To find media discussion about trans issues far overstated compared to the actual seriousness of the issue?

[BarmyBrunhilde]

Full disclosure, I happily accept most trans people I've met as their transitioned gender which I know puts me at odds with most people on MN. But as a feminist and a lefty, even if one views trans women as men which I don't, in terms of political priorities it ranks so list on my list of concerns. I assume that applies to most people too (trans people included!).

What someone has listed on their birth certificate has no impact on my life, and surely minimal impact on most women's lives? Imo we should be focusing on cost of living crisis, housing, properly funding women's services including rape crisis services, funding childcare, sorting out the health service and bloody schools! Gender recognition comes way below those for me (even though I'm broadly supportive with some checks in place).

I know gender criticals won't agree with me, and maybe some trans people who feel very strongly, but I do feel there's a silent majority of us who just aren't that fussed?

I'm another feminist, lefty woman

I have often seen statements like this but still don’t understand what is feminist or left wing about sex denial.

If you say that anyone with any kind of body can be either a man or woman (or neither), you are also denying that women are oppressed, because you don’t believe there is any material basis for that oppression.

But TRAs are campaigning for better access to mental health and health care support?

Are they? That's not the impression I have. Hormones and surgery, yes, but the consensus seems to be divorcing trans from mental health. Nobody's meant to ask questions or encourage a little self reflection before the pills start being handed out. Maybe things have changed. I hope so, there are enough detransitioners now to surely encourage a bit of thought.

Helen's book "Trans" is also worth reading. Just because the truth is inconvenient and/or uncomfortable doesn't mean it can be disregarded and lies put in its place.

No, it’s Helen’s version of the truth. It isn’t ‘the truth’. It’s Helen’s version of events. Helen’s beliefs, the theories and political analyses she chooses to believe. The ‘evidence’ she chooses to believe. The examples she chooses to highlight.

Many transsexual and transgender people and the people who support, treat and provide care for them believe and experience something entirely different.

(That’s not to say there aren’t some people and events that do fit with some of the examples in that book).

Ooh, ooh! Sounds like an opportunity to share the following list of demands by the Edinburgh Trans Health Manifesto. Astoundingly, it seems to be entirely serious...

www.tumblr.com/edinburghath/163521055802/trans-health-manifesto

Which bits do you dispute?

Ah well. As long as we're all having wishes granted, I'd like to be 6 inches taller, 3 stone lighter and have at least £1mil in the bank.

<Wafts hand in the air imperiously>

Make it happen

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/21/stoking-a-culture-war-no-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-about-balancing-conflicting-rights

Just published from Sonia Sodha.

Nicola Sturgeon last week accused the Conservative government of “stoking a culture war” by using section 35 of the Scotland Act to block reforms allowing anyone over the age of 16 to change their sex for legal purposes through self-declaration. She claims UK ministers are thwarting a purely administrative reform that benefits a marginalised minority – trans people – to pick an illegitimate constitutional fight.

That argument collapses under scrutiny. Even as Scottish ministers claimed in Holyrood that this is an administrative matter, they were arguing in court that it has profound consequences for how someone is treated in the eyes of the law. They won; the courts have now clarified that if someone male gets a gender recognition certificate, they must be treated as though they were female for almost all legal purposes.

No, Helen starts with a baseline of truth - ie. biological sex is immutable - and builds an analysis of how we have ended up with widespread denial of that and its impacts.

Many transsexual and transgender people and the people who support, treat and provide care for them believe and experience something entirely similar.

Look at the views of Miranda Yardley - the first male born trans person to be taken to court on a charge of transphobia (brought by former Mermaids employee - claim dismissed), or Fionne Orlander, Katy John Went etc. All fully acknowledge their biological sex and all use the mens facilities quite happily.

Which parts of Helen’s book or general position do you dispute? I’m interested in your analysis.

Which bits do you dispute?

Gender identity exists. Not as a ‘sexed soul’ but as an aspect of human identity and nature that develops from a mixture of biopsychosocial factors. It’s a sexed aspect of human identity. Gender identity drives a large number of transitions. I don’t deny there are individuals with primarily erotic motivations. Or individuals with a complex mix of factors and facets of human sexuality. Sexuality and gender are linked in many ways. You can see that with the number of gender non conforming children who turn out to be gay.

Spectrum of gender non conforming behaviour has at one extreme cross sex identity and presentation. This occurs across virtually the entire human race, populations and times. There have always been those that need to present, live and be accepted (as much as possible) as the opposite sex. Even in primitive cultures and through history. It’s as much a part of being human as is homosexuality.

I believe the majority of transsexual people want to use the spaces (within reason) for their transitioned sex because they genuinely feel that they are the most appropriate for their current situation and because the level of dysphoria would be too great to even consider using birth sex facilities. Not for reasons of ‘validation’ or wanting to transgress boundaries.

Also all human embryos start off phenotypically sexually undifferentiated. There are feasible biologically based theories of gender identity development.

Thanks @Fieldofgreycorn for your post.

I can't understand this. You say gender identity exists. What does that mean? Some people have an identity that could call a gender identity? How does it relate to biology? Can you explain your thinking more?

No, Helen starts with a baseline of truth - ie. biological sex is immutable

No, some physical/ biological aspects of sex are mutable. Enough to treat a person as if they have changed sex for most (not all) purposes.

Chromosomal and reproductive sex are immutable. There are different aspects of sex. It isn’t just chromosomal sex that necessarily determines use of spaces.

Helen may disagree. Many other people don’t.

May I ask that you consider who else will be applying for these lively cheap, no questions asked, GRCs?

The males with bad intentions, for example? No intention of using it for anything but intimidating women.

And, possibly, these tw who are using female spaces.

These tw are using female spaces cos they don't feel safe in the spaces for their own sex.

But. ...

There are now males, obvious men, with beards, and big boots, and loud voices in the female space now, cos those sweet little £5 certificates allowed them in.

So now the men are in the ladies WITH the TW. Oh....and us.

Ain't that just peachy.

At conception human embryos embark on one of two developmental pathways.

One enables her to produce large gametes and all being healthy have an ability to get pregnant and grow babies. The other enables him to produce small very mobile gametes via his tested and penis.

There is no crossover and no swap between the two possible. Some extremely rare anomaly cases mean that there are some differences to normal development but all of these are either male or female - there is no third sex.

Changes to a female body (or male) due to a severe self induced hormone imbalance are cosmetic. It does not indicate that the individual is anything other than their birth sex. There are no blurred lines here.

I agree that it currently isn’t biological sex that dictates which spaces a person can use, thanks to the anti women interventions of Stonewall but that doesn’t mean it is ok.

That also assumes that any significant proportion of trans people even make those cosmetic changes you imagine. They don’t.

Creating a partially successful facsimile of being the opposite sex does not change any other aspect typical of our sex, be that behaviour, propensity for violence/rape or physical strength. It certainly doesn’t mean that male born trans people are entitled to use womens spaces.

There was an excellent programme on witch trials tonight - the first victim was coincidentally tortured at Holyrood Palace.

People who can’t see a problem with the way the TRAs are operating really need to watch this and consider it in the context of what it currently happening to women

Gender identity exists. Not as a ‘sexed soul’ but as an aspect of human identity and nature that develops from a mixture of biopsychosocial factors. It’s a sexed aspect of human identity. Gender identity drives a large number of transitions. I don’t deny there are individuals with primarily erotic motivations. Or individuals with a complex mix of factors and facets of human sexuality. Sexuality and gender are linked in many ways. You can see that with the number of gender non conforming children who turn out to be gay.

I think you mean ‘personality’. There is no right way or ‘biopsychosocial’ (is that even a thing?) way to be a woman (or a man) - you just have to be born with a female (or male) body. End of.

I do not have a gender identity and there is no scientific proof of this concept.

I can't understand this. You say gender identity exists. What does that mean?

Some people have an identity that could call a gender identity?

No not really. We all have a human identity. That identity has a sexed aspect. Part of our self concept. We all have an internal representation of ourselves. Gender identity is that aspect of human identity relating to the sexed/ gendered aspect. Your internal representation of yourself that includes an understanding of who and what you are, including a very strong sense of whether you’re a man or a woman. (Or neither in rare cases).

How does it relate to biology?

There’s a view that identity exists in the brain as some sort of emergent property of a neural network. (What actually is human consciousness?)
There is broadly such a thing as brain sex; male and female brains are on average different - Helen believes that as well btw.
Androgenisation (during foetal development) changes brains and can happen to greater or lesser extents. It can influence (drive even) sexual orientation. There are links between sexual orientation and gender identity.

Physical sex, environment, culture, sexuality and ‘brain sex’ all influence the development of gender identity. Most people develop a gender identity in line with their physical sex. I think most child development/ mental health professionals believe that in 99% (or whatever) of (non trans) people it’s clearly developed and permanent by about age 3.

I’m trying to describe things that are to some extent abstract it’s not easy! Some aspects of human development and existence are more abstract. Not everything is black and white/ RCTable/ empirically verifiable. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are not important/ universal.

It's a faith based ideology. There was a website, I think doing trans research, which claimed recently to have found brain variations that proved beyond all doubt that teans had a physical and/or biological cause. Something that could identify trans people from a brain scan.

I thought that was really exciting, it would be an excellent diagnostic tool and ensure precious resources went to those who actually needed them, rather than fakers.

I'm not sure what happened, the whole announcement just vanished.

Weird. It could have revolutionised trans health care.

I think you mean ‘personality’.

No I don’t. It’s more fundamental than ‘personality’. More aligned with sexual orientation, part of our very core human identity and linked to biology.

The fact that throughout history there have been people unhappy with the culturally specific stereotypes associated with their sex who then have preferred to adopt the culturally specific stereotypes associated with the opposite sex doesn't mean that the culturally specific stereotypes are innate or fair, it just proves that they were bullshit to begin with.

On that note I will add that many of the personality traits often cited as proof of gender identity are very specific to 21st century western culture. In other words, there are or have been cultures where a little boy wishing to wear jewellery and grow his hair and paint his face and wear a skirt would fit right in with the other boys.

No, it’s Helen’s version of the truth. It isn’t ‘the truth’. It’s Helen’s version of events. Helen’s beliefs, the theories and political analyses she chooses to believe. The ‘evidence’ she chooses to believe. The examples she chooses to highlight.

Yes, like most books

Do point out all the balanced trans rights activist books.

Yep.

It's all just baloney.

The idea of women having fundamentally, biologically, innate different minds/psyches/personalities from men has been used to keep women in their place for millennia. No wonder most of us are so angry at the resurgence of this regressive ideology in the cloak of progressivism.