Something I just thought about the whole 'Brain sex' theory.

[TinyRick]

So if the body is 'male' and the brain is 'female' from birth then why didn't the 'female' brain develop estrogen and secondary sex characteristics for the 'male' body? (Obviously vice versa too for FtT)

Are they saying their brain is actually wrong and stupid? Even though they profess the opposite?

Who is "they"? Please decode your entire post.

And if their body is female and their genitals are female genitals, why do they take hormones and have surgery to change it?

Gender dysphoria is feeling a distressing disconnect over your genitals.

Saying this makes you female is a mental health issue. Hence no logic.

The brain isn't responsible for hormone production. If there's no ovaries, the supply of estrogen is limited.

But of course it is bonkers. If there's not enough estrogen/ too much testosterone for the body to develop as at least seemingly female, then there's no way the brain, which got the same hormones as the rest of the body, is any more female than the rest of the body.

The only males who can be truthfully said to have a female brain are those with androgen insensitivity who have a vagina and whose testicles are internal.

If you got enough testosterone to develop a penis and normal outward testicles, you got enough testosterone to have a male brain, case closed.

I'd like to know what the symptoms of a heart attack in non-castrated, non-estrogenized transwomen are. Because I am pretty sure they're the same ones as in ordinary men.

So the heart is male. Isn't the heart much more important to the personality than the brain? Every fairytale says so ...

Datun often there is no dysphoria over genitals though. There are plenty of transactivists who say they are happy with their body as it is (and use it for sex and reproduction) but that it is inherently a body of the opposite sex. Some mtt now claiming they were born 'natal' females just with a female penis. The whole 'transumberella' covers those who are disconnected with their bodies sex and those who are just fine with it but demand we all validate their penis is female.

People might find this interesting:

slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/28/why-are-transgender-people-immune-to-optical-illusions/

SylviaPoe, so this essentially proves that trans people haven't ladybrain or manbrain, but just "transbrain", doesn't it?

(There's also studies that found that trans brains, while more resembling other brains of people of the same sex than brains of people of the other sex, also most resembled the brains of people with anorexia - can't remember all if it, but I assume it was only dysphoric trans people)

Pretty sure some, or even most of the males with "female penis" are just taking the piss and don't have any disorder whatsoever.

But lots of the girls who are now binding their breasts and deluding themselves into thinking they can escape patriarchal oppression are probably autistic or otherwise not neurotypical.

WhiteMane

Yes, you're quite right, of course.

I much prefer dragging transgenderism back to the original premise of gender dysphoria, though.

Having a condition (for want of a better word) to explain transgenderism does, at least, highlight the contradiction when a late transitioning male who has fathered children, decides they are trans. Or someone who is quite obviously in favour of their penis.

It provides a much-needed scepticism, if one either keeps in mind gender dysphoria as the benchmark, or mentions gender dysphoria. It highlights the lack of logic and consistency, if you see what I mean.

I also like to keep in mind that some people transition for very genuine reasons. It provides me with a mental balance that sometimes I'm in danger of losing!

SylviaPoe

That linked piece is fascinating. I've seen a lot of speculation about the disassociation required for identifying as trans.

I also read, sometime ago, someone claiming that cross sex hormones can cure autism. It was met with howls of outage, but maybe there is something to it.

I vaguely remember reading something about low testosterone and asd as it happens. I do have both but I'm not sold they are connected.

Yes I agree there are real cases of dysphoria but they are indistinguishable from all those who just demand we accept they are the opposite sex

I don't know where it is all going to end up, but there are going to be many advances in understanding in the next decade. The 'just the same as cis woman brain' line of thinking doesn't seem to be helping.

It seems like the current argument is that trans people have a dissociative experience (our bodies are not real) so everyone else pretends they're not real as well, it will all be okay. It's essentially asking everyone to experience (or pretend to experience) dysphoria rather than just treating dysphoria.

Bizarre really.

I doubt there will be cures for autism, but perhaps some of the distressing elements of it could be alleviated.

That came out rather garbled!

What I mean is that having dysphoria is clearly an unpleasant experience.

Trans activists seem to want to alleviate that by making everyone else agree something that is obviously real (male and female bodies) is not real, essentially making every person in society experience or pretend to experience a dissociative state.

YY. With the burden falling mostly on women. Because male transactivists often want to punish us for our existence, and other men and internally misogynistic women collude with them in this.

I don't think transactivism is at all about people who feel dysphoric. That's what they claim, and that's probably why many "allies" are on board, but I think the reason it is happening (and also I am sure some of the leaders are aware of it) is something entirely different.

To me, it is very obviously a patriarchal backlash against feminism.

The taking away of women's rights, step by step, making it impossible for us to name the oppression, and declaring radical feminists their number 1 enemies.

In short, there is method in the madness.

I would feel much less bad about it one could assume it to just be madness. But mere madness would never gain so much support.

Yeah, gender dysphoria is one thing. And can at least be understood. Like anorexia.

But I agree, there are so many other factions are just rubbing their hands in glee over the hijacking of the entire ideology.

From MRAs, regular common or garden pervs, autogynephiles, convicts, naval gazers and snowflakes, and pharmaceutical companies.

And then there is an awful lot of men who just think ugh feminazis. They get what they deserve. Uppity women. All this feminism bollocks has just gone too far.

It's true about the political dimension, attack on feminism and so on.

I am still wondering if one of the methods of that attack is an attempt to induce dissociative thoughts or states in others - trying to get them to not be able to recognise reality.

I am still wondering if one of the methods of that attack is an attempt to induce dissociative thoughts or states in others - trying to get them to not be able to recognise reality.

Oh! That's what you meant!

Yes, I agree with that. I don't think it is the ultimate goal, but it certainly is a method.

I mean, it is a form of gaslighting, or brainwashing, even. Making people state things they know to not be true ....
There's a quote, which I can't exactly remember, but it was something about that if you can get someone to repeat something they know is false, you can make them commit every atrocity.

Ok just as a thought experiment say we accept the whole trans ideaological line. "You want to be a woman? Fine have at it! You want to wield your mighty shenis in the dating scene? Knock yourself out!"

Nothing essentially really changes does it? Patriarchy and male privilege gets reframed as penis privilege (gender irrelevant). The gender pay gap gets reframed as the child-bearer pay gap.

Those without penises will still need protection from and reason to fear those with them. Thus will always require spaces like bathrooms, changing rooms and domestic violence centres with a penis exclusion zone.

Individuals with sexual preferences towards those with natural born vaginas will continue to be attracted to same and having a female penis doesn't magically transmute it into a vagina.

I mean sure we could all just change what words mean, but practically nothing changes. Even if everything radtrans wanted with regards to words and definitions came to pass, our language would just shift to accommodate it.

Unless you tackle pay gaps, bepenised violence etc etc nothing really changes. In fact in a world with all this gender fluidity and non-binary language there is no way it would even be wise to pump children full of hormones as there would be no way of knowing what sort of identity they may or may not have upon adulthood. So purely medically speaking the risks wouldn't be worth it.

I mean sure we could all just change what words mean, but practically nothing changes

That's not what they want, though.

Getting to rape lesbians via coercion, perving on women in showers and changing rooms - it is the goal of the whole shit.

Because, as you say, otherwise it would just be a change of words. And I don't believe anyone would invest so much money and effort into just changing words.

I refuse to change how I use the word "woman" because I am not keen on calling myself a "person who has an uterus and ovaries and probably XX chromosomes" instead, whereas they get to use "woman", but I also do not believe that this is what they truly want.

If we said "Okay, you can have woman/women, we will just call ourselves womyn/wymyn, then", they'd throw a tantrum of epic proportions. Because they don't want people to be able to tell the difference. (Try talking to a transactivist and suggest that there should be extra toilets for "ciswomen", separate from those for "women" and "men", and see how well it goes)

(Ok, I just noticed a mistake in my thinking. They wouldn't throw a temper tantrum. They'd nod along with your suggestion, allow toilets for ciswomen to be built, then promptly identify as ciswomen (or wymyn, or whatever other name we'd use) and demand access.)

VestalVirgin is right. They want what we are. However you name it, they will want it.

And if you think 'uterus bearer' will do the trick because it is enough of a distinction. I disagree.

If a man can be a woman and a penis can be a female organ and biology is a social construct, it will just never end.

You can make all the distinctions you like, and women do, and they just change the narrative.

Who would have thought that calling a man, he, would be seen as bigoted. Just a few short years ago.

But I do think they will shoot themselves in the foot. Zinnia Jones (TRA) has gone on Twitter to say straight men should sleep with transwomen.

All the while they're insisting lesbians should do it no one cared. Now men should, it is getting a massive backlash. Unsurprisingly.

mobile.twitter.com/ZJemptv/status/881284564815151104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgendertrender.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F06%2F29%2Fguilty%2F

Just for the avoidance of doubt I'm not advocating for a minute you nor anyone else should have to change anything.

I'm merely pointing out, and I am going to try just this with some liberal leaning friends that it might be possible to make concessions with language and thus expose the misogyny more plainly.

It's also not meant as a direct challenge to those advocating a hard radtrans line, as to me at least it's as clear a case of woman hating as I've seen in public discourse. I sincerely doubt I'd win any converts there.

What I think can be achieved is depriving this line of thinking of the oxygen of popular support it's been getting of late.

I'm also not talking about a 1:1 switch ie woman becomes womyn. I'm talking about a baked in shift of language that makes it impossible to shift attribution. So for example men oppress women becomes those born with penises oppress those without.

So for example I could say to a liberal trans ally: "Ok I'm happy to shift my language to accommodate the feelings of a marginalised group, are you willing to stand against the violence those born with penises inflict on those without?"

Once you separate this modern trend of shifting what man/woman means the fact remains one group hurts another. All I am advocating is to not allow one cohort from the violent group to escape culpability, and access vulnerable people from the other.

In a way this language twisting is a red herring. The problems facing women don't just go away because we shift what words mean, and the exact same analysis applies whatever words we choose. All I'm saying is even if we accepted the language change, we'd just end up shifting language and naming the same old problems just within the new paradigm.

In fact what I'm hoping to discover is that by conceding on the language to my liberal leaning friends, I can corner them with some new language useage to reveal that what they have been espousing has been very woman hating.

So for example I could say to a liberal trans ally: "Ok I'm happy to shift my language to accommodate the feelings of a marginalised group, are you willing to stand against the violence those born with penises inflict on those without?"

That might work with some, but I am afraid not with all, because many of the transallies I have met don't acknowledge male violence as being a thing.

NAMALT becomes NAPBALT - not all penis bearers.

Those people have never acknowledged separate bathrooms, etc, as being a protection from male violence, they seem to honestly believe those are about "gender" - as if women's toilets just had bigger mirrors, or something.

But do try it and report back. Would be interesting to see the reactions.

Ok I'm happy to shift my language to accommodate the feelings of a marginalised group, are you willing to stand against the violence those born with penises inflict on those without?"

You could try this with people who aren't trans. But since it is the very basis of women's objections, it's been refuted repeatedly.

Obviously it can't actually be refuted. But the party line is that both transwomen and women are actually women. To say that one has a uterus and one doesn't is cissexist and you should check your privilege. That women come in all shapes and sizes. And if you think you can exclude transwomen for not having a uterus, then what about women who have had a hysterectomy. Are they not women?

If you point out the oppression is based on biology, you will get told that transwomen suffer far worse oppression due to being trans. A double oppression. Plus all the usual misogyny reserved for women. Then you will get told you are obsessed with genitals, that you reducing women to their genitalia and you have a vagina fetish.

But honestly Dervel, if you get anywhere, any where at all, please report back.

I've seen women argue against this all the time. The fact that it even needs an argument shows you how stupid it is.

Which is right, eventually, women end up just responding with fuck off you're a dude. The same old tired arguments just keep repeating themselves. To no end.

If your friends have bought into the trans-ideology, they must agree with everything I've written. Otherwise they themselves are transphobic.

I should imagine they don't want to be seen as misogynists either. Unfortunately you have to pick one.

I have a question... why do you lot care? Why is it anything to do with you what other people want out of life or what they call themselves?

I thought feminism was about equality. Treating EVERYBODY the same. Same rights and same respect. If you want that then perhaps you should start showing it to others, including trans people, instead of sitting at your keyboards debating what is "wrong" with them. They're people too and they're damn well entitled to live their lives without being judged.

I do think you are right. None of this will hold water with hardliners. I am fortunate in that I really don't think I know anyone who would refute male violence towards women, but I do think many don't want to be seen to be bigots or illiberal in anyway, and simply haven't considered all the implications.

I have seen your arguments as presented with no alteration work. I have a friend who has wrestled with being mtf trans, and I have increasingly presented your arguments to him (he's back to identifying as male). He's now convinced of the terf position.

The whole thing is very cultish in my opinion, but I have a lot of credibility with him as I've lost count of the number of nights I was up late till 3-4 in the morning helping him wrestle with his identity. I just explained I'll be his friend and support whatever chooses, but trying to force his way into female spaces crosses a line for me, and he now understands why. He can't very well accuse me of transphobia, because if I genuinely was he can't readily explain why I've spent so many hours listening and being supportive.

I'm not really a feminist DrPepper, I just genuinely like people. When it comes to women's issues feminism really is the only show in town so whilst I'm not on board totally ideologically I do find on an issue by issue basis they talk a lot of sense.