Can we have a 'back-to-basics' thread about trans issue please?

Gender: Social and cultural expectations linked to sex - e.g. that women will put up with any old nonsense.

[quote OldCrone]More misinformation from Shizuku.

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway.

On this page GIDS say that suicide is extremely rare amongst the children who are referred to them as long as they are supported by their families and receiving psychological support.

gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base[/quote]
They are referencing this paper:

www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(15)00159-7/fulltext

"For several informants, a reason to use puberty suppression was the fear of increased suicidality in untreated adolescents with GD. Research shows that transgender youth are at higher risk of suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts [3, 36]. Nevertheless, caution is needed when interpreting these data because they do not show causality or directionality."

You see - they are not saying that there is no suicide risk, they are only saying that caution is needed when interpreting the results. Other papers have found clear links.

Gender identity is similar - we don't know exactly how to see it in the brain, and how it relates to brain features that we know are to some extent sexually dimorphic, but the work is ongoing.

So it follows from this that it would be absurd to allow males into female only spaces on the grounds that they have a ladybrain.

I've always found it odd that they argue for access on the basis of a self declared brain condition anyway, since the segregation of male and female spaces is due to body differences, not brain differences.

Good to see that you agree with keeping males out of female only spaces, Shizuku.

More misinformation from Shizuku.

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway.

On this page GIDS say that suicide is extremely rare amongst the children who are referred to them as long as they are supported by their families and receiving psychological support.

gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base

The first thing to say is that you've come to the wrong place. Asking about trans issues here is like going to the Catholic church to ask about homosexuality, but I'll answer some of your questions for you:

No. It’s just a website that largely deals with the unavoidable consequences of sex. Its striking that people don’t recognise the reasons why they might get push back on this issue on this particular site, but I suppose that’s sexism.

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory doesn't it? That's because it is.

What statistics? There is little research in this area.

Gender identity is similar - we don't know exactly how to see it in the brain, and how it relates to brain features that we know are to some extent sexually dimorphic, but the work is ongoing.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to the reasons why women need sex based rights.

"I've seen posts on here that the widely cited statistics about suicide attempts in young people who are trans or have gender dysphoria, are basically false and scaremongering parents into a medical pathway. Could anyone point me towards information about this?"

Well, you need to ask yourself if all the doctors and scientists across the world who talk about suicidality in young trans people are likely to be all secretly working together in order to put out false statistics in an attempt to scaremonger patients on to a medical pathway. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory doesn't it? That's because it is.

"I see the word ideology bandied about a lot online - 'trans ideology' obviously but also another 'T' ideology I won't post on here (hopefully that's clear!) So essentially there are two competing claims that the other side are antiscience, dogmatic, advancing a quasi-religious belief rather than material reality."

Ask yourself which group is more likely to be involved in an ideology:

1. A group of people with a recognised medical condition with a range of biological markers, being helped by doctors and scientists all over the world who study their condition, it's causes, effects and treatments, and publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

1. A group of people who don't have that medical condition, who are not involved in research, treatment or studies of that condition, but who belong to a political group who have some ideas that are brought into question by the existence of the people with the medical condition.

"the pink brain/blue brain stuff."

We know that there are some male/female brain differences, but we also know that there is a huge overlap so almost everybody has a mixture of characteristics that are typical of their sex and less typical of their sex. We also know that trans brains are different to cis brains, and we also have to ask what are the things we don't know how to look for yet? For example, sexual attraction happens in your brain and is a big part of many people's lives, but most women are attracted to men, and most men are attracted to women so there is a clear brain sex difference. Where is that in the brain? To what extent can we see it in scans etc? Can a neurologist scan your brain and tell you with 100% certainty what you sexuality is? Gender identity is similar - we don't know exactly how to see it in the brain, and how it relates to brain features that we know are to some extent sexually dimorphic, but the work is ongoing.

OP, this link should also make things a lot clearer for you. This is women talking, from the coalface.

www.transwidowsvoices.org/

"Person who has a vagina," seems to be slipping in as the easy call for that since modern society has concluded that not everyone with a vag is a woman and not every woman has a vag.

This is breathtakingly regressive.

There is no need to pigeon hole any human being according to their identity

You cannot protect women’s rights if you ignore sex, regardless of how a woman identifies.

Or maybe 10 or 20 years ago, in a different time, those adults would also have been reaching for puberty blockers and elective surgeries

They’d have linked their inner unease to another cause and requested Prozac.

I don't think anyone's mentioned one of the seminal presentations on the subject:

That's looking at the philosophical end, which I think is necessary as the discussion has come unmoored from the actual medical reality - mental health issues, diagnosies of dysphoria, how to treat that - and is now in the metaphysical realm of "gender identity" (or "lady brain"). And it no longer makes sense as a result.

'. expectant mothers, pregnant women'

Yes I get that.

In this case though women sometimes means people with vaginas (which is the common use in society) and sometimes means people with vaginas and people with penises. Which are totally different and most readers do not ever read the second when they read women.

I always find it interesting that misgendering someone is 'literal violence' and in some countries, a hate crime.

But denying women the correct definition of the word 'woman' and insisting they're all cis (especially when so many of us do not have a gender identity) is not only acceptable but necessary.

The power of words only works in one direction, it seems.

I think OP, it is also important to try to get your head around the fact that there is a significant issue where someone feels that they are NOT the sex there body is, but the only alternative is the opposite sex. So, there is going to be those who are pressured into identifying as the opposite sex because of limited options.

Those who then talk about gender identity also seem to miss that there seems to be lots of other gender options, but seem to focus on either woman or man.

It is hard in my mind to reconcile this. If identify as having a gender identity, why as something that is biologically based and that you will clearly not be able to become, just simulate via drugs and surgery when there are other options. That is part of the dissonance I feel.

A gender identity is apparently a feeling. An inner sense.

I don't have one. I can accept others feel they have one.

I don't accept we can legislate or base policy on this indefinable, unquantifiable inner sense.

If you can get someone to explain what a gender identity is without reference to gendered behaviour and in more specific terms than' it's innate and subjective', I'll be really impressed.

I realise that example is a very stereotypically gendered one!

I think you're thinking about this too logically, Aspiringmatriarch.

I think that means you've got a male gender identity.

Proper ladybrains would go "ooh, poor people with the wrong brain in the right body" (or right brain in the wrong body?) and wear something rainbowy in support.

OP, on a recent thread I was genuinely told I was part of a 'science-denying cult' for pointing out that transgirls are biologically male.

The post was deleted, just as it would have been if I had told a trans rights activist that they were part of a science-denying cult (note: I have never made such an accusation) but it still happened. There are probably sufficient posts around it to attest to the context.

Anyway, this is where we are - describing a person with xy chromosomes, penis and testes as biologically 'male' is now held up as an example of denying science.

And yet the science on which trans ideology is based is...well...patchy at best.

The resources etc on here have been really helpful to me in unpicking this. It is perfectly possible to be support both trans rights and women's rights- but to do so you first need to acknowledge that they are not the same.

That style of 'all or nothing' posting comes across with some posters. I think it comes from a very loose definition of transphobia. If acknowledging that there is a conflict where rights impact is deemed phobic, it is very easy to paint anyone who is asking for discussion and compromise as being hateful. Therefore, posters can easily discredit anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree. There is no room for nuance.

Many posters on this board want to uphold the rights of women and children against these negative impacts. They don't come at it from the aspect of hate, which is the activist narrative.

Unfortunately for those posters who believe it is 'all or nothing', lurkers on this board are probably already understanding that there is a great deal of nuance and that 'all or nothing', sniping posts that don't add points to make others think or offer clarity, really don't have the influence they expect.

Quite the opposite.