The Glinner thing

Okay, so transwomen supposedly have 'female brains'. But even after transition they often show a strong preference for stereotypically male careers and hobbies. What does that mean? If a preference for certain careers and hobbies is embedded in brain structure, then TWs have male brains. If the preference is down to socialisation, then gender comes from without, not within, and 'gender identity' is mystical nonsense.

I haven't read all the thread so this may have come up before, but what I would really like would be a large study (or several)in which images of male and female subjects' brains were recorded in some appropriate way, several hundred of each, and then people who know there is a difference between the male brain and the female brain were asked to put them into two heaps: male to one side, female to the other.

This with no way for the subjects of the study to tell which was which apart from the images of the brains, and random numbers on each image which could then be used to find out whether they were right about which each brain was actually from a male or a female body, and whether the result of any given researcher was more accurate than random chance.

(As when than there was research into psychics and it was established that it was as significant if the psychic's results were a lot worse than random, as if they were better.)

I would very much like to know whether someone (anyone) could tell just by looking at the scan of a brain whether the body it was in was a male body or a female body, if they had no other evidence to judge it by.

If they could then I might want to look into this "male and female brains are different" matter more rigorously.

I can without difficulty discard the "men have bigger brains than women so they are more intelligent than women" theory, and the "Caucasians have bigger brains than their African slaves so they are more intelligent" theory which was rife for a while in some parts of America; if blind testing showed a difference that could be discerned when the sex was not already known, I would not be able to discard this "men and women have measurably different brains" theory without further research to establish the exact differences, and whether they were universal.

As it is, I can't say it's complete bollox, because I don't know for sure -- my gut says it is, but it seems just possible that it might not be.

From a quick google, colour blindness is passed on the X chromosome, so as with other conditions related to the X chromosome, males are more likely to be affected than females because they only have one X chromosome.

No idea whether this would affect infant gaze tests.

About 1 in 12 men are colour blind and about 1 in 200 women are colour blind.

I simply followed Glinner here. That is all.

I doubt he even read your dull TL/DR screed. This is Mumsnet, not Glinnernet. How pompous to think that you have anything of value to offer with that nonsense.

for every study that finds a difference between male and female baby brains, there are two more finding no differences at all. Some of us have actually researched this stuff - we're not just idiots wittering on. You're way out of your depth here and I'd recommend you do a bit more reading yourself.

I'd guess that's why he flounced, TwoHopes. Utterly out of his depth, when he only popped in to give a quick lecture to the silly pinkbrains. He didn't see that coming, because he doesn't respect women and our abilities in the face of his manly knowledge and debating skills, but we all did!

Also, if there are 'numerous studies' showing that a significant number of female brain characteristics are present in males, surely just proves that those characteristics aren't exclusively female?

I don't get it.

And also you weren't trying to engage in a reasoned conversation. You came here as a male, in a forum for women, to lecture us all on "the science" and why we're not on "the right side of history". Many of us have read these studies (and the rebuttals) and many of us are scientists. That's why your post went down like a fart in a lift my friend

This.

I’m pretty sure women have a wider peripheral vision than men too - so if true, then female children wouldn’t need to have such a direct stare to see something.

Isn't there a distinct biological difference in the eyesight of males and females?

Something like females recognise patterns and/or minor variations in colour that males don't?

Could that have accounted for anything in the baby test?

It's useless replying to you because you have gone but...with regard to the baby study, as others have pointed out, of course the researchers coded the object as masculine and the face as feminine

It’s like the now debunked study where female monkeys chose to play with cooking implements, males wheeled vehicles, proving male/female brains.

Yep, because monkeys understand what cookIng and driving is. Those girl monkeys have a natural urge to cook for their families in those pans..

Regarding dysphoria, this has just been published by Michael Briggs (sorry for the enormous link). It seems to conclude that after puberty blockers, dysphoria worsened for girls. I am not a scientist, my degrees are in Eng. Lit. so I'd be interested to hear what anyone has to say on this. Is this likely/ possible? Seems horrific is so, especially with places like the Tavistock acting as they have been.

Yes, lots of data has been showing this. It's fucking horrendous.

They think that going through puberty actually helps ease a lot of the dysphoria.

Prole, was that in the U.K. or us?

This thread turned out to be excellent. Thanks for all the brilliant posts vipers. I’ve learnt heaps.

I couldn't make heads nor tails of the description, so I went looking for the paper which included the picture.

Last week I saw a go fund me for breast implants for a 16yo girl who had been given a double mastectomy at 15yo because trans.
Never happens apparently.
ASD of course, but nobody bothered to investigate co-morbid because affirmation only.

OP it is a dangerous ideology . A seventeen year old girl I know was Put on cross sex hormones and then given a double mastectomy a very short time after declaring that she wanted to be a boy. This is too young to vote, too young to get a tattoo, too young to drink in a pub, but somehow not too young to irreversibly alter her body, with no delving into the why of this. No “has she experienced sexual abuse ?” No “is she on the autistic spectrum.” No “is she a lesbian in a country where being a lesbian is a very bad thing ?” .
Do you really think that medically sterilising a 17 year old girl and amputating her breasts is ok ? Giving her facial hair ? Changing her voice irreversibly? Would you like to be held all your life by the things you believed at sixteen ?

It looks like one of those mechanical parts inside the hosts from Westworld. Creepy bad science.

@CharlieParley

Thanks for showing the images from the study. That...'mechanical' thing is really horrifying looking. It's giving me the creeps just looking at it. It if moved in an unnatural way as well the male babies may have just been spooked and keeping their eye on the weird object!

FFS, I think about the amount of trouble I had getting the right contraception

Tork Colour me fucking surprised. Me too.

I ended up with an emergency dash to hospital in the early hours of the morning,bleeding, in agony and off my face on morphine before they’d take out the fucking coil that had made me bleed for 8 months continuously prior to that. And that was only because it was a different medical team. GP wasn’t impressed they’d removed it.

Let’s not even discuss the appropriateness or otherwise of various pill types.

@JohnnyW2001

It's useless replying to you because you have gone but...with regard to the baby study, as others have pointed out, of course the researchers coded the object as masculine and the face as feminine. They say in their conclusion that male infants show a stronger interest in mechanical objects, while females prefer faces. This stems from a theory by Cohen that boys orient to mechanical objects (because it is attractive to their systematising 'male' brain), and girls like faces because they are more sociable. If you are arguing for biological sexual dimorphism in perception and cognition, you are obviously going to look for results that explain the observed differences between the sexes. They weren't just passively recording 'differences'. It would have been quite awkward for them to accept opposite results whereby male children strongly preferred faces. That was my point - the researchers are looking to confirm their gendered assumptions from the very outset.

And you say the researchers didn't conclude anything, they just reported the difference. That's false. From the study blurb itself the researchers equate longer looking times with a 'preference.' I was just pointing out that babies gazes don't necessarily reflect a 'preference' but could equally stem from confusion or fear.

I know what both my male and female babies had a strong preference for at 1 day old and that was boobs. You'd have been quite lucky to catch them with their eyes open at all let alone really looking at anything.
Any woman who has ever given birth can tell you that study has to be bollocks just from personal experience.

So...... What about the whole 'tucutes' v 'truscum' thing? Would love to hear a TRA talk about that sometime instead of doing whatever they can to stifle debate.