Do you exist IRL?

Well done, Hellebore. Personally I charge by the hour for checking careless reference lists, but your service is appreciated!

It's sad and telling that we can't have this conversation openly as a society, even though it seriously affects half of the population.

It's not sad and telling about you as a person because it can be difficult to speak out about these things. People have lost their jobs, been physically threatened etc etc for showing support for women's and girl's rights. Silence is interpreted as acceptance. It's not.

I am distracting myself from work...

But I must admit that I was curious after the Fausto link went to a mouse liver study, I thought, WTAF so started checking. It was not very long because most of the links were dead or went elsewhere. And the rest were not engaging with what the poster is denouncing over two threads at the moment.

PS After checking my posts, apologies to Finch and Maddy for confusing you.

Ah. Helle, how could I ever compete with your extraordinary thoroughness!

I now think that perhaps if that was not an AI dump, it was taken from the references of a published study.

Again, irrelevant or leading nowhere links that do not engage with the fundamental premise of what the group of people disparagingly categorised as believing 'GC ideology' are campaigning for.

From someone who posted them as some kind of 'gotcha.'

Ha, Cassole - and there we have it. I mean, what are the odds that 1) the only link I click on in Maddy's list appears to have been carelessly pasted & 2) the only post I make in the thread sits right next to another giving a strong argument for being wary of links pasted. It doesn't really say much about the overall reliability of the TRA approach here...

McNeil et al. (2021) – Experiences of non-binary people in healthcare
BMJ Open
bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/7/e046872
doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046872

First link doesn't work.
Second link is: ‘A silent epidemic of grief’: a survey of bereavement care provision in the UK and Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic

Hyde et al. (2019) – Gender nonconformity and identity diversity
American Psychologist
psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-17415-001
doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307

First link is: From silence to diagnosis: The entry of the mentally problematic employee into medical practice.

Thorne et al. (2018) – Gender diversity in childhood and adolescence
Journal of Adolescent Research
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0743558418761994

Link doesn't work

Barr et al. (2016) – Gender as a continuum
Sex Roles
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0569-1
doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0569-1

Links don't work

Westbrook & Saperstein (2015) – New categories are not enough
Gender & Society
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891243215584758

This one worked, but again, doesn't answer the question:
"why any person's philosophical belief about themselves should be treated as if it has a materially real biological foundation that means it should supersede sex class when sex class matters?"

And in cases where people are contributing to a survey, yes.... fucking oath sex matters much of the time as we have seen from the mess of the last census.

Morgenroth & Ryan (2020) – The effects of gender identification beyond the binary
European Journal of Social Psychology
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2673

Really???? This one links to: Make America gracious again: Collective nostalgia can increase and decrease support for right-wing populist rhetoric

Lindqvist et al. (2021) – Gender beyond the binary: Measurement and classification
Psychology & Sexuality
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2020.1729847

This one goes to: Sexual violence and suicide risk in the transgender population: the mediating role of proximal stressors

Joel et al. (2015) – Sex beyond the genitalia
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509654112

Ahh.... this one is telling us that there is no 'gendered' brain if I remember correctly. This was also then referenced in a later flawed review of MRIs where those new researchers didn't allow for same sex attraction in their male respondents and made conclusions not supported by the evidence.

This study states as its conclusion:

The lack of internal consistency in human brain and gender characteristics undermines the dimorphic view of human brain and behavior and calls for a shift in our conceptualization of the relations between sex and the brain. Specifically, we should shift from thinking of brains as falling into two classes, one typical of males and the other typical of females, to appreciating the variability of the human brain mosaic. Scientifically, this paradigm shift entails replacing the currently dominant practice of looking for and listing sex/gender differences with analysis methods that take into account the huge variability in the human brain (rather than treat it as noise), as well as individual differences in the specific composition of the brain mosaic. At the social level, adopting a view that acknowledges human variability and diversity has important implications for social debates on long-standing issues such as the desirability of single-sex education and the meaning of sex/gender as a social category.

But, what is the relevance of this study supposed to be Finch?

Jumping to Fausto:

Fausto-Sterling (2012) – The dynamic development of sex and gender
Biology of Sex Differences
bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2042-6410-3-9

Like to tell Finch why mouse liver gene expression, (not by Fausto-Sterling by the way) is linked up here.

I am not going to continue to go through your journal dump. Because you have not bothered to even fucking checking what you have posted.

I tell you what I will ponder though. Why the fuck you thought you would be in a good position to shame people on this thread with your clearly inept work? Link dumps rarely work as 'gotchas' because people don't bother to check the relevance of them.

I think also you perhaps have shown though, that you have a prejudiced and inaccurate view on what people who believe that sex should be prioritised above gender identity when sex matters.

I thought I'd look at one of Maddy's links when I reached them in the thread, to show good faith, clicked on it, and found the article:

How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity

Fascinating - but not what I'd expected.

Please be careful clicking on any links shared by Quick. They made this odd post on another thread:

"What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links."

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5470596-talking-to-non-gc-people?reply=149647026&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share&utm_source=copylink

I think it was some sort of exercise to prove that we don’t want to be “enlightened”.
What they don’t realise is that anything they post will never prove that humans can change sex and as most of us here are advocating for single sex provision, we consider their links as irrelevant. And that most of them have been taken apart previously anyway.

Clark et al. (2018) – Identities beyond the binary
Journal of Adolescent Health
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22002202
doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.03.027

Second link also doesn't work.

But the first one did. Again, why is this relevant to the question of "why any person's philosophical belief about themselves should be treated as if it has a materially real biological foundation that means it should supersede sex class when sex class matters?"

Highlights

Beliefs that affirm the existence of gender/sex diversity are associated with positive attitudes about non-binary people.

Multidimensional measures of gender/sex are inclusive, effective tools for research with non-binary participants.

Non-binary people achieve psychological resilience by challenging the gender/sex binary and building community together.

Scholarship increasingly identifies sources of happiness and pleasure in non-binary people's lives, such as gender euphoria.

I don't thinks many of us would disagree with these. In fact, that little gem about gender euphoria is very well known and discussed. Euphoria boner pics and discussion are easily available on social media.

And again... it is an article discussing 'identities'. Having an 'identity' is a well established human aspect. This doesn't seem to be saying anything about it being a biological reality, just another article saying it is an identity and people are all too happy to have people act like that identity is materially real.

It's clearly an attempt to derail both of these threads and waste time.

The GI adherents do not seem to realise that every time they do this they reinforce the view that they are not here to engage in good faith.

Whyte, Brooks & Torgler (2018) – Man, woman, “other”
Archives of Sexual Behavior

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1261-2
doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1261-2

Pages not found. In my mind, this is not going well for someone so very condescending about being so well informed.

Can I suggest not doing an AI dump next time and actually posting carefully considered links with discussion points?

Errrr....

Schudson & Morgenroth (2022) – Nonbinary gender identities
Current Opinion in Psychology
www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S2352250X22002202
doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101324

Well, the first link does not work.
The second link goes to :

How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity
Ridder and Gillebaart.

Maybe if you find the right link Finch you could do the same as I asked about the last one:

"why any person's philosophical belief about themselves should be treated as if it has a materially real biological foundation that means it should supersede sex class when sex class matters?"

Looking forward to your analysis from a relevant perspective.

There’s also a very big difference between caring IRL and being brave enough to confront a man in a dress in our spaces IRL.

I care plenty but if trapped in a space with a man violating my boundaries I’m more likely to keep my head down and get out of that space as quickly as possible. To a man delusional enough to think that wearing a dress makes him a woman, he’s probably also delusional enough to think that counts as welcoming into the space with open arms.

I am real but I am too scared to talk about my gc views in real life... that's pretty sad and telling right?

Core Peer-Reviewed Papers on Non-Binary / Multi-Gender Identities
Richards et al. (2016) – Non-binary or genderqueer genders
International Review of Psychiatry
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26753630/
doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446

This is behind a paywall. Maybe Finch would like to tell us exactly what significant information has been produced in this paper that proves that Gender Identities exist beyond someone's personal belief about themselves that reflects the material reality?

Here is the abstract:

Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders. The umbrella terms for such genders are ‘genderqueer’ or ‘non-binary’ genders. Such gender identities outside of the binary of female and male are increasingly being recognized in legal, medical and psychological systems and diagnostic classifications in line with the emerging presence and advocacy of these groups of people. Population-based studies show a small percentage – but a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbers – of people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as such – while not being disorders or pathological in themselves – people with such genders remain at risk of victimization and of minority or marginalization stress as a result of discrimination. This paper therefore reviews the limited literature on this field and considers ways in which (mental) health professionals may assist the people with genderqueer and non-binary gender identities and/or expressions they may see in their practice. Treatment options and associated risks are discussed.

There is no doubt in most people's minds that some people have a gender identity. Because anyone can adopt any identity they wish in their life. What this paper doesn't say is why any person's philosophical belief about themselves should be treated as if it has a materially real biological foundation that means it should supersede sex class when sex class matters.

Care to elaborate on this one Finch?

Ummmmm.... Did you even check what you have posted?

Friendly face?

He came up behind me so he couldn’t have thought I was smiling at him. I don’t know if he was anxious but he was intimidating whether he wanted to be or not, and how did I know he wouldn’t hit me if I didn’t validate him?

It was a dump.

Because anyone who had actually read and thought about the links would have posted something significant about each one. Even if it was just the abstract or discussion points.

This was a dump that is pretty funny when you look at it.

Dump being the right word, Helle. There’s no way I’d ever click on links posted by a genderist anyway.

As I said on the "non-GC" thread:

Another timewaster who can't engage properly

I suspect it was a AI dump and that the poster in question will not have read the links themselves.

I notice that Fausto Sterling has been included which is pretty laughable.

I was quoting the poster ...