Q&A thread for New Posters

Random question. When did hair length start being used as a gender marker? When I was at school (70/80s) half the girls in my class had short hair, half long. It seems different now, girls with short hair get asked if they are non-binary.

Anyone on twitter who is interested in reading about the conflation between sex and gender, plus the utilizing of DSDs, here is an account that has compiled resources.

The account is sexdefined.

twitter.com/sexdefined/status/1281584867638116352?s=21

Just to add to CharleyParley's excellent brain post. The brain fibres in female brains have been found to be more delicate and more prone to injury too.

Hi me again sorry. The gender/sex thing has sent me off one load of what ifs. So you can't actually change sex just gender but statistics confuse the two so why don't they just ask gender if that is what they want to know. Also if anyone has any good links on the whole gender vs sex thing I'd like to do some more reading.

I have a question, about lady brains and bloke brains.

It is often said that these are different, and people will state that it can be detected using scans (I think).

Is there any data which has been produced by people (experts in the field) looking at scans of many different brains, of male and female sexed people, and being able to put them into two piles, male and female, and get it right when the only data available to them is the scans or whatever they are, with no information included about whether the person in whom each brain scanned resides is male or female?

I have seen this has been answered, but I think the more the merrier.

I don't like redefining commonly understood words (e.g. literally) so that sits wrong with me but if it is something everyone agrees with then I suppose I would have to get used to it. No, women were not asked and many of us are fighting against the changes of the language we use to describe ourselves.

For example, people talking about intersex people aka people with disorders of sexual development tell me that sex is complicated, there is no binary male and female apparently.

It is 'differences' in sex development. It is not actually complicated at all.

That is out dated biological understanding. The science says a sex binary does not actually exist. This means trans people can be the opposite sex. That doesn't seem right does it? Eggs and sperm are still real aren't they? There isn't some other sex is there?

No, there is no other 'sex'. There is this theory being perpetuated that people's medical conditions, DSDs, can be used to destabilise the eon's old understanding of the nature of sex. This destabilisation is key to being able to say that a male is a women if they feel they are. It argues that these medical conditions represent other 'sexes' because they don't fit neatly into the supposedly strict 'xx/xy' chromosome application.

They keep not mentioning that with modern techniques those people with DSDs are either male or female. In fact, they support the binary not destabilise it. Because what they represent is that there is differences in people's bodies but they are all based around producing small gametes (sperm) or large gametes (ova). Sometimes the body does not work as it should. The techniques look at genitals, reproductive organs, hormones, chromosomes etc. In fact, our cells will go back to trying to produce hormones and cell reactions as per their design if someone still has ovaries or testes and stops their cross sex hormones or suppressants.

Those arguing that sex changes include for instance, breasts, cosmetically changed genitals etc. But these are cosmetic are superficial, just like the argument.

Aren't intersex people one sex or the other but with something that has gone wrong in development? yes.

Anyway of sex and gender are different then what have congenital medical conditions of sex organs got to do with trans people? Good question.

I thought they were concerned with gender? If transpeople all have intersex conditions won't that make it super easy to identify who is really trans?

Wouldn't it just? Some trans people state they have female brains.... ummmm.... no. If this was true, a test could be done to show they are the other sex. And obviously, a gene test cannot prove this either. So, no.....no physical tests exist.

I don't think trans people have DSDs though, do they? Some people with DSDs are trans people. But not the other way around.

So, I really don't get what DSDs and trans have to do with each other. Because people arguing to destabilise known and accepted science need to use something, or in this case, someone.

I find it hard to believe scientists have said male and female biological sex classes are old hat.

If you see an scientist doing this, please look further. Look into who they are, what their speciality actually is and what is published, and often it is easy to pick they may have a motivating factor such as a loved one etc. Also, look to whether the institution they work for allows them to say anything differently. Many women are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak out.

I grew up on a farm, the different between a ewe and a ram was obvious and there was no spectrum of sexes! You and me both. There are NO third gametes in mammals and we are but animals.

Can anyone explain why I keep seeing biological sex is not binary in debates about trans issues?

You will see a bimodal distribution constantly being presented as evidence. But it is all in the way you present the data I guess. As I have said, it has been accepted for a long time that there is lots of differences between bodies of the same sex including those with DSDs of that sex. If you see this chart come up, ask who is presenting it 'who gets to decide which person is more female than another?'.
Who exactly is the arbitrator of femaleness? And how is this not offensive to anyone who has any medical condition, including hysterectomies.

Hope that helps a little. I am no expert but I love to see this argued on twitter.

I see YY posted often here. Looking on Google, my best guess is yes yes. Is it something else?

Interesting the mention of visual impairment up thread. I read of someone overhearing a blind couple saying that they found it difficult to know someone's pronouns these days, as without sight, they clocked people as their original sense - using their other senses esp hearing, touch and smell it was obvious to them that someone was male or female. Without the clues of hairstyle and dress they couldn't know that someone was expecting/hoping/meaning to present as the opposite sex.

I have met a few non-binary people who I can’t tell what their ‘biological sex’ is....In terms of how that person moves through their everyday life - how people refer to them, what spaces they’re allowed into - what do you think should happen?
The effects of testosterone are so strong that it can be difficult to tell the sex of transmen, particularly when they are young. People who have gone through male puberty generally set off my senses as male, and I would be anxious to encounter them in a space I expected to be female-only. Transmen (born female) I'd be happy to share with, though for others a "male" appearance might be triggering.

mildly

For transmen though their hormones should definitely be performance enhancing so how are the anti-doping rules set to stop them smashing the men in competition? Have there been any test cases yet? Any transmen storming ahead of the natal men?

Females taking testosterone are indeed excluded from the women's sports. And you raise excellent question then about transmen smashing the men in competition. Why do you think that is not happening? Now that you have a lot of research links and articles.

It very much is in line with the findings. That males who have gone through male puberty have many advantages and that even with T, a female body rarely can compete at the same level.

Females who wish to play contact sport need to understand that they do this despite the increased risk of harm. I believe World Rugby has stated any female can play with the males if they sign a waiver. Why? Because most parts of the female body is more prone to injury than male bodies and when combined with the increase in power and speed that male bodies have, the effect can be very dangerous.

Particuarly in head injuries. Females have more delicate brain fibres (Swansea university study into female rugby players) and are more prone to brain injury, and dementia.

MildlyIrritatedOfChorley

If you want to see someone argue against all the strawman arguments put forward by activists around the inclusion of males in women's sports, I recommend following Ross Tucker (ScienceofSport) on Twitter, and Dr Emma Hilton (FondofBeetles).

They are very patient (usually) and answer questions readily. Ross Tucker was on the World Rugby committee that decided that transwomen should not be playing Rugby against women and is now very much up to speed on the research.

Dr Hilton is also one of the published authors of the study posted upthread.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

She regularly speaks about this and about the other studies that have been found lacking in robustness.

Thank you. The passport field is sex not gender so I wasn't sure how someone could get it changed if they had just changed gender not sex so thought people must change sex but even the government link above says gender. No idea if that makes sense. Anyway, thank you for answering my questions. It's a lot to get my head around.

Another study into transwomen in sport for you to look at

www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

Relating to this study:

bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/06/bjsports-2020-102329

How again do you negate the benefits of male puberty? Studies have shown conclusively that hormone treatment has little effect (maybe 5-10% decrease) and this has been shown over different studies from different sources including a military study.

In fact, that ‘lauded’ studies by Harper that was presented and influenced the IOC was debunked immediately as having very little scientific robustness, and it was anecdotal at best. Sadly, it was used by the IOC but better research has become available since that disproves that study.

I changed my passport to have two names on it (married and professional) in a matter of about ten minutes and at the cost of a fiver. I suspect I could have done the same to alter my perceived or believed gender too. Not going to try!

It's not, of course, a literal change in sex. It's what is known as a 'legal fiction' (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction) to allow male-born individuals be counted as 'women' (or vice-versa).

A GRC (gender recognition certificate) is provided on the basis of being transgender ('living in/as a gender') rather than on the basis of being transsexual (having undergone surgery). www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

Thank you @BuntingEllacott, I understand now.

I didn't know it was possible to change what your passport says - do you need an official letter from a doctor or something to prove the change in sex?

From what I was told, the word binary in terms of sex, relates to how many types of gamete are required to reproduce.

The fact that there are disorders of development in terms of chromosomes is irrelevant. No one produces a third a gamete.

DSD arguments are meant to make the definition of sex difficult. Because a TRA will ask what are you basing your definition of sex on? And if you say, eg, a vagina, then you get 'what about a woman born without a vagina' argument.

If you say chromosomes, then you get the DSD argument.

Obviously, my favourite (for women) is adult human female. Because the second part of that definition is 'of or denoting the sex who bears eggs'. And the keyword is denoting.

But, the DSD/intersex derail is meant to make the definition of sex, and therefore a woman, linguistically difficult. In order that you can claim anyone can be one. Specifically, a man.

Obviously it doesn't even follow logically, never mind in any other way. But that's the reason.

If those people answer according to the guidance, the data collected will be false and useless for the purpose of accurately recording how many women there are, for example

It also won't help trans people either, as there is an optional 'gender identity' question, so any TW who said they were female based on their passport rather than their sex would likely also say they had a 'woman gender identity' and would invisible as a trans person.

If people want to collect data on 'gender identity', that's fine. We collect data on other belief systems, no big deal.

But the material reality questions need to be answered accurately, not according to how we feel about ourselves. Accurate data is the point of the census. Validation of personal beliefs is not.

we cannot post direct links to crowdfunders for feminist causes on here
It's not actually a specific prohibition on this board and these causes - direct links to any sort of crowdfunders etc arent allowed anywhere on MN. I think it's intended as an anti spamming measure and also gives potential donors time to think and check into the cause rather than just clicking through.

Similarly with petition links - they're only allowed on the Petitions and Activism board, which unfortunately most people don't know about or forget to check. It's worth taking a look through every now and again to see if there's anything you'd like to support.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard

Hi, so sorry if this has been answered. I tried looking through but just kept seeing stuff about sealions but also some interesting questions.

Can someone explain what people objected to in the census questions? I saw a lot about it on twitter but I need it broken down simply really as I found it hard to follow.