One third of pupils kept home on "rainbow day" at Canadian school

@suggestionsplease1 i have a suggestion….. you may not like it though…

It’s also worth point out @suggestionsplease1 - that the next time you, or someone else, comes onto this forum and tries to present this ‘argument’, posters on here will be so much better prepared to rebut it.

You are not doing your cause any favours.

Quite the opposite.

@suggestionsplease1

I would suggest you read this study again, if you have ever read it.

Please tell all of us reading this thread what the purpose was in posting this study.

Because, I read it and its discussion points and I think it clearly makes some highly relevant points for making your other brain studies pretty ideologically driven and frankly they must be reaching fucking far to make some of the weak arse correlations they have.

Either, you, Suggestions did as I suspected and just plonked down 10 studies in the hope that they did what you hoped, or you really do have a fucking low bar for evidence.

As far as I can see from this study, it is pointing out that

-the brain continues to change throughout life, which was no surprise to anyone who reads these studies.

-brain volume is different between sex but this too will have 'overlapping' values but those 'overlapping' values do not mean a male in the 'female' range is a female. We already knew this. It iscommon sense.

-the 'sex' of the brain seems to be a measure in this case of how certain brain's look with the influence of certain medical conditions. And those medical conditions have been sorted into prevalence by sex.

It does NOT mean that no person of the opposite sex has those conditions. Hence these researchers talk about a 'continuum'.

And, as far as I know, I don't know anyone who disputes that brains have different average volumes by sex, that sex hormones affect brains differently and someone taking an artificial version of a hormone at levels the opposite sex produces naturally will have brain patterns that suit, and that activities and other conditions will forge common patterns in the brain.

So, I am at a loss to understand why you persisted in posting brain studies. I know you believe theorists that claim wonderful ground breaking finds about trans people's brains, but not one scientist or medical clinician has found this to be convincing. THERE ARE NO FUCKING TESTS that will determine if a male is a female using brains.

And this study basically shows why.

Because all those males in those other studies.... they could simply have medical conditions that are 'more prevalent' but not 'uncommon' in females like depression and anxiety. WOW! Do you honestly think a male doesn't suffer from depression and fucking anxiety when they believe they are the opposite sex?

Seriously. You have become predictable in your claims. And you make those claims and use the standard tactic of deflection to avoid discussing your claims.

Can I suggest you stop trying to use the 'sexed brain' argument?

or at least fucking read the links you post as some kind of 'gotcha'!

Oh dear.

I work in a medical school in London with three teaching hospitals.

There are a few nutters over the road in the social sciences faculty that believe in gender identity, but the rest of the university? Nah.

Thanks charley!

How bizarre though that @suggestionsplease1 did not provide it? Surely if suggestions was familiar with the studies they posted, they would have come back with links AND commentary?

I can only assume they were hastily googled ‘gotchas’ that we have come to expect. Never once providing the evidence that that poster keeps claiming is out there.

Note to readers: there is no evidence at all that human beings are not either male or female. There is no evidence of sex not being binary because being male or female is a sexual reproduction category and that is all.

But what they are less keen on, or more likely completely ignorant of, is that part of the human rights framework is the right of parents to bring up their children in their own beliefs, without state interference.

I think this is an important point with a larger scope than just this issue.

It seems a thing in progressive politics to totally elevate a few rights, such as inclusion or safety, at the expense of others. During the pandemic, I remember discussion, with multiple people, the problem that travel restrictions within the country represented, in terms of rights. Or the right to gather, bodily integrity, and so on. I was surprised the first few times because it wasn't just that the individuals weighted things to one side. They did not seem to even acknowledge that there was a competing right that needed to be balanced, or might even take precedent. In a lot of cases it was soon clear the individuals had no real idea that these things were rights, and really foundational democratic rights.

I see this a lot in diversity and inclusion discussions, it's like there is nothing else.

You would hope. But if you were mistaken in your confidence about the nature and content of information delivered in schools, it would already be too late after the event. One of the big problems is that schools lack the expertise to design and develop these courses themselves so they buy in the materials and delivery from organisations. In some cases, parents have been told that they can't see what their children will be taught because these materials are confidential and proprietary.

Surely a day to celebrate different sexual orientation isn't to talk about a persons sexuality per say but pitched in a way to normalise some families have 2 mums or two dads?

It's not to focus kids on sex

Well I don't know about you lot but I'm 100% convinced!

'Beyond the oppression of 'facts', how my fefes shape the world' by Seymore Grift & Gett Metenured has TOTALLY convinced me!

Its 100% REAL SCIENCE.

And on the subject, I'd simply like to point out that the new progressives may be keen on all manner of inclusion and diversity, no doubt - if you ask them - grounded in their indelible support for human rights. But what they are less keen on, or more likely completely ignorant of, is that part of the human rights framework is the right of parents to bring up their children in their own beliefs, without state interference.

States are obligated to respect these beliefs, with very narrow limits applied, mostly concerned with safeguarding children if their parents' beliefs become life threatening to the child (refusing medical treatment for instance).

Those limits are not engaged in this instance, not even if parents are keeping their children back because they believe there should be no rainbow day because according to their beliefs homosexuality is a sin.

I know it can be difficult to accept that parents should have the right to disagree with celebrating homosexuality and the right to withdraw their children from rainbow days, but this is no different from accepting that people like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tony Robinson also have freedom of expression even if I find the views he expresses abhorrent.

If we meekly accept the limits to those freedoms that the new progressives demand, we'll fast find ourselves living in very unfree societies. Because they always find in themselves the need to place even more limits on these freedoms which will inevitably result in freedoms that we do care about being limited. And we've already seen that with the sex and gender debate.

Here's the full text link you were asking for Helleofabore for this paper

Beyond a Binary Classification of Sex: An Examination of Brain Sex Differentiation, Psychopathology, and Genotype

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6456435/

Funny how often derailing happens (or sealioning, not sure which is which) on any thread that might show up some subjects as being umm illusory.

Right??!! As a single mom it drives me nuts. I don't have enough money to keep buying different shirts if needed.

Yeah, it is very much so.

I feel like every year my kids are coming home with another special day, another t-shirt, another assembly they are supposed to be out of class for.

I agree. Terry Fox is still a fundraiser. And I'm First Nations. No one in this country understands preformative like us.
I'm just saying it is in line with Canadian special days.

People also get caught up in discussing whether the wider opinions of these parents are ones they agree with. That's just not the point.

Other people are allowed to have different views, and are allowed to unhappy for the state schools, which are meant to be relatively secular, to be promoting ideas the parents don't agree with.

It shows that the diversity and inclusion claims are bullshit lies. They do not want any of it, they want to give the kids moral, ethical, and spiritual indoctrination that is in line with what they see as correct. They want to over-ride the influence of the parents. They like the parents to be brown or wear a head covering or whatever because it makes them feel good about their own supposed liberalism.

We are all also allowed to disagree with other parents' views. That doesn't mean we get to decide what their kids learn about those things, or vice versa.

No. No, they don't.

In fact they often don't really know much of the real history of the things they are supposed to be learning about. Because the history teaching curriculum is now completely fragmented and thematic, and oriented around ideas like culture, power, identity, etc.

What's a bet though that they don't encourage people to discuss these issues. For me to go down to my teen's secondary school to see the education resources they are using, requires me to explain what I want at the gate to be buzzed in, to then request this at reception as the resources are not available to be looked at on line.

To do this, I have to be available during school hours. And this is here in the UK.

It is a barrier for parents and that is without any language issues.

Booby Teacher
literally a W⚓️.

Complete fetishist.

OK Suggestions. I have looked at your links.

You posted 10 links that supported your point that sex is not binary.

3 were about brains. And to repeat myself, brain studies are interesting, but there is nothing conclusive. No one is using brain scans as a diagnosis for gender dysphoria. I have to say why did you post these? What do they prove in regards to bodies being formed around the productions of either small or large gametes and not both.

At least 2 politicised people with differences of sex development to support 'sex is not binary'. However, even those two did not identify other sexes. They did not name other gametes. Instead they misrepresented the nearly 100% of people with DSDs having either a male or a female DSD. By doing that, I mean that by their logic they misrepresent that a male with vaginal tissue has testes and not ovaries. I believe those males are well aware that they are male even though they may have bodies that develop like a female in many other respects. It is still vital that that individual have their health care especially tailored to their needs because they will have unique needs. However, they are still male.

It is noticeable that a good proportion of those leveraging people's medical conditions this way are invested in gender identity theory in some way.

I wonder if any developmental or evolutionary biologist that is not somehow invested in gender identity theory in any way has written a paper about this??

Either way, I predict that Suggestions will either come through and post accessible links for those unaccessible and engage with my comments on these papers and explain in what way they provide evidence of sex not being binary (as opposed to being theoretical). Or they will declare that again we have simply refused to engage with what they posted and that it is our closed minds that is the issue. Generally some kind of exasperation will be expressed as if this is inevitable.

I tell you what is inevitable though. Posting links that don't clearly support what you are arguing, and simply plonking them on a page without any comment (not even the name of the paper and author) and expecting people to not then make their own comments on that paper doesn't lead readers to think that you have interrogated those papers on anything more than a very superficial level.

"Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity"

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/

Florian Kurth, Christian Gaser, Francisco J. Sánchez, and Eileen Luders

March 2022

Another one about brains. This is the one that admits that it is not really very conclusive and that the results indicate that these males are still mostly in the 'male' range of their parameters.

"The classifier performed at 90.2% accuracy (AUC = 0.97) when assessed in the training sample and at 88.3% accuracy (AUC = 0.97) when assessed in our 48 cisgender brains. These measures indicate a suitable classification performance and a reliable distinction between the sexes based on brain anatomy. The estimated Brain Sex index was significantly different between the three groups (F(2,69) = 40.07, p < 0.001), with a mean of 1.00 ± 0.41 in cisgender men and of 0.00 ± 0.41 in cisgender women. The Brain Sex of transgender women was estimated as 0.75 ± 0.39, thus hovering between cisgender men and cisgender women, albeit closer to cisgender men (see also Figure 1). The follow-up post hoc tests revealed that transgender women were significantly more female than cisgender men (Cohen’s d = 0.64, t(46) = 2.20, p = 0.016), but significantly less female than cisgender women (Cohen’s d = 1.87, t(46) = 6.48, p < 0.001)."

While they did control for these males being pre-hormonal treatment, I did not see any attempt to control for mental health issues. For instance, are all the males who show results towards the 'female' scale suffering from anxiety or other mental health conditions, something that is well known to be prevalent in trans people suffering from gender dysphoria?

Again, nothing showing evidence. This one even admits that those males were still closer to 'male' than 'female' so really not supporting suggestions point at all.

faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.2022.36.S1.0I639

Shades of Gray: Teaching Embryology Beyond the Sex Binary
Kathryn Moore
First published: 13 May 2022

There have been many changes in understanding sex and gender that have driven concurrent change in how we teach reproductive development. Human sex differentiation, like all biological variation, exists on a spectrum, with traits of individuals existing on a continuum beyond static and narrow definitions of “typical male” and “typical female”. Further, these sex-defining traits are determined at genetic, anatomical and phenotypic levels during development, and may even change postnatally. Importantly, these levels can be discordant within a single level and with one another. As our awareness of biological sex diversity evolves, anatomical science educators should strive to introduce and define basic terms related to sex and gender, present biological sex as a spectrum or continuum of variable characteristics and include discussion of how sex-defining traits may change over the life of an individual, biologically or through medical interventions. How we teach sex diversity in the anatomical sciences contributes to inclusive education and acknowledges gender-diverse and intersex persons, who are often marginalized in a binary system. Ultimately, the way in which students learn about sex diversity affects how they conceptualize patients, with a subsequent impact on health care delivery. In this master class, we will discuss teaching the embryology of the reproductive system, including the concept of “differences in sexual development”.

Another one inaccessible.

But then yet another one politicising those with medical conditions.

"Sex Contextualism"
Sarah S. Richardson

journals.publishing.umich.edu/ptpbio/article/id/2096/

I have read this through again, and I really would like suggestions to tell us what it is about this theoretical essay that they find is strong evidence that sex is not binary.

As far as I could work out, this essay brings in political aspects into biological study. The bit about the bus was sparple as far as I could tell.

Either way. I find this paragraph interesting:

"Strong essentialist statements about human sex differences characterize the supporting literature for new SABV mandates. The consistent message is that sex is a fundamental and powerful causal agent producing variation human biology, and that the differences between males and females are large and thoroughgoing."

and

"The mantra that “Every cell has a sex” has, over the last decade, come to represent the central message of SABV mandate advocates. Fulfilling the cause of women’s health, these advocates claim, is not limited just to research on women’s reproductive organs and diseases—it extends to every organ, and every cell (Pollitzer 2013). “Every cell has a sex,” Dr. Janine Clayton, head of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health argues. “Each cell is either male or female, and that genetic difference results in different biochemical processes within those cells” (Rabin 2014)."

"The propositions that “every cell has a sex—male or female” and that sex as a biological variable is sufficiently considered when biological materials derived from “both” sexes are included in research reflect an essentialist and binary biological concept of sex. According to this view, all cells intrinsically have sexes because of the presence of sex chromosome complement and other sex-related molecular markers. This conception of sex is unwedded to reproductive function. Rather, maleness and femaleness are essences represented by the presence or absence of a discrete set of biochemical factors. On this view, since every organ or tissue will bear the hormonal and genetic traces of the organism as a whole, sex is a pervasive attribute, omnipresent in the biological material of sexually reproducing species, and any biological object of analysis, whether a whole organism or a single cell, that contains these factors is male or female.'

so.... this author slips into discussing 'essences' as some way to discredit the concept that genetic material relating to sex may be influencing all cells.

It seemed to me to saying the whole way through, where sex is not needed to be controlled for, don't control for it. But the author seems to want to bring in their rejection of sex to a cellular level. I looked this author up and they are married to a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry, however, she is a philospher. So, unless she has degrees she has not declared, she seems to come at this from a philosophical angle. Don't get me wrong, her CV is very impressive, but she also is very biased.

"Richardson founded the Harvard GenderSci Lab, a collaborative, interdisciplinary research lab that generates concepts and methods for scientific research on sex and gender. Through research, teaching, and outreach, the Lab works to advance the intersectional study of gender in the biomedical and allied sciences, counter bias and hype in sex difference research, and enhance public discourse surrounding the sciences of sex and gender."

Her work is about 'countering the bias and "hype" in sex differences.

Hence this essay seems to lack substance. And resorts to 'essences' to counter the need to have sex based differences studied.

Then we get to this section (I have separated the points out)

What is sex, and what do we want it to be?

"First, we need to understand each other: our concept of sex should be reflective and well-defined, without conflating or slipping between different meanings of the term."

"Secondly, we need to meet our explanatory needs. Biomedical researchers working with sexually reproducing species must be able to attend to variation related to sex-differentiated developmental pathways in these species."

"Third, what we say about sex needs to be consistent and updateable with respect to with judicious interpretations of the best available empirical evidence."

"Fourth, our concept of sex needs to be sensitive to the ethical implications of claims-making about the biology of sex differences. This point acknowledges that concepts and words have political and social implications: sex is not just a biological concept, closed behind the laboratory doors; sex is also a central construct in our social ontologies (Haslanger 2015)."

"Fifth, our concept of sex should acknowledge the pragmatics of language and not require an unrealistic revision of vocabularies that extend across different areas of expertise and social arenas."

The first three seem non-controversial.

Fourth and fifth want political and social aspects of language, those that may be changable in line with current trends, to be amplified in biology. This author has made this all about tying in their political agenda into biology and medical research, even when it is not applicable.

I don't support this on the basis that there is no proven science to back all this theory.

In fact, when asked for evidence from suggestions, all we have been linked to is theory. Nothing proven that is relevant to bodies not being binary.

Funny how this thread has got derailed to a completely unrelated discussion about biology.

Back to the original topic, there is clearly a lot of distrust in the community about what the school is teaching. This needs to be addressed in a way that respects different opinions and lifestyles.

The majority of scientists who are biologists know perfectly well that sex is binary. Also, did you not hear Prof Winston say on Question Time that sex is immutable?