Elliot Page undergoes “lifesaving” “top surgery”

It's that literally isn't it?

It seems to mean different things to different people. I see it as a Top Trump. Every time it is used it is used to 'prove' something that is uncorroborated!

Literal violence etc!

Well they said this:

I’ve literally published papers on neuroscience… I’m always happy to read more because I’m a nerd but I hope I’d know my stuff at that point.

Which indicates that they consider themselves to be an expert, presumably in this area, otherwise, why say it?

My boyfriend had just had Top surgery, he wouldn't describe it as life saving. He had to save up £8k for it and he says he now feels complete but he didn't feel like it was necessary for life. He was a boy before and now the outside matches the inside.

I didn't interpret it as, "I am a published author dontchaknow.. Now do toddle on dears" type comment. I think she was being sloppy rather than condescending or gainsaying, but I can see how others might think differently

Yes I didn't think she was citing her own work (although she could under a NC if it was her work) but just citing the studies she referred to would also be great.

You're missing the point. She used her publication as a kind of full stop. An academic Top Trumps.

That is what many of us are sniggering about! It's not considered to be good form in real life, let alone on an anonymous forum! She has manufactured a 'put up or shut up' situation for herself.

To be fair I don't think she ever claimed to have published in this specific arena, just in neuroscience which is a big old field.

Yep! The kind of common sense the rest of us use!

Well it's awkward isn't it, when someone says they are published, cites that work as evidence to back up their claims, but then can't provide that evidence in case it outs them. Probably best not to say they have been published at all then if they can't share those findings. 🤔

She never said she had published in this exact space and citing her work would reveal her identity, which isn't fair.

This isn't just about being able to spout a rollerdex of evidence. From this thread I am guessing you are some type of therapist, apologies if I misconstrued. As a Clinician it is so vital that your practice is informed by evidence and that you are really adept at critically assessing evidence before incorporating changes in your practice.

It is because of your profession that I found your casual remarks about gendered brains so shocking. You work with vulnerable people, including trans people, how you think and what you say really matters. It is totally understandable to be half arsed in front of a bunch of strangers on mumsnet, but in your clinical practice, no way.

Goodness me, many many of us work full time I'm sure, but don't make vague claims then refuse to back them up. You had time to post your claims, but are now sadly out of time to provide the goods, as you urgently have to produce a human. Ok then.

WeavingWandering. But I thought you said your work had been published. Why wouldn't you have a copy of that?

How difficult can it be to produce a few links? Even for a little pink fluffy candy floss ladybrain?

Glad you've been hounded back on here weaving now take it easy and best wishes for the birth!

Goodness me people, I work full time (cutting it fine to the due date 😳) My apologies for having to wait for a lunch break to check social media …

To answer your point about retrospective searching - I don’t keep every article I read. This isn’t my area of specialism - but I have trans clients and parents of trans children so have read and trained around it but it’s not something I keep scores of research on- so yes, I will need to find the articles I’ve read in the past but it’ll probably not a priority with finishing work and a baby on the way.

But criticisms heard loud and clear and I really should keep a reference list of interesting papers/training even if I don’t keep everything I’ve ever read/done!

Conflicting results contributed to the difficulty of identifying specific brain features which consistently differ between cisgender and transgender or between heterosexual and homosexual groups. The small number of studies, the small-to-moderate sample size of each study, and the heterogeneity of the investigations made it impossible to meta-analyze all the data extracted.

Well, that's conclusive enough for me, I must say.

So 'hounded off' = 'people may politely ask for the references/links/evidence you've cited'

That about sums it up. Like Eskimos and snow, academics have 174 different ways to say I don't have the foggiest.

The results from our systematic review and meta-analyses do not allow us to conclude on the specific brain pheno- types differential for each of the groups covered by this review.

I think that’s the fancy way of saying “umm, dunno”

(I have a similar set of weasel words for reports too)

I may not be a neuroscientist but I know how to say 'um, dunno tbh' when writing for publication

I need to re-read Cordelia Fine I think.

Dont forget that non-binary is valid.
What do non-binary brains look like?
Half pink, half blue maybe?

Yes, the currently available evidence doesn't add up to any actual conclusion is quite literally what they were saying

(I have a similar set of weasel words for reports too).

But what they are also NOT saying is that they even 'resemble' brains of the opposite sex.

'suggest'
'some'
'resemble'

Anyone who has ever written an academic paper will tell you that those researchers are literally saying 'the currently available evidence doesn't add up to any actual conclusion'.

What they are literally not saying is 'brains of transgendered individuals are different from those of the opposite sex'

I read it as “transgender brains may have some features of their gender ID but they generally match the features of natal sex, but to be honest we don’t really know because the studies are small, have been conducted in using different methodologies and the results often conflict with each other.”