Robert Winston Radio 4 Today Programme

I’m talking about being more comfortable with physical characteristics being changed to resemble the opposite sex, being recognised as and accepted as a member of the opposite sex.

From this description this sounds like cosmetic surgery, so is done simply to alter what the person sees in the mirror and how other people react to them.

If people want cosmetic surgery that's up to them, but the NHS shouldn't be paying for it, and particularly in the case of extreme body modifications there should be psychiatric support to ensure that people aren't making these decisions for the wrong reasons.

And wanting to resemble the opposite sex definitely falls into the category of extreme body modifications.

Girls do not like pink because they have a girl brain,

I’m not talking about liking pink Sentimental. I’m talking about being more comfortable with physical characteristics being changed to resemble the opposite sex, being recognised as and accepted as a member of the opposite sex.

For a trans man (born female) being more comfortable with facial hair, a flat chest, a deeper voice, looking in a mirror and seeing a male face not a female one and feeling ‘yes, that is me’ and being accepted as a main on a day to day basis. A trans man talked about this in a recent AMA on this site although it ended a bit unfortunately.

Yes, but maternity leave legislation does fall under gender, because it is not physical sex, its a social structure related to it. It's a way society tries to deal with the effects of being sexed beings.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. When you say maternity leave, do you mean the time off from work for a mother to give birth? Because that is about physical sex. Or do you mean the time off after the birth to look after the baby? That parental leave component can now be taken by the father, so no longer a 'gendered' thing.

But maternity leave is about differences in sex - only women can get pregnant. I was talking about stereotypes of gender which do not depend on sex - things like clothing, hair styles, make up, interests or activities which are stereotypically associated with one sex or the other even though both sexes can do them.

Yes, but maternity leave legislation does fall under gender, because it is not physical sex, its a social structure related to it. It's a way society tries to deal with the effects of being sexed beings.

We use our culture to deal with or manage our sexual dimorphism or sexual reproduction all kinds of ways, and it's pretty sensitive to differences related to sex that aren't very marked. So things that might be associated, but not strongly, with one sex, are still taken up into culture. Maybe this isn't surprising, humans are very flexible in terms of environmental and other situations we can adapt to, and that is partly because our culture can flexibly and sometimes fairly quickly adapt to need as well.

I'm not actually convinced even that things like differences in clothing don't serve a purpose for us, mainly I would guess around signals related to reproductive class, or possibly creating solidarity within the sexes. Some human societies don't do this but mainly that seems to be when there isn't the resources to do so, and/or males and females are marked out in other ways. I think it's notable that attempts to get rid of sexed clothing in some societies have been pretty unsuccessful. People seem to really dislike it at a pretty visceral level.

Well, I think hormone washes rather fail Occams razor, tbh. What is the most simple explanation for males or females in our culture feeling a sense of disconnect with their bodies which may relate to their preferences for certain activities and personality traits which the society around them has coded for the opposite sex? Is it the society around them coding these things erroneously, or is it a mysterious, unproven theory about hormone washes in the womb?

This seems how a lot of people interpret this idea, which you are right, doesn't seem to make much sense.

I think to some extent it's not actually the idea. It's more that culture encodes certain things as relating to male or female. Some may represent some real, though not absolute, connection, maternal behaviour say. While others have a random quality, like a certain colour or speech patterns, whatever.

I think the real idea is that for some reason, because the individual is somehow "identifying" (and I use quotes because I am not sure it's really the right word here) or maybe say associating? their body with the other sex, they are also picking up or are being sensitised to the encoding related to that sex.

Or what I think might be more likely or at least also occurs, because they feel alienated from their own body, particularly the sexed element, they pick up on the encoding related to the opposite sex.

As for why people might feel that alienation or affinity in their self-image, I don't think there is really evidence of the hormone wash business, but I do think there was some research at one point where that was being discussed. So it's not necessarily that people are pulling it out of thin air. I think it's more likely that it's related to other identity disorders but then some people think there could be biological markers for some of those as well.

But I think we are all pretty attuned to the encoding, we pick it up without even being aware that we are. That doesn't mean we are bound to follow it, other personal feelings can come into it, sometimes the coding itself is not so clear cut, and sometimes people deliberately subvert it for effect.

There are no examples of society without gender, even the utopian feminist ideas include things like maternity leaves which are gender - social structures built around sex.

But maternity leave is about differences in sex - only women can get pregnant.

I was talking about stereotypes of gender which do not depend on sex - things like clothing, hair styles, make up, interests or activities which are stereotypically associated with one sex or the other even though both sexes can do them.

You mean development of an inclination to view cultural stereotypes of gendered behaviour as important.

That's an ideological interpretation too though, isn't it? There is plenty of evidence that identity in relation to the body is a biological mechanism that finds expression within a cultural context. And sexed identity seems to be the most primary one in existence, which makes sense, it's at the heart of our ability to exist as a species and affects our experience of the world pretty profoundly. There are no examples of society without gender, even the utopian feminist ideas include things like maternity leaves which are gender - social structures built around sex.

that transition as therapy could be being over used

Slightly off-topic, but I understood that surgery (sex reassignment surgery - SRS) was regarded as “experimental” treatment in the early 1970s.

There’s been precious little actual scholarly scientific research done on SRS as a treatment. I thought Winston was injecting some careful thoughtful scientific caution into the conversation.

If he does respond I’ll update here.

It would be good if he could come clean, as it were.

If he's trying to hedge his bets, it's going to be difficult, as all his words are out there for everyone to see. Much better to untangle the contradictions with honesty.

I honestly think we need to enable a way back to a rational evidence-based position for trans cheerleaders. Whether that's politicians, scientists, detransitioning young people, or whoever.

For example, the shows how powerfully a changed mind can come across.

Datun I’ve tried contacting him on a few points. He’ll probably just ignore me, but I contact an awful lot of people and sometimes they surprise me. If he does respond I’ll update here.

That's interesting rodgmum. He implies he is seeing infertile women as a result of this? Saying they now feel badly damaged.

And refers to a 23% mastectomy regret. I wonder what that study is.

I wish he would be a little clearer. A little more explicit.

Thank you, Barracker, I'd had no idea how instrumental he was in the GRA. Perhaps he's looking at the Tavistock situation and starting to worry. So maybe we need to respond to the R4 piece by reminding them of what he used to believe and asking for him to be held accountable now.

He’s expressed concerns for a little while now- thread on his comments a couple of years ago on Radio 4:

twitter.com/bayswatersg/status/1215326127457173505?s=21

Re the BBC someone at R4 has had a word. The news website remains propaganda central as does the children’s programming

The hormone wash stuff has been misinterpreted from genuine effects of hormones on the development of babies in the womb; Gina Rippon has a lot on it in her book the gendered brain. But her whole book is about the way the impact of this on personality expression is misinterpreted as blue pink brain rubbish.

We impose gender stereotypes on character. Eg ADHD is often seen as a male issue and girls with the condition can get labelled "stereotyped" thrice over; behaviour like a boy, "that's usually a boy thing," and then the actual stereotypes surrounding the condition. I know Erin Brewer who has gender dyphoria due to a sexual assault as a child and also due to adhd and how she was treated with this condition growing up has written about this. A similar process of stereotyping and assumptions definitely exists for women with autism.

Fantastic post Barracker.

I think the BBC are beginning to recognise that the transitioning of children might end up not on the right side of history

Well cbbc aren't getting that memo

I think scientists find it difficult to communicate uncertainty. During the GRA 2004 debate it sounds like Robert is stating supported hypotheses at that time and scientific knowledge at that time. The problem with supporting any hypothesis is that there will be unknowns. Scientists err on the side of caution by saying but and if and we don't know all the facts. Policy makers don't want unknowns they want black and white facts. Policy makers want certainty and simplicity. Eventually a diluted compromise is achieved. If Robert joined the debate to discuss DSD then what he says is that it is complex, which I guess it is. As others have said this was before the rise of gender identity.
Still disappointed though that he mentioned sexed brains.

Interesting how he was brought on to Radio 4 to discuss lengthy waiting times for gender dysphoria, but would not be drawn into that debate. I also liked how he seemed to leave an open invite to come back and talk about children and he did use the word mutilation I believe.
As with others I'm annoyed he used gender instead of sex on numerous occasions, but I did feel he got some important points across.
Standing for Women quoted there are 26000 females on Crowdfunder asking for donations for surgery to affirm them as men.

A couple of years back I met him and had an interesting chat about neuroanatomy, sex stereotypes and brain plasticity. Where he agreed with all what I said, then somehow came to the conclusion of different sexed brains causing tgism. Fuck knows tbh.

If he has changed his stance, he needs to make that absolutely 100% clear and acknowledge that he has had a part in this.
Anything less just isn't good enough.

It was the oddest sensation not to recognise my body as my own - it became an abstract blobby pink shape rather than a part of me - and to feel completely alienated from it

I had an inkling of this after a bone fracture which led to severe nerve problems in that limb. It's not uncommon - Ann Oakley (2nd wave feminist academic.) wrote a book called Fracture where she explores this.

I mean a deeply held belief about the sex one feels one is or should be.

If biological sex is a social construct because intersex, what does that even mean?

Apart from him using "gender" where the correct word should have been "sex" a number of times, that was very interesting

yes!!!! That frustrated me (shouting at the radio). But otherwise, what he said was science & evidence-based, measured, compassionate, and sensible.

Oh that the Tavistock and other clinics were led by people like him.

Yes well said need

It is worth remembering that when the first Act was debated it was assumed that around 5,000 were affected. (In the end I think slightly fewer than 5,000 certificates were issued).

This was before queer theory really took hold, and when many people had real sympathy for transexual pioneers like Jan Morris and April Ashley.

I assume Robert Winston may have come from a similar place, as that legislation raised barely any public opposition. Then, like many others, is shocked at the Pandora's Box that has been opened. Many people still think transgender means transexual, and are
unaware of Stonewall's alphabet soup definition. I suspect many transexuals are equally unhappy that their own distress has been hijacked, in part by apparent fetishists and opportunities.