Sending love to trans people on MN and beyond

[cassandre]

This isn't an AIBU. I just wanted to send love to trans people, in the UK especially, and to other members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

This hasn't been the easiest week for trans people, but there are a lot of us out there who accept you for who you are. We have your backs and we believe that eventually, tolerance and compassion will win.💖💖💖

Love from a longtime MNer and trans-inclusive feminist.

You said this ...

Being truly transgender is a measurable biological phenomenon

Which is horseshit

What do you think the ruling said, have you actually read it?

Both women and people with the PC of gender reassignment are protected under the Equality Act. Neither group can lawfully be discriminated against in the provision of goods and services. That was the law and is the law. The ruling clarified that the PC of sex means biological sex.

No one had any rights taken away, was made unsfe, had their existence denied, was excluded from society or any of the other hyperbole the terminally online have been spouting off about since Wednesday.

All you and people like the OP are doing is making yourself look silly, and scaring vulnerable mentally unwell, ND and confused people, and riling up aggressive misogynists. Is that helpful, or supportive, or indeed wise?

Find the summary myself? The summary is formed in your brain after reading the article dear. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine, but a but it undermines a lot of what you are saying.

@JandamiHash and I either have different views of what I claimed (and I reviewed my posts before writing) or different views of the articles.

I admit to having read them quickly, but I am trained in interpreting scientific data and have a bit of background knowledge. I am super impressed by any amateurs who could read both articles more quickly than me and confidently tell me I am wrong. :)

I'm confused. Transwomen have not had anything taken away that was legally already theirs. Why do you think they have?

The venom dripping from a number of posts on this thread is an example of why legal protections are not enough.

Last night on C4 News a woman from the victorious side made a point of quite unnecessarily referring to the transwoman Scottish barrister speaking for the losing side as a man. Whatever your views of the barrister’s gender, it was a gratuitous slap in the face on national TV. The victorious woman looked smug; Cathy Newman looked shocked. Because there was no need to hurt someone’s feelings in that setting.

It is certainly of a piece with a fair portion of the comments here.

It did take account of both. Finally.

But then PP provided evidence which has been peer reviewed and shows that what she said was not horse shit. It was hot steaming scientific fact.

Absolutely.

There is no venom when correctly sexing a person. There surely is hatred, or something that is equally disturbing, though in a person pretending to be something they are not to gain access to something they are not legally entitled to.

You are looking at the wrong people.

This is a blast from the past. It's been a while since I saw the argument that if you agree that there are biological criteria (or indeed, any criteria at all other than subjective feeling) for being one sex or the other, then you're reducing men and women to their body parts.

The court really has not summed women up as walking vaginas. What a daft take on the ruling.

Using language about some on national TV that is completely unnecessary and that you know they will find deeply, deeply hurtful is most certainly poisonous.

The barrister’s feelings are the ones that matter but I would bet my house Cathy Newman thought so too.

So she didn't.

There's no objective criteria for male and female brains

Women’s spaces are not a refuge for vulnerable men. Are you suggesting that small men and disabled men should be allowed in the ladies for ‘safety’?

If people cannot deal with their own reality, they need to seek psychological help. Not expect the world to lie to them.

But the study did show differences in the MRI brain scans between individuals. This is clearly just a small part of an argument but PP did provide objective criteria.

Using language about some on national TV that is completely unnecessary and that you know they will find deeply, deeply hurtful is most certainly poisonous.

Using correct language is not poisonous. If you find correct language deeply hurtful then please contact a therapist to work through those feelings.

You find it unnecessary to allude to RMWs sex, but clearly the person being interviewed thought it was germane.

You have no idea what RMW finds deeply deeply hurtful, unless you are RMW.

I personally save my sympathy for the many, many women attacked, threatened, gaslit, raped, forced out of what should have been single sex rape support groups and breastfeeding groups, smeared as bigots, forced out of their jobs and denied their lawful rights, rather than someone who wants the world to play along with their personal version of reality rather than actual reality , but you do you I suppose.

Is the link below the second one you are talking about:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7419542/

Biological sex classification with structural MRI data shows increased misclassification in transgender women

Claas Flint, Katharina Förster, Sophie A. Koser, Carsten Konrad, Pienie Zwitserlood, Klaus Berger, Marco Hermesdorf, Tilo Kircher, Igor Nenadic, Axel Krug, Bernhard T. Baune, Katharina Dohm, Ronny Redlich, Nils Opel, Volker Arolt, Tim Hahn, Xiaoyi Jiang, Udo Dannlowski and Dominik Grotegerd

9 April 2020

Because if I remember correctly, I couldn't find where they did a direct control and compared the group to a group of male people taking that same hormones without that group having a gender identity. Maybe as you are an academic, you could point out where that was mentioned?

And all that I found this study to say is that the male people on specific exogenous hormones have brains that change to neither be easily classifiable as male or female. It does not say that those brains replicated female people's brains.

And we already know that specific hormones create particular differences in human brains. So too does particular interests. I would expect how someone views themselves will also create differences within the brain.

Considering how many medical research teams have now reviewed the studies published around the world in different reviews, if there was strong evidence that brains showed particular measurable differences that indicated some one was transgender, surely we would be hearing a lot more about it. And it would be part of diagnosis. But it is not part of diagnosis at all.

So we’re supposed to continue to lie, to spare men’s feelings?
No.

Exactly this.

All the ruling does is clarify that whether a person can be legally defined as a woman is down to the their biological sex, and not whether someone simply thinks they are a woman.

I have no problem with people giving themselves whatever label they want on a casual basis, and for trans people to expect to have the same rights and respect that anyone else has, but what absolutely needs to stop is the erosion of the rights of biological women in order to make space for trans people.

Women have fought too hard and for too long for equal rights compared to men - and that fight is far from over - for that progress to be eaten away again.

Are we talking about White?

Speaking as someone who has been abused by White personally, I do not have sympathy for White's feeling about being correctly sexed.

Absolutely this

I have sympathy for transgender people. It must be really hard for them. I'm content to eg call them Suzy if they wish. And have no difficulty with eg a transgender waiter, as this gas no bearing on me

But, single spaces exist for a reason and shoukd be respected. if male toilets aren't a safe space for TW, then (a) men need to be educated or (b) TW can fight for their own spaces. It's unreasonable to expect women to provide a solution

If it's the study I'm thinking of, didn't it actually find that same sex attracted people's brains were more similar to the brains of opposite sex, opposite sex attracted people, than any correlation between transpeople and people of the sex they wanted to be? I.e., similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women, not transwomen and women? And the authors also cautioned against extrapolation of meaning from their small study which didn't factor in participants taking of cross sex hormones or the plasticity of the brain to life experiences?

Or maybe that was a different one.

The study didn't control for basic additional factors and the study didn't determine any criteria that signified a male or female brain.