”

I have no interest in MRAs or what they think. I misread the original reference to MRAs as TRAs, and replied accordingly. Transactivism does seem to be a men's rights movement, though.

Supporting both homosexuality and transgenderism makes no sense. You can oppose both, or support one or the other, but it makes no sense to support both, because they are in opposition to each other. If you support the idea that people can change sex, what does it mean to have a same-sex relationship?

Logic doesn't always come into it - where's the logic in being anti-gay?

You said "If you're anti-gay, the logical position is to support transgenderism," now you are saying "logic doesn't always come into it."

Can you hear that flip-flopping sound? Flip, flop, flip, flop.

As for 'trans away the gay', here's an article from a few weeks ago about the Tavistock.

I don't have a Sunday Times subscription. The Spiked article says it's done to counteract homophobic bullying in some cases, but there's no evidence that this is common, there's no evidence that this is common among children from traditional conservative families, and there's no evidence that the majority of MRAs support children transitioning to counteract homophobic bullying. Certainly, if you do some digging around online (again, I won't link to MRA websites in case it breaches the rules), you will find plenty of MRAs who say some very hateful things about transgender people.

You should watch videos produced by MRAs and read their message boards; in order to oppose someone's position, understanding it first is absolutely essential. I read tons of stuff that I don't agree with.

Forcing lesbians to accept penis or label them a bigot is pretty much the definition of 'anti-gay' IMHO.

Given that the proportion of transgender women attracted to women is far higher than the proportion of women attracted to women, it would be completely illogical to support transgenderism if you are anti-gay.

Just to be clear on this, dwatsuts, a relationship between a 'transgender woman' (to use your term) and a woman is a heterosexual relationship (unless the 'transgender woman' is in a relationship with another 'transgender woman'), since people can't change sex. So it's not illogical for such a person to be anti-gay, since they are not actually gay, even though they might be playing out fantasies of being a lesbian.

Many of these heterosexual transsexuals are autogynephiles. Some heterosexual 'transgender' people are simply crossdressers, like Alex Drummond.

If you redefine lesbian sex to include PIV sex, that’s pretty anti-gay.

Yes, there are lots of Male born trans people who are attracted to women. Quite a number of them think they are lesbians, and are keen to have lesbians say they are lesbians too, and even accept their male anatomy as 'lesbian' too.

Can't imagine why anyone would think that was anti gay at all.

As for 'trans away the gay', here's an article from a few weeks ago about the Tavistock.

It feels like conversion therapy for gay children, say clinicians
Ex-NHS staff fear that homophobia is driving a surge in ‘transgender’ young people

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

If you don't have a Times subscription, this is a free article.

www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/11/stop-this-trans-exploitation-of-children/

I have never, ever heard of that, and that's definitely not a common position among traditional conservatives.

It certainly is in conservative countries like Iran.

Daughters can be linked to their fathers.

Well, duh, what with them inheriting half their DNA from them. However, they only inherit 25% from their grandfather, 12.5% from their great grandfather, etc. With each generation the amount halves, making the genetic link harder the trace. However, men and women inherit 100% of their mitochondria from their mother (barring slight mutations). This means you can determine maternal history through generations with a high degree of certainty.

Mitochondrial DNA remains unchanged because it doesn’t undergo meiotic recombination. Nether does Y-DNA. Since only men inherit Y-DNA and it is passed on from father to son you can trace the paternal line through generations through Y-DNA.

Yes, women don't have Y chromosomes

Glad you agree - but TRAs would not. They’d consider that transphobic.

but there's 45 other chromosomes that can be looked at, you know.

All autosomes undergo recombination. Ancestry becomes less precise the more generations you go back.

Given that the proportion of transgender women attracted to women is far higher than the proportion of women attracted to women, it would be completely illogical to support transgenderism if you are anti-gay.

Logic doesn't always come into it - where's the logic in being anti-gay? But I take your point, and since you've mentioned it ... Have you heard of autogynephilia?

You can just about make a case for saying ‘gender’ in humans instead of sex but but gendered apple trees? I have never heard of gender organs either.

If you're anti-gay, the logical position is to support transgenderism.

Given that the proportion of transgender women attracted to women is far higher than the proportion of women attracted to women, it would be completely illogical to support transgenderism if you are anti-gay.

The religious right in the western world attempts to "correct" homosexuality by converting homosexual men and women to heterosexual men and women, not by helping them to transition.

Haven't you ever heard of 'trans away the gay'?

I have never, ever heard of that, and that's definitely not a common position among traditional conservatives.

Given their conservative, traditional values, they despise gay people, are usually anti-abortion... and have a strong dislike of transgender people.

How does that work then? Transgenderism is gay conversion. If you're anti-gay, the logical position is to support transgenderism. Haven't you ever heard of 'trans away the gay'? Ask the Tavistock - it's happening.

Both sexes can both trace their maternal ancestry through their mitochondrial DNA; only men can trace their paternal ancestry through their Y chromosome DNA.

Daughters can be linked to their fathers. Yes, women don't have Y chromosomes, but there's 45 other chromosomes that can be looked at, you know.

Congratulations for totally missing my point.

Not understanding what an analogy is...

This is almost as bad as what I saw in another thread the other day... someone asking if men can only trace ancestors through their father, and if women can only trace ancestors through their mother.

Both sexes can both trace their maternal ancestry through their mitochondrial DNA; only men can trace their paternal ancestry through their Y chromosome DNA.

You can draw these comparisons between just about any two ideologies; yes, even the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Congratulations for totally missing my point. You should take up fencing.

Bunbury time people. We are being derailed by one of the nuttiest pieces of derailment I've ever seen ("feminists are just like MRAs").

The point a page or so back, that all this is like Lysenkoism, with science playing second fiddle to political ideology, is in a nutshell what this thread is about. And it's fucking horrifying.

Sex in mammals is about two reproductive sexes (with occasional, rare cases of disorders of sexual development in utero - many of which are evolutionary dead-ends, because the people unfortunate enough to have them are not able to reproduce). Genotype is determined by chromosomes - XX, or XY - and (barring aforementioned DSDs) largely then drives phenotype. It is observed at birth 99.9% of the time (not assigned - that would only be the case when a child was recognised to have a DSD and the medics were sufficiently stuck in the 1950s to feel they had to "assign a sex" via medical intervention - something not considered to be medical best practice these days).

Gender either means "sexist stereotypes imposed upon the sexes according to the culture you happen to live in" or "some kind of internal feeling" - it's a matter of sociology, anthropology, psychology, not of biology. (There may be a neurological underpinning to intense feelings of dysphoria about one's sexed body, but the evidence for such is a long, long way from being unequivocal - but note that even were such evidence found, this would still only be an explanation of the feelings of dysphoria, not evidence that brains were intrinsically sexed.)