Trans people are not harming anyone

[AmoraObscura]

OK, so I've been having various discussions with people about this whole trans thing. The most prominent reason people have for supporting it seem to be that they're not hurting anyone, in fact they're doing themselves a huge diservice, so why not just go along with it as they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Also that brain scan evidence shows that being trans is a thing.

If anyone is able to help me out with this, or could point me in the direction of threads which address it, that would be much appreciated.

Trans people have the same rights as everyone else with exception of parts of the Equalities act to protect women only spaces.

Some men will exploit self ID and this has already happened.

I don't hate anyone and wish everyone to live their life how they wish BUT women should have female only spaces.

Btw there is no evidence of the female or make brain.

Also that brain scan evidence shows that being trans is a thing.

Does anyone happen to know what the ‘best’ existing evidence for that is?

I’d be interested to read it and surrounding critical discussion if anyone can signpost.

apart from this one:
www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

and this more recent one
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8

Is this one of those spamming threads? Trying to make us all women together.

I don't think many people are trying to deny that trans is a thing. But if we are relying on science, then xxx versus xy chromosomes is also a thing. And some things should be segregated on the basis of sex, not gender.

Sealions

Oh for an emoji...

Some transactivists are harming us

Yes. We need a sealion emoji so as to signal everyone not to waste their time.

I thought the same as you a short while ago OP.

The thing is, we have separate laws and practices for men and women for very good reasons that no one questions.

With self-Id how do you tell the motivations of someone who 'feels' like a woman.

Currently post-op trans people or those with medically diagnosed dysphoria can legally be recognised as female. This has worked on the basis of trust and small numbers. Most people (me too until recently) think of trans people as those currently already covered above.

The definition of trans now being used is far far wider than that - have a look at swim England.

This person says he is a trans woman.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2876810-Danielle-Muscatos-tweet-on-international-womens-day#prettyPhoto/0/

Why should he be able to go into our daughters changing rooms or women's refuges just because he says he feels like a woman?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2876810-Danielle-Muscatos-tweet-on-international-womens-day#prettyPhoto/0/

Is the “they’re not doing any harm”kind of a trans version of NAMALT? That yes, individual trans people aren’t trying to erode the rights of women by redefining the word but the trans activists, part of their class, are. The equivalent of DH is lovely and kind to me but the class of men aren’t. Trans activists do cause harm - reducing the safety of women, reducing woman to a feeling not a biological fact, abuse (both physical and verbal) towards women who want to maintain their own safety. In the same way we don’t know which man will attack us we can’t know whether we have a trans person going about their lives or a TRA.

As for everything to lose and nothing to gain then ask why we’re seeing sports men who didn’t make it to the top in men’s sports suddenly transitioning and winning funding, medals, spots on women’s teams. Sounds like a gain to me. Along with the sort of fame and notoriety that female sportspeople never achieve.

I think there's some evidence of certain brain receptors not being able to pick up the correct hormone. So the male brain doesn't pick up testosterone therefore the person doesn't feel masculine.
How this translates as them suddenly being a full biological woman though. Goodness only knows. But fair play, an adult can live their life as they choose. As long as it causes no harm to others.

Then there's those who truly get their kicks from dressing upwomen's knickers. Lol. Bless em. I married one so I do know that's true. They exist. They aren't trans but could easily pretend to be. If they are that way inclined.

I believe that there is a need to be assessed in terms of gender id. That's all. If the doctors say you're trans then that's fine by me.

If you want an example of how terrifying the implications of self Id are, check out Marie Dean. A person that filmed himself breaking into children's rooms and wanking onto their pants. That person wants to be in a female prison. Erm. Nope.

All the arguments that you put forward from others in your OP are black-and-white, which is a very immature way of approaching most things. I wouldn't waste my time arguing back in that case.

Trans rights are important. I want everyone to feel safe and supported.

This transwoman is eloquent on why she feels self-Id is not a good idea: mobile.twitter.com/kj_harrison?lang=en

That is all very well - but why are my rights being eroded?

The brain scans sadly do not prove that trans is a thing. Are you arguing that conclusive proof of the ladybrain has been found?

In terms of methodology, brain scans are unreliable, see Craig Bennetts findings of neurological activity in a dead salmon. Wired has produced a succinct article on it: www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

With regards to Prof. Hines work, funding structures in universities dictate what questions may be asked and thus what may be found. The pressures of the REF mean that the university supports research which will make headlines - quantifiable impact - and scientific research which claims to find natural reasons for sexism and supporting the status quo makes headlines.

As I have mentioned Hines of the opposing view are Dr. Fine, Delusions of Gender and Fine, Testosterone Rex. Also A. Saini, Inferior is one of the best books I read last year. It debunks a lot of sexist science and explains how it got produced and accepted.

but they are doing harm because all trans people are men in changing rooms staring at girls and all my rights as a woman are disappearing because there's some men who want to be women!!!!!

It has harmed me, to be told that my childhood was a lie and that my experience if being female is invalid and second to that of a man.

lucylouuu: peak TERF right there.

lucy the only person who think like that is you. Good luck with that kind of stupid.

(Photo is for those who mentioned sealioning, it fits nicely and could be reused on similar threads)

Carrier any studies where the sample aren't already taking opposite sex hormones at all? Because that's pretty much what those studies are measuring, the effects of huge doses of oestrogen on the brain chemistry of male subjects.

Brain plasticity is a well known phenomenon. It even works with enormous hormone changes.

Love the sealion cartoon.

Welcome to MN all you lovely new sealions people.

If brain scans proved trans was a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon, they'd be used for diagnosis.

They're not.
Make of that what you will...

As regards the Nature article, a quick skim is interesting. Particularly where they say:
"In the other tracts measured, the present study revealed, like in several previous studies, sex-atypical FA values in transgender individuals. However, and importantly, these values became sex-typical after accounting for sexual orientation."
Which was what others were saying -- some previously reported effects were actually sexual orientation rather than gender identity related. Or saying lots of researchers didn't have proper control groups..............
Certainly doesn't say TrW have ladybrains (I admit I found their terminology of TrW, HeM, HoM etc etc rather confusing!).
I was wondering whether or not they controlled for cross-sex hormone therapy? (Ah, I see they say "Exclusion criteria consisted of previous or current hormonal treatment", but you have to be aware of the availability of hormones on the black-market, so not officially prescribed hormones does not mean they have never had hormones and might just lie.)

Also interesting that the differences they did find, they focus on:
"Importantly, the present data also provide a neuroanatomical underpinning for a GD/transgender-specific aspect - the body dysphoria and great distress due to incongruence between physical sex and experienced gender."
So, they seem to think the difference they found isn't ladybrain, but instead a propensity to feel some disconnect with your body (hence dysphoria). Which, according to TRAs, isn't required to be trans.

I would not be at all surprised if there were some correlate in the brain, that explains a propensity to develop the disconnect and distress that is gender dysphoria. For those who suffer from it, we owe them the best research as to how their distress can be alleviated or treated. But this is not where current TRAs are, which is dysphoria not necessary, and hormones/surgery on demand is the thing. Totally different hymnsheet -- one group supports the ladybrain, the other doesn't.

I'd be interested to see if the differences they see are possibly related to any differences as regards those with other bodily dysmorphias? And frankly, the groups they are talking about here are the classic dysmorphic transsexuals who most people think self-id is talking about, not the actual non-dysmorphic, I don't want surgery I just have a ladybrain lot who the TRAs are actually advocating for.

P.S. I see they also excluded anyone with a diagnosis on the autism spectrum, so they seem to have done a reasonable job.

"If brain scans proved trans was a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon, they'd be used for diagnosis."
If these brain scans proved reliable for those with gender dysphoria, TRAs would (and already do) oppose it since dysphoria is not required to be trans nowadays, just a self-declaration!

Trans ideology is underpinned by biological essentialism.* This is incredibly harmful to women. If we accept that lady brain exists, that femininity is an innate essence that most women have. What's the point in trying to increase female participation and inclusion in politics/STEM/the board room. Women are just 'naturally' disinclined to do those things so why go against nature?

*From Oxford REference

The belief that 'human nature', an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural 'essence' (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture).