Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Glinner thing

359 replies

JohnnyW2001 · 27/06/2020 15:12

Hello! Yes, I'm a dreaded new user, and I registered here just to reply to @glinner's post. I don't wish to gloat or insult. I just wanted to reply to one specific point:

"a dangerous ideology that tells children it's possible to be born into the wrong body"

Unfortunately it seems I cannot reply to that thread? So I'll write what I have to say here. Hopefully it will be taken in the spirit it's intended: Non confrontational sharing of science.

The problem with the sentence I quoted is that it's scientifically unsound. Female and male brains are biologically different in ways that have been observed and studied, again and again. There are certain physical traits that identify a female brain and a male brain.

What's especially interesting is that when you put people who claim to feel in the "wrong body" (as you put it) into brain imaging, they do indeed appear to have the wrong gendered brain for their body. There are observable unique characteristics that indicate a difference. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in studies for decades, and as our imaging technology has improved, it's only become more supported by science.

There are so many studies supporting this from the last 40 years, that it's difficult to pick one. Here's a few for you to Google (I can't seem to post links):

"Neuroimaging studies in people with gender incongruence", Kreukels, Baudewijntje, et al
"Grey and white matter volumes either in treatment-naïve or hormone-treated transgender women: a voxel-based morphometry study",
Giancarlo Spizzirri, et al

(Also, before anybody brings this up, I'm aware there are some scientists - namely Gina Rippon - who believe there is no biological brain gender, and that the entire brain is blank-slate shaped from birth. For those who are unaware, her argument is that society is what shapes female and male brains, due to the sheer elasticity of that organ, and that is why we see differences. One of the many problems with this argument is that the same gendered biological differences are also seen in animals. The exact same differences we see in humans. Society isn't playing role in rhesus monkeys.

Another is that there is measurable differences in male and female brains just 24 hours after birth.

To be brief: Scientists like Rippon, who claim there zero biological differences between male and female brains are, to put it mildly, are very much on the fringe and not the mainstream, despite the incredible amount of press they get.

Mainstream science says that when it comes to the gendered differences between our brains, biology plays a role and society plays a role -- not exactly controversial or difficult to believe.

Here's an article from Stanford Medicine which goes through the countless ways in which we have demonstrated biological gendered differences between brains over the decades, and how it cannot just be society as Rippon insists: "Two minds: The cognitive differences between men and women", Bruce Goldman at StanMed. Many of the falsehoods in Rippon's work are pointed out in Professor Simon Baron-Cohen's review of her book in The Times (March 2019), too.)

Just to be clear, I'm not making a political statement, I'm just sharing the science. And all mainstream science indicates that it is indeed biologically possible to have a female traited brain in a male traited body, and vise versa.

I will add one personal note: I have to say that this doesn't surprise me at all. Our genes are programmed to be occasionally random: Some people are born without a sense of smell, or missing limbs, or extra limbs, or whatever. So if there is such a thing as a female brain and a male brain then it makes perfect sense to me that occasionally someone would get a male brain in a female body, or vise versa.

And history has also repeatedly shown us that people who claim to be suffering from something that ultimately complicates their life in ways that anyone would rather avoid (like being gay, for example, which opens you up to persecution and complications and which historically was seen as a malady to be "cured") are usually right. These people really ARE suffering, and today we even have the science to prove that their complaint appears to be true.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not pushing any political agenda, or even suggesting the best way to address this situation, I'm just sharing the science, and hopefully appealing to your higher self. Pointing out that those who listen with compassion and empathy tend to sit on the right side of history.

Thanks.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
TheId · 28/06/2020 22:40

So evidence of precisely nothing apart from that some people will go to a lot of lengths to try to prove their theories...

Someone just asked me on another thread if I thought researchers would find something just because they are looking for it.

Well erm yes. That's a pretty well known fact called bias.

CharlieParley · 28/06/2020 22:32

Yes, TheID that was him as the lead author. The paper is from 2000 I think, when he was a firm believer in biology is destiny.

The most ludicrous thing for me in the whole study is that like the OP most people believe they showed babies an object that looks nothing like a face and a face (like a PP said, a spanner for instance).

But that isn't at all what the setup of the experiment was.

Test A: newborn is held on mum's lap, facing the actual researcher who holds their head at a 20 cm distance from baby's eyes. Trying for a neutral expression and gently moving their head. So baby can smell the researcher and hear them moving and feel their presence.

Test B: the newborn lies in a cot, on the back. The researcher dangles a mobile at a 20 cm distance above baby's head.

(See screenshot for the face and object)

The object is deliberately made to mimic the shape of the researcher's head as well as the skin colour. It also has a nose like feature, and dome random jumbled up facial features (whatever that means).

A second person is recording the baby's eyes to later analyse whether they think the baby is looking and how long for.

Half the female babies and a third of the male babies showed no preference at all, and the parameters for preference are tight as this was measured in seconds. And their extraordinary conclusions that male babies are more interested in mechanical objects than female babies from birth are based on the assumption that these newborn's somehow differentiated between the "physico-mechanical motion" of the mobile and the "biological motion" of the face and then had a preference for one or the other depending on sex. I mean talk about nonsense.

There is no explanation as to why the researchers had two different setups to begin with (why not on the lap each time, or why not in the cot for both tests). No explanation why they didn't make sure the researcher didn't know the sex beforehand. We know that people treat babies differently from birth depending on sex, at the very least subconsciously and frequently deliberately. How can they adjust for unconscious bias in this set up?

So, no, these newborns weren't shown something clearly mechanical and definitely not human as an object, but something that for someone who can barely see may look like a face. As we know now, newborn's pattern recognition doesn't even work the way we thought it did just 20 years ago, so the conclusions the authors draw seem even more questionable in light of that.

(And speaking as someone who can't even see facial features at a few feet without my glasses, I honestly don't know what they thought they were measuring. I would probably try to figure out what I'm looking at from other clues, like smell or sound and movement. And we have no clue whatsoever what may have motivated the difference in attention.)

Most gaze studies in older babies use photos of clearly human faces and clearly inanimate objects btw.

The Glinner thing
TheId · 28/06/2020 22:26

I read the Briggs study linked

It does indeed show that dysphoria and also suicidal thoughts are worse rather than better after puberty blockers for girls although the boys felt better. It's only on 30 children though and there were 60 in an earlier Dutch study.

Probably the real scandal (as he says himself barely concealed by formal language) is the lack of any decent evidence positive or negative for this unlicensed treatment being given to young children.

  1. there are only 3 small published studies into the effects of giving these drugs to young kids in the whole world. About 150 kids only in total have been enrolled in these studies.
  2. In each study about half the participants failed to complete the follow up questionnaires. Usually when there is a such a high drop out rate it suggests that these people are experiencing negative effects. If the study is published with the results only from those who remained in the trial it will underestimate the negative outcomes ie the true results were probably even worse.
  3. The studies were not randomised or blinded only observational with no control group and all got psychotherapy as well as hormones so any effect might be due to that. A properly conducted study would need a placebo control group.

Despite this treatment being billed as a 'pause' in fact 96% go on to have cross sex hormones. The average age of starting the puberty blockers in the Tavi study was 13. 13 year olds starting on a road to permanent infertility and bodily mutilation from which there seems to be relatively little chance to back track with barely any evidence to support this at all. There has to be some doubt surely over their capacity to consent to be experimented on in this way most of them without even being in an actual clinical trial just being given unlicensed drugs by Drs who have an ideological belief in them.

Over 300 under 15s have been given puberty blockers at the Tavistock since 2011 and yet they have published no results for this group (only for a group of 60 over 16s). They presented this data that he's taken for the paper to their board on 30 children only and never sought to try to publish it so he has done.

Compare what happens with a novel cancer drug. Every single person who gets that new cancer drug gets enrolled in a clinical trial as a condition of having it and then all the results are published so that everyone can see if this new treatment works. They should have enrolled all those 300 children into proper clinical trials and published the data. That is the only ethical way to be giving novel unlicensed drugs to children.

So now Johnny do you agree that this is literally a dangerous ideology that is harming children.

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 28/06/2020 22:15

@Diptheria23

JohnnyW2001: you contradict yourself. You say that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain. Then you say that some people with male bodies have female brains and vice versa. No - if it is in a male body then it is a male person's brain. If it is in a female body, then it is a female person's brain. It may not be the average male or female brain, but it should be the basis to accept variety in male and female thinking and behaviour, not the basis to deny their biology.
Quite.

The only thing that makes a brain male is that it belongs to a body with male reproductive organs.

The only thing that makes a brain female is that it belongs to a body with female reproductive organs.

Anything else is sexist bollocks.

JingleCatJingle · 28/06/2020 22:09

What a load of complete twattery. Biscuit and go away back to twitter where you can block people and shout jn your echo chamber to people that care.
Lady brain pffft

TorkTorkBam · 28/06/2020 22:06

Agree completely Furx

In no other context would we be so blasé about life changing hormones and surgery. FFS, I think about the amount of trouble I had getting the right contraception.

TwangBadge · 28/06/2020 21:51

Oh do fuck off, Johnny, there's a good boy.

Furx · 28/06/2020 21:20

Tork. What really finally proper fucked me off about the JKR pile on was the wokesters picking up on the fact that she felt she might have transitioned, given the chance. There was some dismissive comment about ‘oh all T3RFS* pretend they have some kind of trans history .. as though that was some gotcha that we were trying to prevent people having surgery and lifelong untested medication just out of badness.

I mean, you wouldn’t buy a fucking dishwasher or book an Air B&B without reading at least a couple of reviews, so why the fuck are we in a place where the people who have direct real experience of this are ridiculed.

Oh, yes, I remember. We are women. The boring cunty kind.

Diptheria23 · 28/06/2020 21:09

JohnnyW2001: you contradict yourself. You say that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain. Then you say that some people with male bodies have female brains and vice versa. No - if it is in a male body then it is a male person's brain. If it is in a female body, then it is a female person's brain. It may not be the average male or female brain, but it should be the basis to accept variety in male and female thinking and behaviour, not the basis to deny their biology.

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 28/06/2020 21:05

@Prettybluepigeons

And you had the opportunity to kindly educate me but instead you decided to patronise. And we both know that you know your doing it

you're

Grin
Bananabixfloof · 28/06/2020 21:03

you're
This cracked me up. Huzzah.

Prettybluepigeons · 28/06/2020 21:01

And you had the opportunity to kindly educate me but instead you decided to patronise. And we both know that you know your doing it

you're

TorkTorkBam · 28/06/2020 21:00

It seems to conclude that after puberty blockers, dysphoria worsened for girls. ... so I'd be interested to hear what anyone has to say on this. Is this likely/ possible?

Anecdata of my own life tells me that like Furx I would have thrown myself at being trans and I know I would have regretted it.

It makes sense really. In reality I could not have identified out of sexism and lower physical power than men even with surgery, hormones and pronouns, the reality of which tends to hit women more as they age, i.e. gain experience of the world. My health would be suffering because of the hormones. I would probably have a crap sex life and love life, which I'd feel more as my peers paired up. So, I am damn sure I would have regretted it.

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 28/06/2020 20:24

Thanks prolefeed

why are we pushing to affirm and medicate with puberty blockers given the lack of research into them and the alarming suspicion that the Tavi are suppressing their own research because it does not demonstrate improved outcomes and in fact does the opposite of what they claim it does.

Seems a bloody good question to me!

prolefeed · 28/06/2020 20:17

MB has been working in this area and talking about it for a couple of years and has been an architect of pressure to evaluate the Tavi’s work. He was banned from twitter too. I respect him a lot.
I had a quick skim through and I don’t think this study is any new information - it just formalises the questions he has been trying to get answered - why are we pushing to affirm and medicate with puberty blockers given the lack of research into them and the alarming suspicion that the Tavi are suppressing their own research because it does not demonstrate improved outcomes and in fact does the opposite of what they claim it does.
But I’m another humanities bod, so I live reading explanations from those who can interrogate it properly Grin

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 28/06/2020 20:02

*Biggs, not Briggs

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 28/06/2020 20:01

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.

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10508-020-01764-1?sharingtoken=VlaX9Hk16yDJtxcUYQT7PPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY7tJ6hsj2NP-qM6PdyCCkmHemmHOhWNMHmgZslXhX21lufWkKq5KnUPVP2pwA62t2iUB5NzSUXhd6GFll1aeDrXk7qjb2TuiVBJaUuaaiykDUecPmHAjOv9l18MbKQJhM%3D

Karwomannghia · 28/06/2020 19:58

@Furx

I do wonder just how keen to listen to my feminism the OP would be if we’d met in a pub IRL.

Not to stereotype someone, but my lived experience suggests: Not very much. 🤣

Yep I’ve mentioned it a couple of times and it really does not go down well. Last time a man shouted at me that he had seen a woman being stoned- the subtext being that as a privileged woman in this country I had no lived experience of ‘real’ misogyny - as some kind of defence against my idea that women are abused the world over. This was about 30 minutes after he’d felt my arse.
midgebabe · 28/06/2020 19:31

And even if I have a strongly masculine brain, as recently proved in some online tests apparently I don't want to use the Male changing rooms, you know history of sexual abuse , and they don't want me in there , you know, basic respect for the physically weaker sex

midgebabe · 28/06/2020 19:28

The researchers conducting the tests knew the babies sex before doing the test! !!

Blinking hec. Was it a student project ?

ChurchOfWokeApostate · 28/06/2020 19:24

Yawn 🥱
Even if a man does have a fluffy pink lady brain, I still don’t want his penis in my changing rooms.

Thank you for dropping by

Furx · 28/06/2020 19:17

I do wonder just how keen to listen to my feminism the OP would be if we’d met in a pub IRL.

Not to stereotype someone, but my lived experience suggests: Not very much. 🤣

TheId · 28/06/2020 18:41

CharlieParley that's Simon Baron Cohen's extreme male brain theory isn't it?

Although he is very very highly respected and famous a lot of people are questioning that idea now which, even he would admit, was only a theory ie open to challenge based on evidence.

Even if his idea was born out and males were more analytic and females more empathic (and it really is an absolutely ridiculous stretch to say that this study shows anything like that because a tiny baby allegedly paid more attention to a picture of a spanner!) then even he postulates that this would be because of prenatal androgen exposure which is due fundamentally to having a Y chromosome.

JackiF · 28/06/2020 18:41

I've learned a lot from lurking here over the years.

You are excellent company, don't eat much, never try and borrow money, always work out the answers between you all, and know when to go home.Smile

TheId · 28/06/2020 18:30

Thanks edge
That makes it worthwhile to have responded
If I ever do respond to these it's usually with half an eye to anyone lurking

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Posting is temporarily suspended on this thread.