To be furious?! Women's march?

[Goldmonday]

Have been seeing posts like this being thrown round on social media the past couple of days....am I the only one who thinks the whole world has gone bananas and we are now taking a huge step backwards???

Thank you apathyisland for your comment

The trouble is that there is such a huge investment in ideas about gender. Both from those who seek evidence of consistent differences and from those who seek evidence that there are not consistent differences. I listened to Daphne Joel's about the 'mosaic' brain and read the underlying paper (I can't link to the full paper as I no longer have access to an academic library unfortunately). It seemed very compelling to me, but that's not perhaps surprising given that I'm a feminist that doesn't want to 'celebrate' differences that push me into a box that I feel does not fit. I've seen other research showing different results and I know enough about research methodology and funding to know it's not nearly as 'clean' as people often assume. This is true for more 'pure' science and even more so for social science where eliminating bias is well nigh impossible.

What I do know is that to date no one has been able to identify a clear cut male or female brain pattern such that a sample of both can be easily and consistently divided into two groups. There are features that seem to occur more commonly in male brains and features that seem to occur more commonly in female brains but most brains appear to have a mixture of both and sample sizes are still very small. Plus of course we know that brains features change as people develop skills or gain experiences. Added to this we still know very little (although this is growing) about how the brain works at all so it's difficult to say what the differences might mean in practice.

Girls and boys are socialised to behave differently from the moment that their sex is known, how can we possibly know what characteristics are innate or which develop over a lifetime?

Pervasive. Differences. Same. Species.

There are pervasive differences in the types of clothes men and women wear too, across the vast majority of societies - but that's entirely socially constructed, and whilst sometimes based on biological differences (eg having hips), they all perform the same purpose. I don't think that study says the same thing you clearly think it says.

How do people know the sex of someone who posts anonymously on twitter anyway? Especially given the amount of people who lie both online and increasingly in person. Does it matter anyway, they are a misogynist regardless, or at least that post they put up is misogynist. It's not a requirement of misogyny to be male.

Sadly, in the USA this is not an uncommon thing. My (usually lovely and reasonable) Latina dil comes out with some of the most outrageous bollox on social media, lumping all white women in with each other assuming that we all speak from a position of power and privilege and coming out with some ageist shite about our views no longer being valid.

nooka
I read there were a couple of small scale studies of brain dissection after death. Small scale was explained because it is hard to get the brains. The transfemale brain was more similar to the female brain than that of a male. The same with gay males. It was seen as interesting but in no way conclusive. Are you saying there are other studies, which state the opposite?

I totally agree women (ie natal) can also by misogynists.

I also think it very sad that we as a society like to put ourselves and others in boxes. You have to be either male or female. Can’t be something other than. This is where a lot of the issues have arisen, I imagine.

I know it is desparately sad that most trans women/MIT’s just wants to fit in and be accepted. Their lives are being marred by TRA’s and fetishists. These minority are the aggressors, who wish to remove my dd and me, who we are, what we represent. They have the same message as MRA’s. Natal women don’t count.

The Lily Madigan quote that she is a woman, who can’t have children like many other women can be interpreted as both sad / wanting to be accepted and as ludicrous / totally denigrating women, especially those, who cannot have children. However, many of us are aware that she (legally he) has made some very inflammatory remarks especially when known as Liam. And I therefore see the comment as very problematic and antagonistic.

I am forced into take a combative stance. This stance is not of my choosing.

The OP just proves to me that young women in the main cannot and should not be trusted with feminism. They are destroying it, with their naive entitlement their brainwashed belief that men should be centred in feminism, and their arrogant ageism that leads them to dismiss the wisdom and experience of older women.

Which is why older women will not step aside until these silly young fools grow up and show they can be trusted with a movement that fought for most of the tights they enjoy today.

Rights! Though tights are great, obviously.

@mummyoflittledragon

"I am truly baffled that you would read me believing your opinions are worth less because you are a middle aged woman"

No, you suggested they were worth less because I was in my 20s.

@theaveragewife

"No I’m not going to link to my work - for obvious reasons."

Yes. I guess we have different opinions as to what those obvious reasons may be.

If you identify as a woman then you may like to dress like a typical woman. Women are more likely to wear heels, make-up and dresses. That's more about identity than manifestation. Clothing and appearance are important to people. I suggested there may be a gender-biased result based on traits of wanting to fit in which make women more likely to care about fashion but I am guessing and have no idea.

We all identify with a group through our dress - whatever it is. Smart skirt suits to be taken seriously as a professional, for example. People with purple hair, tattoos and piercings who say they dress to please themselves are still fitting into a 'type'.

"unnecessary surgical intervention funded by the government"

That depends upon how you class 'unnecessary'. Acne treatment. Breast enlargement. Breast implants after a mammectomy. I'm pleased that I don't have the job of deciding which surgeries and treatments are available and which aren't.

"taking the places of women who have fought to compete for their places in international athletics?"

I've said I believe in (typical) innate mental and physical differences between the sexes. Of course I think that most sports need to be divided by sex - often broken down into further categories. Age, weight etc. I was a fine sportswoman (approaching Olympic standard) but it became incompatible with other life choices like a career and motherhood and so I paid less attention to the sport. That's life. If you are / think you are trans then that might mean you can't compete in the sports category you want to.

The sport I was very good at was mixed sex. Motorsport, something I dabble in (and have my Race National B licence) shouldn't be mixed. It takes far more fitness than you imagine. See, it's always a little more complicated than people imagine.

"do you think Danielle Muscato should be taken seriously as a woman?"

What do you mean? You need to be clearer with the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that they need to look more feminine to be taken seriously? I just had to google them so know almost nothing about them. If they said "as a woman..." with their beard then I'd probably do a double take but it doesn't alter my ideas about innate male and female traits. I guess the same way that you chose Muscatto as a trite example Chanty Binx represents all feminists?

You didn't answer my question.

"so although my cortex may be thicker, I am still able to carry out the same processes as a man."

Which cortex, which processes and which man?

@nooka

Isn't a mosaic brain theory (one which makes a lot of sense to me) entirely consistent with the idea of typical gender traits?

Just clarifying something from the start of the thread. Planned Parenthood, no doubt following the money and replacing federal money being withdrawn, offer hormone replacement therapy for trans people. And from what I have heard, in the most cavalier way to very young adults, disregarding comorbid health conditions. One young autistic man saw a mental health nurse twice then was discharged with 3 years' worth of prescriptions for cross sex hormones.

Yes. I guess we have different opinions as to what those obvious reasons may be

Did you mean to be so rude?

The cerebral cortex, thinking (speech, voluntary movement, abstract ideas), and a person with a penis.

I truly believe you have never stepped foot inside a racing car, and I don’t recognise you as an advocate for women after linking to a study with a quote from Bill Cosby as it’s centrepiece. You still haven’t addressed that glaring error.

I’m confused by some of your posts, and what it is you believe in. I think we agree on some points but for different reasons?

That is awful! I hope that wasn’t written by a woman!

My impression is that of yet another person who just wants to be the person that says the thing that goes viral.
Nothing can happen now, however good/bad/amazing without people being desperate to state a conflicting opinion.

You can have the brightest, shiniest, most fabulous story of humanity and compassion and someone will write 'Oh yes, all very well but what about the TURTLES who live just five miles away?!' or 'You all think he is so wonderful but LOOK, LOOK at that PLASTIC bottle of water in his hand'

That writer wants to say something, anything, that will get her noticed.
And she has.

My daughter is 20.. sadly we can't have this discussion,she believes any man that wants to change to a woman ,must be able to ,and must be able to access all women's spaces,and how backward am I to think otherwise....I sent her to a Catholic school as well..and I don't full understand the whole thing ,so she wins any argument every time...."ahh mum your old ,you don't move with the times ...never mind I will find you a nice rest home"....I'm forty bloody four ,not 89.

Personally I read that Liam/lily madrigan comment as extremely manipulative. Maybe that's just me!

OP YANBU.

The bottom line is that it is not possible to accurately identify whether a random person is male or female by examining a list of their preferences and personality traits.

We can accurately identify males and females by observing their reproductive sex. Biology matters. It is why 50 percent of the world's population is at sky-high risk of violence and discrimination over their lifetime.

A person's 'gender', whether partially innate or entirely socially constructed, won't protect them from this fact.

"Did you mean to be so rude?"

That depends. How rude did you think I was?

We're both allowed to be sceptical of an anonymous poster on the internet, surely. You about my hobby and me about you being a published expert in a pertinent area.

The glaring error (as you put it) isn't one to my mind. In the conclusion they disagreed with him. When the paper was written, Cosby was not guilty of anything (legally - you know what I mean). Even if he had been a convicted rapist at that point, the scientific validity of the paper is in no way compromised whether they supported his assertion or not (and they did the latter). Can you not separate the two ideas?

"The cerebral cortex, thinking (speech, voluntary movement, abstract ideas), and a person with a penis."

Einstein. Hitchens. Hawking. They have penises and can do things with their brains that you cannot. There's an interesting segway into disparate bell curves of male and female IQs but I don't think that's what you're getting at. I'm not sure what you are trying to say though.

"I’m confused by some of your posts, and what it is you believe in."

I think that's because I've been addressing questions - many of which are a long way from the original point / post.

My relevant beliefs are:

• there are innate differences between typical men and women. The differences are physical and mental.

• Women's marches and modern feminism is being taken over by radical feminists. Issues are being obfuscated by women and infighting. Blaming men is missing the point. I am embarrassed to associated with many of these views and would not participate in the marches for this reason.

• I feel embarrassed to be associated with ideas like "infestations of men" or that white feminism is not feminism or that white women are bad because they voted for trump and that they shouldn't be on certain marches or partake in protests.

• I wish discussions (IRL or threads) didn't become about trans people.

• I think some in modern society seem to see a race to the bottom -oppression Top Trumps.

• I think that gender is innate and that therefore transpeople can be in the wrong body.

I think that covers it. I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm comfortable in my beliefs but if I were irrefutably proven wrong I would have no problem adjusting my views. I think you would as you have made up your mind on nature vs nurture apparently to align with your political ideals.

"I think we agree on some points but for different reasons?"

We agree that there are large numbers of observable physical differences between the sexes.

We agree that men and women act differently.

You think that any psychological / mental differences must be due to socialisation whereas I think there are likely going to be innate neurological differences in line with other physical differences.

We both seem to agree that you cannot decide to be a different gender and then compete in a different class in sports. The different reason may be because I think 'fuck it, it's only sport and you're not being a sportsman' whereas you might have a more ideological approach about women's spaces and patriarchal invasion.

Accidental name change. I'm @noFucksGiven and @theForeigner

I was ready for a clean break after this thread but didn't mean to confuse anyone.

It was very good of you to apologise mummy

Not enough people do that on here when they are in the wrong

Easy to tell who you are. You have been on here many times peddling the same guff in the same tedious style.
Yawn

I am rubbish at recognising posters

But there are always a few that i do spot

i think it would be easy to amend my (lack of) posting style

Punctuation would make a massive difference

Mummy "I read there were a couple of small scale studies of brain dissection after death. Small scale was explained because it is hard to get the brains. The transfemale brain was more similar to the female brain than that of a male. The same with gay males. It was seen as interesting but in no way conclusive. Are you saying there are other studies, which state the opposite?"

I actually took the time to read one of those. This particular one looked at differing percentages of a certain type of neurone in one area of the brain, and concluded men had more of them than women or transwomen. It left me with several worries about its methodology. The sample sizes were tiny - less than 10 for each group. The distributions of the male and "female" (including the transwomen's) brains were skewed by outliers - one very high value in one of the men, two (one woman, one transwoman) with no (yes, no, none at all) of the relevant type of neurone. Without those outliers the very undersampled distributions looked similar. There was no attempt to put error bars on their measurements, or bootstrap re-sample to see how much of an effect these outliers had. Finally, the two samples with none of the relevant type of neurone? Two people wandering round with none of a type of neurone which is supposedly so vital to brain function that it explains the difference between men and women? I immediately thought "error mounting the sample/problem with post-mortem samples?" As far as I could see, there was no effort to quality-control the data.

Also, time for the d-value plot (I know I keep posting it, but it's such a clear way of illustrating the point).

The d-value for obviously sexually dimorphic features like height is somewhere round about 1.5. Even then, you can't point to someone's height and say "look, this person is male, based on them being 3 standard deviations above the average female height." There will still be women that tall.

The d-value for cognitive differences (where those have been measured - and not all studies can find them) is less than 0.5. You can't point to a cognitive trait and say "see, that person scores highly, so they're male".

It's a matter of social construction and almost quasi-religious world view being put on top of the actual facts about a small shift in statistical distribution. I look at myself (a woman who is good at physical sciences) and say "I am a woman who is good at physical sciences, a field relatively few women go into. That makes me an unusual woman, not a man." (Furthermore, I'd argue that my unusualness is largely down to social factors rather than anything intrinsic to the sexes). A man who "identifies as female" looks at himself and (on seeing some trait society deems to be unmanly) says "I have this trait - empathy or whatever - therefore I am not a man, but a woman." I think it would be equally open to him to conceptualize this as "I am still a man, just one who is atypical of what society expects."

If white women are such awful people why do so many white TIMs want to be them?

Easy to tell who you are. You have been on here many times peddling the same guff in the same tedious style.

YY.