Biology is not as simple as one might think trust me i am a biologist….

Somebody who overcomplicates doesn't understand or is trying to hide something.

YY! And flits about from one over complicated idea to the next so you never get to pin them down or explore anything! Someone’s been doing that a lot round here lately, and it’s mega frustrating.

I am a biologist, although the determination of sex is very far from my speciality😛I am open to the possibility that, in the future, it will be discovered that a proportion of people have a dysphoria that can have a hormonal/in utero development basis. I remember reading/listening somewhere that women with a particular DSD suffer more of dysphoria, for example. However, I've also read that gender clinics don't routinely screen for DSDs/hormonal levels because the link is so weak that the investigation isn't worth it. Additionally, even if one day we discover that for some people there is a strong, early development cause, it's not automatic that transition will improve the symptoms, and it's not automatic that it's safe for women to include these people in all women spaces, if their pattern of aggression follows more the pattern of their sex. (There's a discussion to be had about dignity as well, but safety comes first). I'll try to find references for my two claims re DSD, but it takes time.

AsAScienceGraduate (BSc Hons, Anatomy, Edinbawa Yooni), I might even have learned about the SRY gene (at the time of my degree we were more interested in the hox genes and Sonic The Hedgehog) but I had completely forgotten and couldn't really explain any of that these days.
One of the lasting benefits of my degree is it helped install in me a good bullshit detector. As someone said upthread, a person with a good understanding will be able to explain things in a straightforward way without having to bamboozle you with big science words that they do not understand nor can they explain

Thing is, the "biology is complicated" argument doesn't join up with "therefore sex is an unreal spectrumy thing that is impossible to define" argument and furthermore doesn't actually join up logically with "therefore a man can be a woman" argument.

But TheRightSideOfHistory-ers Gish Gallop the whole thing, gobbledegook-style, in the hope that they can bewilder people into missing the bait-and-switch.

I usually find that TRSOHers flounce at the point when the obvious follow-on question is asked: "If trans identity is because of having [a special complicated spectrumy indeterminate biology], surely we can simply do a sex-status test on all applicants so we know who to affirm and treat?"

The whole "women aren't who we've always believed, some people we thought were men are actually women because..." schtick is a red herring when it comes to women-only spaces / opportunities / resources / representation anyway.

It doesn't matter whether the new definition of Woman is "still biology but it's complicated", " just a social construct anyway" or anything else.

It doesn't even matter if all the "women" under this new definition really do have something significant in common with each other that they don't share with any "men".

What matters, the thing that it's crucial to keep sight of, the thing that all the TRAs' twisting and turning and TWAWing is desperate to hide, is that Woman-only provisions weren't set up for the word Woman. They were set up in response to and shaped by the needs of specific people.

And who were they? They were the people who met the everyday, common or garden understanding of woman at that time.

It doesn't matter if that was a flawed understanding, it's still the people who met this definition who suffered the challenges that created the need for and shaped the form of women only provisions. Not transwomen, not people who meet a deeper, less obvious definition of biologically female we may now have.

And that truth doesn't change just because you retrospectively change who the word Woman points to.

Of course, TRAs would counter TW should have been included. But if TW had been included back then, the challenges would have been different so the shape of the provisions would also have been different. The reality however is that they weren't, so to add them now is to muddle up two definitions of Woman.

Of course, this isn't a logical path TRAs are going to be motivated to follow. But it's one that gender critical people should see clearly. At the end of the day, arguing about the definition of Woman isn't the point. In some ways it's letting the TRAs set the terms of the debate.

The real question TRAs need to answer is how can TW's "womanhood" qualify them to access "women's" resources when those resources are only "women's" under a definition they reject.

Yes the biologist quoting wiki bothered me too on that thread. No academic would ever use wikipedia to back up an assertion.

That post looked like they'd copied some stuff across to get some complicated words into their argument and then thought they'd look profesh by popping in a link.

TRAs realising we all have testosterone and oestrogen really isn't the gotcha they think it is. And if our cells were all undergoing 'random mutations' all the time, there would be a far higher percentage of DSDs (Klinefelters, Turner's etc) with mosaicism happening right left and centre.

I love that No. 2. 🤗

I shall have to tell my Mum…

They’ve been doing this for ages.

There was a fashion on here a while back for user names with ‘the professional XXX’ because twits were coming in here ‘as a professional twit I’m here to tell you all…’

I have 2 😁musings:

1. In population dynamics, if a population becomes too large then a catastrophic event happens to restore balance. Maybe gender ideology is natures way of buggering up breeding of future humans.
2. Hot flushes are designed to keep small children/grandchildren warm at night so we have an evolutionary use/ advantage

From what I remember from Biology (GCE so more or less contemporaneous with dinosaurs ) once life forms stopped being single celled they pretty much eventually evolved into m and f binary forms across the biological world, so plants, mammals, birds, fish, insects, amphibians all somehow developed the exact same criteria for ensuring their reproduction. It is apparently only in the last few years that human beings have evolved this incredible ability to change sex on demand without even having to go through the faff of making that huge change at an evolutionary pace.

Actual footage of actual biology lesson. Honest Guv.

You missed some fun A Level words I loved saying:
Endoplasmic reticulum
Golgi apparatus
Glomerulus

edit: to @JanesLittleGirl

Absolutely. In my experience an astonishing number of (reasonably intelligent) people don't even know which chromosomes relate to which sex, and wouldn't have even heard of the SRY gene.

Well I have a Grade A GCSE in Biology. I kinda remember that flowers have stamens and/or pistils. That makes me an authority right?

Most people do t provide evidence of anything, and even fewer recognise a credible source.

I'm a biologist, have been professionally for about 25 years. My knowledge of human biology however is pretty basic (other than awe at human biology in pregnancy and labour) and hasn't really been updated since school.

I do however have a well developed bull shit radar. Most of my job is pulling other peoples arguments apart. The first thing I look at is correct use of language and clarity of argument. Somebody who properly understands a subject can always explain it clearly and in non technical language. Somebody who overcomplicates doesn't understand or is trying to hide something.

One thing i do know, human beings cannot change sex. Its biologically impossible unless the definition of sex is changed.

@ColinRobinsonsFart wish I could wave back but I mean ✈ not 🚘.

@PurpleSparkledPixie - used to be Royce's but now Bentley?
If so - I wave to you !

Ah, that’s better. As usual, I found it an interesting thread for the thoughtful GC replies and illuminating for other’s thought processes. The attempt to dismiss GC women using an ageist slur was expected but v heartening to read replies from a wide variety of ages refuting the OP.

I was following that thread with interest. Why was it closed? Some thoughtful posts on it not from the original OP…

You told me that appointment was confidential!