Changing chromosomes is possible

1. There are plenty of ways of learning more on this topic. The easiest way is to look online for good resources produced by reliable scientific experts and start to understand the full picture. Not in an attempt to skill yourself up to 'win the argument', but to truly become someone who is knowledgeable about it.

I would recommend starting with the direct verbal recorded accounts of trans people. There are thousands of them. Understand what they go through, what they have experienced, why they experienced it, why they have the identity that they have, and how it all works. It's worth it, I promise, to understand and empathise with people very different to yourself.

1. On the philosophical side there's a ton more debate I'm happy to have - in another time and place - about all sorts of details.

Are there two genders (and non-binary), 71 genders, is gender an infinite spectrum, or does it not exist? Should we call it LGBT, LGBTQIA, LGBT+, and what is the difference between bisexual and pansexual? Is it at all acceptable in the modern world to have a birth sex reveal party at a point in a pregnancy where it may not be accurate, or is it indeed acceptable to gender a child immediately after birth anyway? Is "X AE A-XII Musk" the dumbest name ever given to a child? Does an increased visibility of binary trans issues reduce the visibility of non-binary issues, and vice versa? How do we ensure we are able to take a sensible approach to topics of sex and gender if we can't even agree on definitions of either? If there are two sides of this discussion and they are getting increasingly polarised, and a compromise position literally doesn't exist between accepting and rejecting, how do we find a societal way forward on this issue? Etc etc.

But let's leave this post and its comments to be a very simple starting position. Trans people should be allowed to self-identify. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people and bisexual and pansexual people are who they say they are as well. Once we can agree on that level of discourse, and respect the views and the people on this subject, we can then enter into that series of philosophical questions and ask and learn more about each topic and each person's perspective on it without it always feeling like an attack. I know multiple people who describe themselves as queer, but they each use it to mean slightly different things. It's interesting to hear them speak about it, and to hear how their identity and philosophy differs to mine and to consider what I think about it all. But if I start the debate with 'queer is just homophobic slang for gay' and refuse to listen or learn or develop in any way then I will never be able to enter into greater understanding.

So please look at the many people who have shared things in here, and go online to look for more impartial expert sources etc, and feel free to private message me or something in a week or two and start the discussion again on a slightly more grounded and positive front.

Being accepting of trans people isn't pretending that you are OK with what you think is wrong - it's taking the time to understand why they are who they are and moving forward with respect.

Thanks for reading my ted talk :P Sorry for the length of it. But I don't like deleting things without explaining the reasons.

His answer:

I have just come out of my last meeting for the day so now I can answer the ~10 comments I had to delete.

1. Yes, absolutely. Anyone who posts transphobic things will get deleted. Right now I'm deleting posts, but I will delete people if they continue to attack the identities of others. When people argue against both science and people's right to be themselves, it's completely unacceptable.

I'm not fazed if people think it's a ban on free speech - free speech requires the protection of the rights of vulnerable people to ensure that they have a voice as well, and hate speech isn't free speech.

1. Yes, this includes things that someone claims is "scientific fact" that is provably false.

I have regularly had conversations and posts and discussions and debates about this over the years, and on other threads I welcome the discussion as an opportunity to educate other people on the specifics of DNA and chromosomes and sex and gender and the complexities surrounding all of it. Some people without even a passing understanding of the difference between genetics and epigenetics sometimes try to have an argument about things they don't understand in full and I'm happy to explain with lots of links to scientific studies. I think everyone reading this knows I mean lots when I say lots, and knows I'm diligent in my research and debating.

The very shorthand version is that there is a biological side of things that applies within science on a technical level, but a) over 1% don't fit into male or female definitions under the regularly accepted definitions when looking under a microscope at genetic and chromosomal details, b) the more 'superficial' but more relevant physical differences of vaginas and penises and periods and hormones don't hold up under scrutiny as binary categories either, and c) the most significant aspect is cultural, which includes many differences such as higher male suicide rates and coronavirus deaths on average, higher sexual assault rates and lower income levels and a generally shittier time for women on average, all of the privilege and gendered issues we're talking about in this context.

People who say "it's just scientific fact" when arguing that some races have lower IQs or that women are better at making sandwiches because they're genetically favourable towards looking after others or whatever are not actually using scientific fact. Most of the time it's either a) because they believe something and they're making things up or misappropriating information to back up an invalid argument or b) because they were taught something in 1995 by a teacher who didn't have a degree in epidemiology and have clung onto that as 'fact' ever since.

But if you argued that it's scientifically impossible for humans to run 100m in under 10 seconds because you have never seen it and it seemed impossible when you were a child, you'd be laughed out the room, because people can point at the evidence. Doubling down on that argument after that point is crazy. That's what this is like. Science over the last 20 years has aligned through countless research papers and metastudies and biologists and geneticists and psychologists all working on cross-departmental studies to understand exactly how everything works, and that's where we are today. There are still questions on many specifics, but along with the answer to "do gay people choose" (they don't) the answer to "are trans women women" was answered and then confirmed many times over.

There are tons of tragic problems in society, including oppression of women in many ways, and including assaults within prisons and parenting challenges and all sorts, and most of our countries' worst events have been at the hands of straight cis white men, and most of us are brimming with an arrogance on topics that we know nothing about and a refusal to acknowledge what others experience and the challenges around those areas. I understand it entirely. But trans people are the most marginalised group in the world, and the argument isn't equivalent to whether they are human enough to use the same sinks as others (like in segregation eras) - but rather arguing that actually segregation can't exist because they don't really exist.

So not only are the comments I'm deleting scientifically inaccurate - in a couple of instances scientifically illiterate altogether - but they're also transphobic and bigoted.

The fact that some people think they're claiming something is scientific 'fact' when it's clear that they know nothing about the subject is astounding. It's like arguing with some alt-right flat-earther nut on the topic of Pluto, whether they say it's a planet and you easily prove that it's not true but they just double down because it's what they have /always/ thought and they're somehow under the impression that they get to choose what science is correct based on how it makes them feel. And then they say 'facts don't care about your feelings' while ignoring the facts that prove them wrong.

Weird. I just posted a list of quotes and links they said but it's vanished.

@Dhalandchips I'll ask him. I bet he knows the answer.