Frank Maloney - Gender Reassignment

[CKDexterHaven]

Lived over 60 years with full male privileges - Check
Rose to the top of a male-dominated profession - Check
Right-wing political candidate for UKIP - Check
Homophobic public comments - Check
Believes in family values and traditional morality - Check
Believes in a 'female brain' (like people used to believe in a 'negro brain' and a 'Jewish brain') - Check

Nasty radical feminists are meant to be the reactionary ones but, to me, it is the transactivist movement that is conservative, homophobic and longs for the days when homosexuality was criminalised and men were men and women were women.

here is a more recent review from 2014 on sex differences and pain from the same journal (Pain) - the webmd article is based on a study conducted in 2002

they comment in their introduction: "From a socio-cultural perspective, ascribing higher pain sensitivity to any group can lead to incorrect assumptions such as disposition to “heightened somatic tendencies” [6] and [10]. This disparity has important sociological consequences with a strong link to occupational sex inequities [3] and [31]. Moreover, women are often undertreated for their pain [30] and [41]."

...

"the effect of sex on pain should not be generalized as it is complex, and may depend on a variety of individual and disease co-factors."

and this is curious, because if this is the case it would be interesting to know to what degree learned behaviours and brain patterns might influence these differences:

"In summary, the evidence to date suggests a dichotomy of sex difference findings that depend on the nature of the experimental paradigm. In general, women often show lower pain thresholds and experience greater temporal summation of pain to brief, repeated, or dynamic stimuli than men. However, women also show greater adaptation to sustained longer stimuli and habituation to repeated long stimuli. These seemingly divergent findings could represent two mechanisms: a “sensing response” tied to peripheral and ascending nociceptive pathways, and a “modulation/coping response” resulting from the descending modulation pathways and top-down controls (Fig. 2). We propose that pain sensitivity comprises elements from both the sensing and the modulation/coping systems. We recommend that future studies of the concept of pain “sensitivity” and sex differences interpret their findings within this conceptual framework."

not sure whether this is behind a firewall or not? i get access through work

That's all well and good Petula but how can you fit that into a headline in the Metro?

I think it's far better to have a snappy easy to understand headline "Women feel pain more than men!" followed by a brief analysis as to why that might be "Men harder cos hunter innit!!!" followed by a pop quiz to see what type of pain you respond to "Waxing!!!!!! Scream or smile??????" and accompanied by an irrelevant picture of part of a woman's body. Not the whole body, mind, just a part.

That's how I like my science reported, thank you very much.

Oh just reread that post are you a bloke harold?

Wandering - Well spotted on the numbers, that's definitely not statistically significant is it! I also recognise your point in the last paragraph. There is a psychological aspect to pain that's for sure. Don't they say you can be trained to feel no pain? Or was that a line from Rambo...

I dunno, the whole area is really confusing for me. Mainly because the feeling of "being in the wrong body" is so alien to me. If someone asked me "Do you feel like a man or a woman?" I wouldn't know how to answer. It would be like someone asking me if I feel yellow or green. But at the same time I believe what transgendered people feel is real - and there must be some way of rationalising it that doesn't denigrate that feeling but also doesn't imply or enable treating men and women as fundamentally "different" IYSWIM.

I don't know about you lot but I don't think that's a supportable conclusion.

Agree with others that it's nonsense people don't call 'bollocks' on other kinds of poor research.

whenthe - I think this is an important point. And I think the media reporting is really scary, as buffy says. I remember a widely-reported bit of research being discussed on here a while back, which had been reported in a very 'OMG MEN AND WOMAN ARE SO DIFFERENT!' way. Because I have access to academic journals, I went and had a look at it. In exactly the way I would with, you know, normal research. And I could pick a shitload of holes in the media reports, and a few holes in the paper.

There were a lot of people, even on here, who acted as if that was somehow either cheating, or immensely misguided of me - as if the mere fact something was published was evidence it provided a complete and final verdict on the matter.

I have never met a single academic who honestly believes their research does that.

Clearly, there is a major problem in our society that the message about how research works is not getting through to most people. Most people seem to believe research is about discovering The Truth, not about putting forward suggestions and best guesses and providing information to help everyone else work out where they stand.

Oh, and sorry, missed this:

I think that the size of our population, the frequency and complexity of the interactions, and the level of communication between humans is unique to our species and therefore socialisation is a far far bigger factor.

harold, this seems to me to be contradicting what you said before - aren't you trying to have it both ways? You're saying that when the animal kingdom appears to support what you think is true, then it proves that's 'natural' and humans must be the same. But when it doesn't support what you think is true, then, obviously, it's because humans are different from animals?

How does that make sense?

Btw, personally, I really doubt that our level of communication (rather than kind of communication) is unparalleled. Many species communicate extensively, don't they? And are you imagining the size of our population is bigger or smaller than of some animals? Or what? I don't quite get this bit of what you're trying to say.

Yes I am a bloke although I hope that won't colour your responses.

I can't remember how I stumbled upon this place but I have lurked for a while now. I won't pretend that I agree with every single post but I have had my eyes opened. I see a lot more everyday the "culture" of sexism. It's shocking and depressing, and that's without having to be on the end of it.

LRD

Regarding the first point. I think there is a distinction between how comparable we are to the rest of life in the areas of socialisation and brain chemistry and how it affects our behaviour. With socialisation, the human race has developed language. No animal species has done this. We can communicate more complex ideas both between each other, worldwide, and between generations because we can store data. So IMHO that means that socialisation is far less of a factor in most animal species.

Whereas regarding brain chemistry, we haven't discovered any great advance that makes our biology different from the rest of the animal kingdom. We still have barely any idea how the bloody thing works! So in that respect we can compare ourselves to animals, broadly speaking.

However having said that - I also accept I'm no professor of any science. Perhaps behaviours can be evolved just like our genes can - instead of being passed down by DNA they are passed down by young animals learning of small animals.

My original point was its at least feasible that there is a difference, and I still think potentially it could be true. It could also be false - I'm a brain difference agnostic!

What do you mean by 'language'? And is it qualitatively different from what other species use to communicate, or is there more of a spectrum? Because I incline towards the spectrum view, and think that therefore, making the sort of rigid, binary distinction you make isn't very valid.

Behaviours are certainly developed and passed down - you can look at examples of how birdsong changes.

I did say upthread, it's not that it's impossible there could be a difference between male and female brains - it's a perfectly understandable first assumption - but the evidence seems to suggest it's not so simple, and (this is the crucial bit) there certainly isn't reason to say that some men have 'female brains' and are therefore trans, or some women have 'male brains' and are therefore trans. As various people pointed out, plenty of feminists come out as having 'male brains' according to the criteria set out by those scientists who believe in such a thing.

I've found this thread really interesting and enlightening, especially the contributions from LRD and Buffy. I now realise my sympathy for transgender people had prevented me from thinking critically about the gender essentialism implied by their intellectual position.

I won't be identifying as a TERF just yet - I still probably think that someone who's had m2f gender reassignment surgery should be allowed to use the women's loos, but I accept that this is not unproblematic and that the ultimate 'right' societal setup would look rather different.

Thanks for the thoughtful debate.

I don't identify as a TERF.

I don't want to prevent people from getting surgery or dressing how they want to dress or changing their name from Frank to Kellie or anything like that.

I do want to be able to call out revolting homophobes/misogynists without being told that this person gets a free pass to be a bigot. I find it extremely hard to believe most people aren't cringing at the idea that this person represents them, anyway.

I would like us all to be able to work together against the patriarchy.

I think unisex loos or individual ones are the way forward. I personally like unisex ones though I know some people have religious/privacy reasons for wanting individual ones.

(And thanks! )

TERF is a slur, it's not an identity. Well at least AFAIK.

I'm not aware of any evidence at all that there is a binary difference between male and female brains as there is, say, between male and female genitals.

If there are any differences they are at a population level, like, say, the difference between average male height and average female height. It makes no sense to talk about 'male height' and 'female height' (whereas it does make sense to talk about 'male genitals' and 'female genitals') and therefore it makes no sense to talk about 'male brain' and 'female brain'. Surely?

Yes, of course.

But I think it bears saying, because I did find that reddit thread and it was clear they were assuming quite a bit about how we positioned ourselves in the debate.

"And I think the media reporting is really scary, as buffy says"

Absolutely. Papers tend to recommend further research on specific points before reaching any final conclusions; never seen that in a headline...

I understand LRD, my comment was meant to contortionist - TERF seems to be a slur people (women) are called if they discuss gender/trans issues in a critical way.

So you might be called it no matter what you think!

Oh, yes, I know that - I just think it matters to be clear that not everyone who doesn't agree with 'cisgender' actually wants to insist on trans people doing anything in particular. A lot of us just want to be left alone.

Ideally, perhaps, without death threats.

Yeah....

Nobody identifies as a TERF and it's also a misnomer because transmen are welcome at radical feminist conferences and in women's spaces.

Sorry; the TERF reference was an ill-judged attempt at humour.

CK - are you claiming that transmen are always welcome in women's spaces? It seems rather unlikely.

"When research that comes out that suggests having a certain gene makes you more likely to be a violent criminal, or more likely to suffer from depression etc, no-one comes out shouting "BS!""

I would, because this is not how genes work.
A piece of research that appears to suggest this will have been badly reported, and I would, well not shout BS because that isn't my style, but communicate that it is wrong-headed, yes, probably to the person who is trying to use this report on the research to get me to do something he doesn't want to do or accept something to his advantage that I don't want to accept.

Because, the research itself and the uses to which it is put and the way in which it is reported does not take place in a vacuum. What motivates whom to research what, and who pays them, and then who reports it?

read this

aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/why-its-time-to-lay-the-selfish-gene-to-rest/

There is no such thing as a "gene for violence" or "a gene for depression". That would be the equivalent of having an infinite number of genes. It is more analogous to having 26 letters from which we have the freedom to make as many different words and stories and speeches and laws and songs as we like. It would be ridiculous to discover the letter "a" is in all love songs and say "We have found the letter for love songs!" a "gene for violence" is as stupid as that.

CK from the Women's Aid transgender policy: Women’s Aid retains the right to consider dismissing an employee who decides to undergo [female-to-male] gender reassignment.
Which seems to mean that transmen aren't necessarily universally welcome where women would be. (Apologies if I have misunderstood your meaning.)