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
EdgeOfACoin · 28/06/2020 18:07

It's been a very helpful discussion for those of us who don't know much about this topic, though.

Thank you to those who took the trouble to respond to the OP's points.

Bananabixfloof · 28/06/2020 18:04

I just am interested in hearing more from Furxand then I'll be gone
So all the time and effort we put into replying to you means nothing. You just plopped and mansplained and fucked off.

Right well that's helpful to us both isnt it.
Dont let the door hit you on the way out sugar pie.

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 28/06/2020 18:02

But please stay OP, it seemed a good discussion at the end.

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 28/06/2020 18:01

Sorry to go off topic slightly, but don’t they teach any critical thinking in schools at all?

If I understand it correctly, OP was writing a post which took some headline comments from a limited number of research reports and presented these as facts with a complete lack of mention of methodological issues or alternative interpretations?

Furx · 28/06/2020 18:00

@prolefeed

Johnny. Stay. Learn. From WOMEN. Not men with opinions on what being a woman is. Ffs.
Yes, stay.
FloralBunting · 28/06/2020 17:51

Yes, OP. It's all very well not wanting to be another male voice drowning out women. But if you're not going to actually listen to the women here, you might as well carry on being a mansplainer. Have some humility and take the time to pay attention to the women here.

prolefeed · 28/06/2020 17:43

Johnny. Stay. Learn.
From WOMEN.
Not men with opinions on what being a woman is.
Ffs.

CharlieParley · 28/06/2020 17:43

@JohnnyW2001

WeeBisom:

Babies at a very young age can't see very well, can't focus their gaze, and find it hard to focus attention.

I'm pretty sure the researchers in this study were aware of that.

These researchers seem to imply that 'objects' are 'masculine" and 'faces' are "feminine'.

No they didn't. They simply recorded the results to reactions to different things. The results indicated one was feminine and one was masculine.

The researchers could just have easily concluded that male babies struggle to understand objects and female babies are scared of strange faces!

Yes, they could have. But the researchers didn't conclude anything. They simply reported the results: There was a difference in behaviour in male and females. That's what the study concluded. It doesn't matter WHY, it matters that there was a difference.

Like most newborn studies measuring gaze, this particular study had various methodological issues. It didn't measure what they claimed they did - alert looking time out of total looking time (their results presentation makes clear they measured looking time out of presentation time) that is they claimed to measure how long a newborn paid attention while looking at the researcher's face vs the mobile, but only measured how many seconds a baby seemed to look while being shown either the object or the face.

The researcher knew what sex each newborn was, and given the beliefs of the authors and researchers it's hard to imagine that there might not have been unconscious bias in play in how each baby was looked at.

Furthermore, at 20cms the viewing distance was just fractionally outside of a one week old's average focusing ability. At only one day old, the study subjects may well not have been able to focus as well as the researchers assumed. The world is very blurry, vision is 20/400, far too dark and they can't yet coordinate both eyes. So making any pronouncements based on something we cannot properly measure with individual differences that we cannot control for is questionable to say the least.

Given the easily identifiable issues, their conclusion is extraordinary: they state first “We have demonstrated that at 1 day old, human neonates demonstrate sexual dimorphism in both social and mechanical perception. Male infants show a stronger interest in mechanical objects, while female infants show a stronger interest in the face” and then go on to conclude that their findings "demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these [sex] differences are in part biological in origin.”

The authors of the study btw believe that sex differences in systemising and emphasising are hard-wired into us before birth, that is that human males are predisposed from birth to be better at scientific reasoning and females at social understanding.

Of course the study proves nothing of the sort, especially "beyond a reasonable doubt" due to the methodological issues alone, but the main author comes from autism research which for decades has focused on males. And from that he has drawn a number of rather extreme conclusions. Unfortunately, as many posters on FWR know from their own experiences rather too well, autism is not only underresearched in female sufferers, the lack of research into how autism manifests in our sex means we do not have a full picture of autism and cannot therefore draw such extraordinary conclusions by porting ideas based on autism in males into research about sex differences in those who are neuro typical.

And P.S. they didn't even show that boys looked longer at objects than girls or that girls looked longer at faces than boys. There was no measurable difference between the sexes. They only found, in their experiment and with these subjects that girls looked longer at the face than the mobile and boys looked longer at the mobile than the face.

WombOfOnesOwn · 28/06/2020 17:34

@JohnnyW2001 I find it concerning that you think simply calling an ideology "dangerous" immediately causes personal harm to the adherents of such an ideology.

People on both sides of any political issue often regard their opponents' views as dangerous. Anti-tax libertarians view socialism and redistribution to achieve equality as a "dangerous ideology." Socialists regard capitalism as a "dangerous ideology." I'm sure you can think of many other examples, as well.

No one is harmed by these thoughts or statements. The only harm that is caused is if someone goes from saying "your ideology is dangerous" to actually hurting someone who is an adherent in some way, or engaging in harassment or cruelty.

I find it remarkable how the trans issue has managed to sneak in this equivalency between "finding trans ideology abhorrent and dangerous" and "causing direct harm to trans people."

It makes it so that one is not even allowed to contest the ideology on all available grounds, since the more dangerous aspects of it must be ignored lest we accidentally call it dangerous and hurt someone.

TheId · 28/06/2020 17:32

The other day I was forwarded an email from a male manager asking to be put in touch with the clinical lead for my service area ie me an adult human female. Could they please have 'his' email address.
Because the person in charge is always a man of course.

The same day my male manager asked me if maybe I was feeling a bit 'anxious' or 'upset' because I had reported a serious clinical error made by a colleague in completely factual terms via the official incident reporting system. I am not allowed as a woman to have a well founded concern it has to be that I am 'upset'.

Like Johnny repeatedly telling us on this thread that this is 'an emotional area'. We are not allowed as women to voice a well founded reasoned concern without being accused of 'getting emotional'

Nothing is new in the world.

FloralBunting · 28/06/2020 17:32

Sounds like the OP is every bit as transphobic as the rest of us...

Furx · 28/06/2020 17:22

@twoHopes

Ah *@Furx I hear you. As I'm the only woman on my team everyone assumes that I'm the manager/admin person and that everyone else does the technical work. People cc my male colleague on emails when they want to ask a technical question. It happens all the time*. It's exhausting.
Yep.

Exhausting is the word.

Furx · 28/06/2020 17:21

Oh, and it isn’t plain old fashioned sexism based on my gender presentation either. I don’t wear a dress, makeup or heels. I like football and motorsports. And craft ales.

I look and dress like a butch lesbian, with Short hair and doc martens. Though I have been through phases of trying to fit in, and dressing more stereotypically feminine. And deliberately not mouthing off about sport.

Doesn’t make shit of difference.

twoHopes · 28/06/2020 17:20

Ah @Furx I hear you. As I'm the only woman on my team everyone assumes that I'm the manager/admin person and that everyone else does the technical work. People cc my male colleague on emails when they want to ask a technical question. It happens all the time. It's exhausting.

ShinyFootball · 28/06/2020 17:17

?

You started the thread and can't be bothered to read all the answers?

Anyway I have a question.

So let's say there is a male brain and a female brain you can tell apart, and a scan is available.

So rather than sexing babies at birth based on observing genitals, you gender then based on their brain scan, and the children get socialised, dressed etc according to the prevailing social norms. Is that right?

I can see a number of issues with this approach.

maudspellbody · 28/06/2020 17:11

It's also interesting that you can't here to re-educate @glinner and he isn't even here. I doubt he'll bother reading past the first page even if he does look. There is nothing for him to learn from your great wisdom either.

Furx · 28/06/2020 17:08

NP

Your opening post was a bit of a shocker, but at least you admit it.

Im glad that we have all given you something to think about. I hope that our main take home lesson here is the subconscious bias about women that people are unwittingly perpetuating.

You came across in your first post as though you thought you were talking to uneducated people lacking in knowledge. Perhaps because of your unconscious bias that a bunch of mummies couldn’t possibly be scientists, academics, philosophers and writers. And that we held the position we did because we just hadn’t considered it. Rather that it coming form a lifetime of knowledge and experience.

This happens to us a lot on here and in real life. I’m nearly 50. I am an educated professional at the top of my career structure. I still get men who have less knowledge and experience than me, questioning my informed decisions on a daily basis. Because they assume im stupid, or that I made a decision based on emotion or something. But actually, it’s just Because I’m female.

Can you imagine for a minute how mind Fuckingly annoying that is. Every. Single. Day. of your career. And on here on weekends.

JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 17:06

@ErrolTheDragon

Pages 9 onwards are possibly worth reading, but probably not. I've spent way more time than I intended to here. I just am interested in hearing more from Furxand then I'll be gone.

Well, that's quite rude. You have a point, Michelle.

Ha. I only meant that my posts aren't worth reading, not that the rest of the tread isn't.

And I feel I should leave because this wider conversation doesn't need another male voice. That's all.

OP posts:
JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 17:05

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others?

Of course you can acknowledge their experiences, and you should. As a medical student I worked for a while in adult gender identity services, I 100% believe that dysphoria is real and that trans people suffer enormously from it. But you have to separate the experience (dysphoria) from the ideology (dysphoria is caused by a gendered brain, soul, or "identity" which is somehow "born into" the "wrong" body). You can acknowledge and have sympathy with the former whilst still saying that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the latter. If you take away the ideology then you may have a chance of getting to the root cause of the dysphoria and curing it. I personally suspect it will turn out to be a neurological disorder similar to body integrity disorder, where the brain fails to draw a correct map of your body and ends up thinking some bits should be there when they shouldn't. But once you add in the ideology then you end up with a set of beliefs in gendered souls or dualistic "identities" which exist independant from our bodies. It becomes more similar to religion than science. And as with all religious beliefs, they don't live in a vacuum, they bleed into everything we do. Specifically in this case they are leading to children believing that they are literally the opposite sex and in need of surgery, and they are leading to men forcing their way into female only spaces, making them inaccessible to many women. Acknowledging someone's experiences is one thing. Agreeing uncritically with their unevidenced assertion about what caused the experience, at the expense of your own rights, is quite another.

Wow. I'm glad I stuck around long enough to read this opinion. Very interesting and thought provoking. Thanks!
OP posts:
JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 17:03

@Michelleoftheresistance

Fascinating how much more respectful and equal you are in manner when talking to someone who has disclosed to you something you equate to trans. Whole gear change as to when talking to mere females.
That's not true, Michelle. Please read from Page 9 onwards if you don't believe me.

Thanks everyone, it's been educational, and left me with a lot to think about. Good bye!

OP posts:
ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings · 28/06/2020 17:03

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others?

Of course you can acknowledge their experiences, and you should. As a medical student I worked for a while in adult gender identity services, I 100% believe that dysphoria is real and that trans people suffer enormously from it. But you have to separate the experience (dysphoria) from the ideology (dysphoria is caused by a gendered brain, soul, or "identity" which is somehow "born into" the "wrong" body). You can acknowledge and have sympathy with the former whilst still saying that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the latter. If you take away the ideology then you may have a chance of getting to the root cause of the dysphoria and curing it. I personally suspect it will turn out to be a neurological disorder similar to body integrity disorder, where the brain fails to draw a correct map of your body and ends up thinking some bits should be there when they shouldn't. But once you add in the ideology then you end up with a set of beliefs in gendered souls or dualistic "identities" which exist independant from our bodies. It becomes more similar to religion than science. And as with all religious beliefs, they don't live in a vacuum, they bleed into everything we do. Specifically in this case they are leading to children believing that they are literally the opposite sex and in need of surgery, and they are leading to men forcing their way into female only spaces, making them inaccessible to many women. Acknowledging someone's experiences is one thing. Agreeing uncritically with their unevidenced assertion about what caused the experience, at the expense of your own rights, is quite another.

ErrolTheDragon · 28/06/2020 17:02

Pages 9 onwards are possibly worth reading, but probably not. I've spent way more time than I intended to here. I just am interested in hearing more from Furxand then I'll be gone.

Well, that's quite rude. You have a point, Michelle.

Michelleoftheresistance · 28/06/2020 17:01

Fascinating how much more respectful and equal you are in manner when talking to someone who has disclosed to you something you equate to trans. Whole gear change as to when talking to mere females.

JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 16:54

Thanks @Furx!

OP posts:
testing987654321 · 28/06/2020 16:52

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

Just read the OP, you think that by addressing the issue of are brains "sexed", you can answer that.

I have two responses.

One, that a person only ever has one body, so it can't be the wrong one. So the above statement is correct that any ideology which tells children they might be in the wrong body because of their thoughts and feelings is most definitely dangerous.

Secondly, our sex determines whether we produce sperm or ova, not how we feel. A brain in a male body which is apparently similar to a female brain (if that can be defined) is still a male brain. It might not be typical but it does not mean the man is actually a woman.

Take Debbie Hayton, who has fathered children. That is the definition of a man, not the fact he wants to be seen as female.

Please create an account

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

Posting is temporarily suspended on this thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread