Will fewer men discover they have female gendered souls?

Indeed, Bez. It would be a moment of great drama.

Remember when someone from the south coast of UK was going to release to the public the evidence that there was a biological marker.... that got shut down very quickly.

Indeed, Bez. It would be a moment of great drama.

Remember when someone from the south coast of UK was going to release to the public the evidence that there was a biological marker.... that got shut down very quickly.

plus let's say we discover there is some biological marker correlated with the worst cases of cross sex body dysmorphia.

Great news for the trans community, right?

Well imagine in that scenario, being the run of the mill middle-aged spicy straight male with a clothing/humiliation fetish (and sadly lacking that marker)? They'd be shit out of luck... hashtag sad times

Similar reasoning applies to "preferred pronouns". The closer I am to someone emotionally, the more uncomfortable I am with using the pronouns that don't make sense to me. Calling a man I have known since he was a baby "she" makes me extremely uncomfortable. Who can say which is more offensive, me being coerced to use "she", or the man having to hear me say "he"? We have been told what to think, and told what is "right", without any acknowledgement that there could be other ways to think, other ethical frameworks, including the one most of us have lived with and in for the whole of our lives.

A new secular religion was cooked up in a small subsection of academia and imposed on society. No debate. But many more of us have woken up to this imposition since the pioneers started to raise awareness,

To suggest this is about "protecting" women's toilets ignores the actual crime data, which shows that inclusive policies do not threaten public safety. Multiple independent studies, including a landmark law-enforcement review by the Police Foundation, analysed sexual assault and safety violations in women's public facilities before and after inclusive policies were introduced; they found that such crimes remain exceedingly rare and that inclusive policies had zero impact on crime rates. In contrast, the data shows that transgender people are the ones who face overwhelming rates of violence; indeed, official UK figures from the Office for National Statistics show that trans individuals are actually twice as likely to be victims of violent crime as cisgender people. The threat in these spaces is not posed by trans women—it is faced by them. Sorry this doesn't fit your rhetoric...

so are you saying that we’re imagining all the male criminals coming out as trans because they’re going to prison? There’s very clear evidence that transition is being used as a power play or to give access to females in some situations.

As I'm sure others will have pointed out, trans-identified people aren't denied access to public facilities or sports. They are merely expected to use the facilities and play on the sports teams that align with their biological sex. This seems fairly straightforward. To say that they aren't permitted access to facilities or sports is very misleading. They are denied access to their preferred facilities and sports, but not to the ones appropriate for their sex.

If that makes them uncomfortable - well, why is their discomfort any more or less important than my discomfort? If discomfort is going to be accepted as a valid argument for or against giving individuals access to spaces, we could almost certainly find more women uncomfortable with admitting trans-identified men into their spaces that we could find trans-indentified men uncomfortable with using men's spaces.

The issue is, when even academics misuse data, those who are not likely to question the very logic of ‘how the fuck can any male person claim to be female when there is absolutely no experiential reference point for that claim to be valid’ are also not likely to question the soundbites that those they perceive as being in authority say.

I have been watching Dr Emma Hilton go through that misused brain scan study and she has pointed out the glaring holes in the study that we have been pointing out for years since it started being posted here. The lack of control for sexual orientation in the male people and the seemingly flawed conclusion drawn where a couple of outlier males seem to have not been removed which seem to have influenced the data range for male people. Meaning that the range for male people questionably overlap the general range for female people leading to the conclusion being able to be drawn when the reality is the male people with trans gender identities fit neatly in the ‘male range’ with no overlap of them into the ‘female range’. These are points we have been discussing for years now. Yet that study keeps being mentioned. Maybe one of the research team will reply to Emma Hilton and we will finally get clarity on it.

I heard it put this way, which made sense to me.

When you ask 'what is the answer to this question' what the LLM does instead is answer the question 'what would the answer to that question look like'.

The output can be quite close to true, or can be absolute bobbins.

The LLM can't tell the difference between 'meh, seems legit' and 'is factually/provably correct', in other words.

Apologies, I am still quite new to Mumsnet and struggling to quote and tag everyone individually as the replies are coming in fast!
To answer your question: the insistence comes from the previous comment's claim that describing trans women as "men in dresses" is simply "pointing to a truth."
If the "truth" being pointed to is that a trans woman is biologically male, and therefore can never be a woman, it inherently bases the entire definition of "woman" on biological sex (chromosomes and anatomy).
I agree entirely with the statement that women are fully formed humans. The point I am making is that reducing a person's entire identity, social reality, and humanity strictly to their biological parts is exactly what the patriarchy has historically done to keep women in a box. Rejecting that biological reductionism is a core principle of feminism

Apologies, I am still quite new to Mumsnet and struggling to quote and tag everyone individually as the replies are coming in fast!
To answer your question: the insistence comes from the previous comment's claim that describing trans women as "men in dresses" is simply "pointing to a truth."
If the "truth" being pointed to is that a trans woman is biologically male, and therefore can never be a woman, it inherently bases the entire definition of "woman" on biological sex (chromosomes and anatomy).
I agree entirely with the statement that women are fully formed humans. The point I am making is that reducing a person's entire identity, social reality, and humanity strictly to their biological parts is exactly what the patriarchy has historically done to keep women in a box. Rejecting that biological reductionism is a core principle of feminism

Indeed , as per Fred Sergeant who actually was there. But the Stonewall Inn would have to have been bigger than the Vatican to accommodate all the old frauds who claim to have been there for the riot.

Marsha was late and Sylvia wasn’t even there.
the claim the pride was started by trans people isn’t true.

That's how it's called, even though it's obviously not the same kind of hallucination as a living organism would experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)

Either way the language, formatting and phraseology is easy to spot - we could say even that it doesn’t “pass” as human

I mean, even the way @OneHardyBiscuit keeps apologising for getting things wrong screams of AI to anyone who's ever chatted with an AI bot.

Hallucinates? Or regurgitates the Reddit threads it is using for the language prediction? Theres a lot of untruths circulated repeatedly. Garbage in = garbage out. Either way the language, formatting and phraseology is easy to spot - we could say even that it doesn’t “pass” as human

Calling this a "modern fad" completely ignores both history and science.
First, the historical reality: trans people didn't suddenly appear in the last ten years. Medical transition and gender-affirming care actually go back over a century. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science) was established in Berlin back in 1919, providing gender-affirming surgeries and support until the Nazis destroyed it and burned its research in 1933. Culturally, gender diversity has existed for thousands of years—from the Hijra in India to Two-Spirit people in Native American cultures. It is not a modern TikTok trend; it is a permanent part of human history.
Second, the connection to gay rights is deeply historical. The modern gay liberation movement was literally kicked off at the Stonewall riots in 1969, led in large part by gender-nonconforming and trans women like Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. The idea that LGB and T are entirely separate, newly forced allies is revisionist history. Both groups have always fought against the exact same rigid expectations of how men and women "should" behave.
Third, saying people don't have "identities" contradicts decades of neurological and psychological science. Major global medical bodies—including the British Psychological Society and the American Medical Association—firmly recognize that gender identity is a deeply rooted, innate psychological structure. It’s not an "imagined reality" or a fashion statement; it's a fundamental aspect of how the human brain processes self-concept.
People have been claiming equality movements are "just a passing phase that people will get tired of" for generations. They said it about desegregation, they said it about women's liberation, and they said it about gay rights in the 80s. History has a habit of proving those predictions wrong.

AI can only (at best) mimic what humans do. Since no human is able to argue their case because there's no logical or reasonable argument for it, then logically AI can't do it either.

And then at worst AI outright hallucinates stuff - something they would have known if they'd looked into it, and that they both discovered in the process of using it, oops.

It is tiresome having to deal with the scolders over and over but I admit it was quite entertaining having both Masha "James Kirkup Review Writer's Fund backs GC women" and One "AI" Biscuit on the same thread.

We have always known they have no ability to argue their case. Now they rope in AI to do it for them, and AI can't do it either.