Talking to non GC people

Having had a quick look at one of Quick's links (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2042-6410-3-9 Sex-specific mouse liver gene expression: genome-wide analysis of developmental changes from pre-pubertal period to young adulthood) I think I am going to award Quick a 1/10 for effort.

Is this a list that the TRA's have compiled to use in replies to sex realist posts as a gish gallop of data? Have they actually read, understood and assessed the links?

Going back to the OP's question. My previously absolute handmaiden relative has moved position from 'I don't care about sport' to biological males 'shouldn't be in women sport'. However, 'JKR is still a big meanie regarding Khelif, who is a true and honest woman.' I may have paraphrased a bit, but it is a change of position. They just need to consider the possibility that Khelif could actually be male and that the public were lied to, and I think a further shift could occur.

No i wont be reading your bs "educational material ".
My confirmation bias prevents me from seriously considering any facts that contradict my views. I will dismiss all such facts, papers, journals, etc. as "bs" because it's much easier than doing my own research and applying critical thought.

i [sic] am well aware of the harms it causes and every single pro trans "scientific research" paper ive [sic] read is riddled with it.
I once followed a link online to a paper but it was a bit heavy so I decided it was all filled with bias because the bits I could understand seemed to be criticising my world view and I didn't like it.

There, I've translated your post for you.

Great post @Tooobvious

Especially this:
'The proponents of the TWAW, TMAM mantra seem to think they are excitingly progressive, and that anyone who thinks differently is an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, whereas in fact the opposite is true. The idea that, for example, a boy who does not identify with traditional, stereotypical "boy behaviour" but prefers traditional, stereotypically "girl behaviour" must therefore be a girl is incredibly regressive. In my opinion he is not a type of girl but a member of a sub-section of the category "boy".'

There is nothing shiny, new and progressive about this ideology.

I think one of the more pernicious aspects of the GC ideology is the assertion that anyone who doesn't identity with their assigned at birth sex must somehow be suffering from mental illness.

It's literally
a) a belief entirely in our head, which
b) causes us to attack our perfectly healthy biology through the use of hormones and surgeries.

In short: it's in the mind, and it has deleterious effects, thus it's a mental illness.

I've yet to see anybody cite or reference the exact part of the DSM5 that clearly shows trans-identification to be a mental illness;

Criteria: Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months’ duration, as manifested by at least two or more of the following:

• A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
• A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

"Desire", by definition, is exclusively mental. So all those criteria except the first one are purely mental. And the first one only refers to gender incongruence in expression, which isn't a pathological trait, and thus doesn't need medical treatment.

So yes, the DSM-5 definition makes it amply clear that gender dysphoria is purely a mental illness, that the hormones and surgeries are to treat a mental illness.

indeed, the generally accepted mindset among the professionals in the field is that trans-identification is both real and rational.

Real, yes, but rational? What's rational about wanting to hurt oneself through the use of hormones and surgeries? What's rational about saying, "Huh, I can totally see that I'm fe/male, but no, I argue I'm not!" ? Trans-identification is completely irrational. It's entirely in the head, and it's entirely at odds with the reality of one's body. It's a mental illness.

Here's the abstract of the first paper you linked to:

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 percentagebut a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbersof people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as suchwhile not being disorders or pathological in themselvespeople 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.

So in short: genderqueer or non-binary people exist. They may be at risk of victimisation or discrimination. Here's what mental health professionals can do to help them.

Okay, and? Nobody here denies that some people perceive themselves to be transgender, genderqueer, or non-binary. Nobody denies that such people should be protected from discrimination or victimisation. So what's your point?

It's all about stereotypes.

Yes. For believers in gendered souls, stereotypes help to make sense of everything. Your soul (your "gender") maps to the stereotypes that most closely match how you feel about yourself (et voila, your "gender identity"). How the stereotypes came to be so is a convoluted mismash of hormone-driven behaviours (e.g. testosterone driven aggression and libido) and cultural customs. For some people, it makes sense that the answer lies in the idea that we all have a gendered soul.

The closest definition I can get is that men are adults of either sex, and women are adults of either sex.

Yep. To anyone who believes a) that sex and gender are different and b) we all have a gender identity this is the only plausible explanation of men and women. To everyone else it makes zero sense.

To those who are caught up somewhere in the middle of what to think, some things are obvious - such as the sport and prison examples in the OP - and some things take longer to get your head around, if indeed you even want to. Not everyone does want to, which is one of the reasons we're in this whole sorry mess.

If one of those links states unequivocally what the difference is between a man and a woman then I'd be grateful if someone could paste the relevant text.

Until we know what people mean when they say those words then we can't discuss it clearly.

(How depressing that that needs to be pointed out!)

Despite your off-puttingly patronising attitude ("For those still a little confused in their GC stance, here's a short list of proper reading material for you to ponder") I will respond briefly. And no, I haven’t read all the articles you linked; they aren’t applicable as I’m not at all confused in my GC stance.

The problem is the overreach. I’m quite ready to accept that some people truly identify with another gender, and that this is not mental illness. However, identifying with another gender is not the same thing as being another sex. In humans, sex is immutable. It is identifiable and unchangeable in every cell of our bodies, not to mention things like the shape of the pelvis which often make it possible to know, from the skeleton, the sex of someone who died hundreds of years ago. Yet people who express this truth have for years been hounded from their jobs and vilified as transphobic bigots who want all trans people dead.

If the entire organisational principle of our society is to be changed, why is it somehow impermissible for there to be open discussion about this, with views from both sides heard respectfully, rather than one side insisting that they are right so there should be no discussion allowed, and anyone who thinks differently is a transphobic bigot who wants all trans people dead?

If the meaning of common words such as "woman" is to be changed, how is it right for this to be imposed unilaterally, with anyone who thinks differently labelled a transphobic bigot who wants all trans people dead?

If people are troubled by the unnaturally large percentage of teenage girls deciding they are really boys who have a history of other problems such as autism or family breakdown, leading to the possibility that they could be wrongly attributing their difficulties to a fashionable idea, and are too young to fully understand the implications of taking medical steps that will irreversibly affect the rest of their lives, should those who express their concerns really be labelled transphobic… you know the rest.

Overreach: why should male people be allowed to self-identify as members of a historically disadvantaged group, and then qualify for the protections and affirmative actions in place to benefit those born and brought up in that group, such as all-women shortlists or awards? Why are those who point out the ridiculousness of this, or of ludicrous virtue-signalling such as the first UN Women UK Champion being a transwoman, accused of being … fill in the rest yourself.

How does it differ from Rachel Dolezal, a white woman, claiming to be Black because she feels black? Does anyone accuse the black people who object to this of being racists who want her dead? Would it be perfectly acceptable for her to be named as a leading representative of black people?

Why are those who point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that transwomen do not maintain the same level of criminality, including sexual crimes, as other men, howled down and accused of… you know what?

The proponents of the TWAW, TMAM mantra seem to think they are excitingly progressive, and that anyone who thinks differently is an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, whereas in fact the opposite is true. The idea that, for example, a boy who does not identify with traditional, stereotypical "boy behaviour" but prefers traditional, stereotypically "girl behaviour" must therefore be a girl is incredibly regressive. In my opinion he is not a type of girl but a member of a sub-section of the category "boy".

Well, that wasn’t as brief as I intended!

No i wont be reading your bs "educational material ".
As for confirmation bias i am well aware of the harms it causes and every single pro trans "scientific research" paper ive read is riddled with it.
Sex is binary and DSDs dont change that fact.
Having suffered from what is now referred to as gender dysphoria many moons ago as a teenager I am well aware of the psychological issues that cause it.
Gender identity is a nonsense made up term created by a now discredited pedophilic Dr and was spread by the pedophile forcault to excuse his behaviour. The fact that useful idiots like Judith buttler have used it to shore up gender ideology and queer theory is shameful. What's really embarrassing is that you've come here of all places to try and shill it 🤭
May I suggest that you look outside of your bubble and have a good think about your own bias and agenda

It critically and objectively examines the idea that we all have a gender identity.... and finds no evidence. It's a combination of accepted "faith", and how we understand stereotypes about men and women, to believe that we all have gendered souls.

It's all about stereotypes. If it wasn't, someone somewhere would be able to state how men and women are differentiated. They can't.

The closest definition I can get is that men are adults of either sex, and women are adults of either sex.

Surely @QuickJadeFinch is not so foolish to believe that anyone can wade through their extensive reading list in the three minutes since they posted it on this thread AND on the IRL thread. On back-to-work Monday.

Surely the poster wants to give us time to read and reflect?

that's a significant amount of material unrelated to the discussion and it will swamp this thread.

There were links to four entire journals. I'm embarrassed for that poster that they thought doing that was making any kind of claim or argument.

Indeed.

That's why I found the video I linked so helpful. It was shared my another MNer and was my penny-dropping moment that allowed me to make sense of all this stuff.

It critically and objectively examines the idea that we all have a gender identity.... and finds no evidence. It's a combination of accepted "faith", and how we understand stereotypes about men and women, to believe that we all have gendered souls.

The "science" that supports this belief is written by believers (or feigners), for believers (or feigners). Remove the belief (genuine or feigned) and there is no science.

The science which underpins the existence of gender identity is effectively nothing more than the opening parts of the Bible and the way the creation of the earth is described. Lots of people believe that god created the earth. That's no problem these days, because nobody is losing their job, getting ostricised or worse (any more) for saying they don't believe in the "science" of creationism.

Just to save me a bit of time, please can you point me to which of these scientific papers evidence how a person with a male body can go back in time to point of conception and become an entirely female bodied person?

Thanks in advance.

This isn't the topic of the thread, that's a significant amount of material unrelated to the discussion and it will swamp this thread.

Of course you wouldn't want to do that, so if you are keen to discuss all that you should just start your own thread, just copy and past what you had in your post.

You aren't likely to get much traction on this thread as people want to discuss the topic in the OP.

You are in error. Fundamentally, unscientifically, embarrassingly in error.

Did you read the relevant parts of the educational material I've provided? I'd love to hear your thoughts on them.

I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the specific psychological tendency of confirmation bias...

It's always entertaining to see what word or phrase the gender adherents will appropriate next. In this case "ideology".

Our opinions are backed by science.
There are only 2 sexs and nobody can change sex.
There's no more evidence for anybody having a gender identity than their is that anyone has a soul.

I’ve yet to meet anyone who disagrees with me on this subject. And I bring it up a lot.

So I think it's worth considering that trans people will still need protection from genuine discrimination and harassment if society changes back to a more sex-realist position.

Absolutely. We're so used to "saying women are female" being the most hateful violent transphobic act possible that real harm can get overlooked. And female people who ID as trans are often forgotten whereas they can be vulnerable.

I have no idea whether I have a gender identity or what it would be. There is no agreed definition or differentiation between women and men (if it's not sex).

After much consideration on the subject, lots of discussions on MN and finally this video...

... I've concluded that I don't have one and nor does anyone else.

However, I'm aware that others believe they do and that everyone else does too. Good for them, as long as they aren't coercing, shaming and guilt-tripping others into holding their belief too.

Sadly, many do exactly this through calling non-believers bigots, transphobes and so on. Meaning that women's sports and prisons get infiltrated by males (many of whom will simply feign this belief rather than hold it - see a and b in my first comment), autistic children end up believing their distress at puberty means they are in the wrong body... and so on.

As part of this shaming etc, some people spread confusion, whether intentionally or not, by muddling up being LGB (which obviously doesn't require any body alteration to be true) with "being T" (which requires a belief or autogynophilia).

Did you take the time to read the links to scientific papers, facts, and associated material? I'm guessing not so I shall make this nice and clear; your opinion doesn't trump science.

I find it bizarre that people don't seem to get that allowing transwomen into women's spaces is a problem even if transwomen are in some sense women or are nice, harmless, vulnerable men. Because if you allow transwomen in you allow all men in. Why is it so hard to imagine that men who are not actually transwomen will take advantage of this? I think that keeping attacks on women and children out of the news as much as possible, or in the news but identifying the men as women, has a lot to answer for. People are being lied to and they don't know it. The system has failed us. Someone recently posted about going on some training where the transactivist declared that there had never been an incident of a transwoman attacking a woman in a toilet. That's simply untrue, but news of those incidents is suppressed.

My friends have, over the years, held the jobs of cleaner, kitchen staff, nursery nurse, teaching assistant, etc - generally practical jobs.

They are also generally on board with GC views - ie men should not be in the women's toilets, not even at work. The erasure of the word 'woman' is also an issue - these hardworking women feel disrespected and sidelined by removing their words.

However, I do think this comes from a position of almost transphobia - trans people are "weird", "mental" and "not normal " so they don't want to be around them anywhere.

Ironically, a position that I rarely see here but we are constantly accused of.

So I think it's worth considering that trans people will still need protection from genuine discrimination and harassment if society changes back to a more sex-realist position.

That to mix the sexes is not in the interests of women and girls

Even just correctly describing mixed-sex spaces as such would be an improvement.

Public opinion will continue to shift. Just a few short years ago GC concerns were not breaking through. That is changing and quickly. I think that people are seeing through the smoke and mirrors. They aren't necessarily influenced any more by the claims sometimes backed by alleged evidence and "science". They can see there is no good reason ever to put men where women are and that people cannot change sex and that there is no such thing as born in the wrong body. That to mix the sexes is not in the interests of women and girls. And that safety and safeguarding must take precedence over "kindness" and to ignore these facts is to endanger women and girls. People on the whole are reasonable and kind and I think they are coming to see that the trans movement is neither of these things and does not afford the consideration which they demand for themselves to women.