Consquences of self-identification

[MrsKCastle]

Sorry if this has already been done. I've been doing a lot of thinking about current trans thinking in the media.

As far as I understand it, this is the predominant view:
Anyone can be man or woman, male, female or neither. It doesn't depend on your genes, appearance or potential ability to hear young. What's important is how you identify. We should always treat people as they identify, with regard to how we speak about and treat them, and what spaces/roles we allow them to access.

What I'm interested in, is how this self-identification will or could change society. I'd love to hear your thoughts as I think it will help me to get things straight in my head.

So far I'm thinking:
No more single-sex schools
No more single-sex hospital wards
No more single-sex clubs, whether that's Brownies or exclusive golf clubs
Anyone can apply for any scholarship or award, regardless of sex

What else?

Sorry I should also say there are some really horrible details of child abuse in the links. I'm going to report my post and get it deleted. I wasn't thinking, sorry

I'm not telling you 'how to do feminism'.

I'm saying there are better battles to be fought. And that you could have allies.

But please tell me trans women are men again, I haven't heard it enough yet.

You aren't listening either. You just simply read through whatever I post looking for a line of attack or a comment you can drag out and analyze individually. It's getting rather boring.

At least I'm providing some interesting analogies, personal insights and whatnot

It's not your place to tell women which battles they should fight. Don't you get that?

ATM's paper uses intersex people, "trans" people are not intersex. Intersex people will be raised differently by their parents, their parents will know that they have a condition. Regardless of how they think they treat them, them will treat them differently, than if they had a child who did not have such a condition. This will have an affect on their self perception, and cannot be controlled for. This paper does not prove anything.

Neuroanatomical
The brain is plastic and develops and changes with environmental input. Very few studies are released showing this, compared to "brain sex" ones etc., as there is no political milage to be gotten from it, either by men or the drugs companies.

Gray Matter Studies.
From the paper itself: "The above studies are limited by the fact that they involved postmortem examinations of a small number of brains from MTF individuals, some of whom had either received hormone treatment or surgery."

As for the other results, many Ftt's and Mtt's, obtain hormones on the black market, and one would be relying on their word that they had not taken hormones. There is nothing stopping individuals from taking hormones for X amount of time, stopping then participating in a study. For example we know that strength of and length of time on psychotropic drugs correlates with negative changes in the brain of individuals exposed to them. Considering Ftt's complain about symptoms that closely resemble frontal lobe syndrome. Very similar to those that have been on psychotropic drugs, I would suggest any changes is down to hormone consumption, not preexisting features. Most scientists will not even admit that psychotropic drugs are a cause for problems, as that would affect sales of drugs. I doubt very much they are going to admit it here either and risk lowering sales of hormones.

Steroid Hormone Genetics.
From the paper itself: "these studies have been small,"
"In a similar study of 242 MTF and FTM transgender individuals, Ujike et al examined sex steroid receptor genes and found no association with transgender identity."

Neuroproteins
From the paper itself: "However, all study subjects were treated with hormones, and no female subjects were included."

This study is grasping at straws desperately trying to prove something for a political purpose, just like the "negro brain" experiments of yesteryear. deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/49594/1000050402_ftp.pdf?sequence=1

From a more reputable study: "Sex differences in the brain are irresistible to those looking to explain stereotypic differences between men and women," said Dr. Eliot. "They often make a big splash, in spite of being based on small samples. But as we explore multiple datasets and are able to coalesce very large samples of males and females, we find these differences often disappear or are trivial."

Meta-analyses by other investigators have also disproved other purported sex differences in the brain, Dr. Eliot noted. There is no difference in the size of the corpus callosum, white matter that allows the two sides of the brain to communicate, nor do men and women differ in the way their left and right hemispheres process language.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029185544.htm

That seems to be a common tactic of trans activists - dominate feminist groups with gender identity bollocks then, when women finally push back, start with the sadfacing and 'i can't believe you're more concerned about my delicate, wouldn't harm a fly ladypenis in your bathroom than you are with rape/wage gaps/reproductive rights ' (all of which we've been told are, in some shape or form, trans exclusionary). It is gaslighting and it's painfully obvious.

Yes FreshwaterSelkie someone said earlier they were told they could not be sterilised, because they were too young and may change their mind.

We as feminists understand that men (as a group) want us to be sexual objects and bearers of their children. It then it makes sense, why some women are denied sterilisation, even if request it. Children and teens who do not conform to sex roles, are suspected of being gay/lesbian. They then loose their usefulness to men, therefore, it is ok to sterilise them. If men accept that homosexuality is innate and genetic, then by sterilising sex role non conforming children/teens. The hope is that it will reduce the amount of people born homosexual. This is why it is a eugenics experiment, and cannot completely be reduced to just a small group of TA's.

Gender dysphoria itself has a dubious history. Although many people think homosexuality was taken out of the DSM in 1973, in reality it was just reclassified as sexual orientation disturbance. In 1980 gay activists persuaded some psychiatrists to argue for sexual orientation disturbance to be removed from the DSM. Many feared the psychiatrists who backed the gay activists would be successful. Gender dysphoria (then known as GID) was also proposed and introduced into the DSM in 1980. Just a coincidence? I don't think so.

The psychiatrists arguing for SOD to be removed were not successful, and it was just renamed ego dystonic homosexuality. EDH was eventually removed from the DSM in 1986, GID was then the only way to pathologise homosexuality. The motives for adding GID in 1980 are obvious.

Even though GD (or GID) was clearly introduced as a way to insure homosexuality would still be pathologised, gay men will not oppose it, because it validates their queer theory ideology. By inventing queer theory, gay men played into the hand of those who wanted to pathologise homosexuality. Gay men have been using the "born this way" mantra since the 80's, they think it is key to their sexual liberation. They do not want to jeopardise that, and so will keep on supporting this through queer theory, regardless of who it harms.

Then factor in the masturbatory fiction found on Reddit and bingo you have a mental picture of a trans person as a hairy assed knuckle dragging man with a deep voice pawing at the door of the ladies bathroom with one hand fumbling in his knickers (misgendering deliberate for effect, I hasten to add).

I seriously doubt anyone here thinks this at all though. Infact I have seen people over and over again state that its 'not many' who are the problem here. But opening up to all allows those who are a problem in.

I guess in with your shark analogy..

Lets assume we have a swimming pool next to the sea with a gate/door that opens onto the actual sea. There are 'friendly' sharks but some who would eat your leg without thinking about it. People are fine swimming with the friendly sharks..so we have these options

1. Keep the door closed and keep all sharks out.
2. Open the doors to let the friendly ones in and end up with a bunch of people with no legs as there is no way to tell angry sharks from friendly sharks.

Ignoring of course, that by nature, sharks are a danger to humans. Because of..oddly enough...their biology. And that the reason for so few shark attacks is that...people do not populate the sea. If sharks walked on land among us, the attack rate would rise...obviously.

Just realised how surreal this conversation is..

The more people that send letters to their MP's the better, winchester.

I'm going to start a change petition too, which hopefully will raise awareness among other women. Because even though MP's may not be obliged to reply to it, it will allow other women to read what this ideology is all about. If enough women sign it, we could also use it to gain publicity. My family do not want me to use the government petition site, because they are worried about being targeted by TA's. As you have to use your surname, and I have a unusual surname, they are not so bothered about me starting an anonymous change petition. Hopefully it will raise awareness if nothing else.

ATransMum wrote -
"Here is what you could be doing instead:
Getting behind the campaign to make misogyny (e.g. cat-calling) a hate crime (you probably don't want to because the campaign was started by someone that identifies as non-binary"

I hope this campaign can overcome any resistance it may meet from a transwoman named Paris Lees, a very influential transactivist, who loves being catcalled. Her dismissal of the negative effects of catcalling, because she uses it to validate her alleged womanhood, makes things more difficult for the women and girls who have been campaigning for many years against catcalling.

I signed your petition anyway. As oddly enough I don't care who starts things like that, the end result is most important.

I don't see why you think we cannot focus on more than one thing at a time though. That being worried about self-identification means we do not also want better sex education and stuff?

Seems a bit...look there not here to me tbh

I'm not at all scared of sharks and nor will I be unless I find one unexpectedly in the changing room one day and I can't ask him to leave because he identifies as a human now.

I'm not telling you 'how to do feminism'. I'm saying there are better battles to be fought. And that you could have allies.

bwahahahahahaha

Most sharks are killed for food, btw., not because they are predators. Flake and chips anyone?

ATMs posts demonstrate a barely conscionable lack of personal insight and self awareness. It's almost performance art.

Actually sharks don't eat people. We aren't tasty to them as we don't contain blubber (had a very interesting conversation with a shark expert at the park yesterday about this).

Sharks bite humans because they see us in murkier waters and think we are food as they have bad eyesight. But one bite and their taste buds basically go 'eww' and they spit us out.

People die from shark bites due to drowning and/or loss of blood. Not from being eaten.

So your swimming pool full of sharks is fine. As long as the water is clear :)

I don't know Paris that well to ask her, but I kind of get where she is coming from.

Don't agree with it though. Cat-calls are not validating my femininity in the slightest. Having a female friend forget that I'm trans for a second is far more validating than some random guy wolf-whistling at me.

I sent letters to each of the MPs that represent Durham. Didn't know if I should do only the one for my area or not. So went for all instead.

I sent in something 2 weeks back to my own MP and didn't get a reply at all, whereas when I have contacted him previously about other things I get a reply from his secretary within 3 days.

@WitchingHour666

I did say there was no conclusive proof, merely evidence pointing to a theory. But of course you can accuse the subjects of a scientific study of 'lying' to disprove the results.

30-40% of monozygotic twins both identify as transgender (when one twin identifies) compared to 2.5% of dizygotic same sex twins in a few studies.

That's not statistically irrelevant as evidence. But it also isn't proof.

Like I said, evidence points to a theory but the theory can't be proved yet. I'd love to do the research properly, but a trans person doing it would just be accused of bias anyway.

So your swimming pool full of sharks is fine. As long as the water is clear

Unless one of the people in the pool is bleeding in some form though, of course.

But its still besides the point.

urgh. The need for others to validate one's existence is a really unnattractive trait. You know, it makes it sound like you think people exist only in relation to you.

It's not 'look there not at me'. It's finding common ground and working together tjat .

The trans agenda and feminism in general have so many common goals it seems pointless for us to be fighting each other and everything else.

I suspect there are men's rights activists looking at forum's like this and rubbing their hands together with glee. And all of us probably have a much deeper rooted hatred of them than any other group on the planet.

I don't think you understand that it doesn't matter. There is no marker for brain sex. Beginning and end. That's it. It doesn't exist.

If you want to work together then trans people need to stop claiming they can change sex and stop claiming access to sex segregated areas.

It seems you want women to give ground while you - why, what a surprise - don't want to give any ground.

The trans agenda and feminism in general have so many common goals it seems pointless for us to be fighting each other and everything else.

We don't need to be fighting each other I agree. But you cannot deny that 'trans rights' and 'womens rights' overlap in some vital areas. So whilst we may well fight the same fight in other areas, some areas will always be a problem. And it seems to be expected that women be the ones to make the concessions. which in turn, causes more friction.