Debunking some myths

[pallas81]

I know I will be crucified for this but I aim to reach out to those who consider themselves open minded on the issue of reform to the Gender Recognition Act.
There is a great deal of talk about the dangers of male predators in female only spaces. It needs to be pointed out that this has nothing to do with the 2004 Gender Recognition Act or its possible reform. As the law currently stands, transgender women are perfectly entitled to use female toilets, changing rooms and facilities such as shelters and rape crisis centres. A Gender Recognition Certificate is NOT required. In fact, in law, it is illegal to demand such a certificate.
Transgender people are protected under the 2010 Equality Act. For those who are vehemently opposed to trans people having certain rights, you should be campaigning against the Equality Act instead of occupying yourselves with self identification.
However, I should point out that in the countries that have already adopted self identification as law there is no evidence that male predators have used it to prey on vulnerable women.
I'm afraid that much of the anger around this issue looks like paranoid fantasy when one knows the facts. Despite the best efforts of squalid sites like Transcrime, the rates of criminal behaviour among self-identified trans people is much much lower than the societal average and there is ZERO respectable evidence that self identified transgender females represent any threat to non-transgender females of any age.
If you wish to comment, please try to be courteous. Thank you.

What's happened to @pallas81 anyway? Another plopper?

Must be a cake in need of icing...

Cool, If you really are open minded - here's some references for you. They're mostly offline, so you'll need to source them from a library :) - there's a great deal more out there but I've been stuck in traffic for the last hour and only just sat down. And quite frankly I ache all over and need to eat something.

Heylens, G; De Cuypere, G; Zucker, K; Schelfaut, C; Elaut, E; Vanden Bossche, H; De Baere, E; T'Sjoen, G (2012). "Gender Identity Disorder in Twins: A Review of the Case Report Literature". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 8 (3): 751–757. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02567.x.

Coleman E (2011). "Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming People, Version 7" . International Journal of Transgenderism. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 13: 165–232.

Terry Altilio, Shirley Otis-Green (2011). Oxford Textbook of Palliative Social Work. Oxford University Press.

NHS - www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

Pyschology Today -
www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/transgender

[The history of the concept of gender identity disorder].
Koh J. Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi. 2012 - you can read the abstract, but not the full thesis online here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22844818/

They look random. What do you think they prove? What argument(s) specifically are you backing up with these references?

Can i ask what it is that these studies support?

I’m aware gender dysphoria exists. Can you elaborate on what point your linked articles are trying to make?

None of them show or even attempt to say that humans can change sex (some of these have been posted here before.)

Here’s how it works: you make an argument and set out your stall with the points you wish to make. You can back up that argument with peer reviewed data (it’s bad form to link to paywalled stuff by the way because if people can’t read it then your evidence isn’t accessible to them.)

Plopping down a loada linkies isn’t arguing. It’s a combo of gish galloping and sea lioning.

Try harder. The standard of debate here is higher than twitter

You asked for sources about the difference between gender and sex. And how people can change gender. I provided sources. If you don't want to read them...

Well it does rather prove the point I've been making doesn't it :) quelle surprise!

Not really. Usually when people provide studies/links they explain why they're relevant and what they're supporting. You have just put a list of things with no explanation at all. You're expecting anyone interested to find and read all of those in their entirety whilst guessing which bits you feel are relevant.

But a study that says it aims
'to assist transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people with safe and effective pathways to achieving lasting personal comfort with their gendered selves, in order to maximize their overall health, psychological well-being, and self-fulfillment'
doesn't go any way at all to suggest how this can be done while achieving health, wellbeing and safety for those pesky other people.

The twin study shows that identical twins are more similar than non-identical.

I can't access the palliative social work book.

The NHS study is not a primary source, but it's looking at the needs of the individual and not, again, how that should be balanced against the needs of others.

I'm aware of the origins of the concept of GID, and of the use of the term gender to mean both inner identity and social stereotype.

I realise I wasn't clear before: I know that gender identity disorders exist, but I disagree that gender should trump biological sex where that matters in the first place.

You asked for sources about the difference between gender and sex. And how people can change gender.

No I didn’t. I’m well aware of the difference between gender and sex. Sex is an immutable biological fact. Gender is the societal ‘stuff’ that is hung on each sex - what they are expected to dress like, look like, act like.

I asked you if you think humans can change sex. Not gender. Sex.

Do you think humans can change sex?

No, I didn't ask for sources explaining the difference between gender and sex. I seem to spend half my days asking rambly medical authors to clarify whether their studies are, in fact, divided by sex or by gender.

(They often say gender, they almost invariably change it to sex when asked, occasionally they shuffle their feet and admit they aren't sure, which is going to be bugger-all help to the next person trying to replicate the results.)

Well it does rather prove the point I've been making doesn't it smile

Not really no. It proves you’re twisting yourself into knots to avoid answering with a yes or no the question I originally asked, which is if you believe human beings can change sex.

It’s the same response I’ve had from quite a few TRAs - none will answer the question with a straight yes or no, and yet they expect and demand women to give up rights based on everybody believing that - a stance no one actually believes is true.

So yes or no? Can humans change sex?

You asked for sources about the difference between gender and sex. And how people can change gender

But, nobody asked for this.

Bowlofbabelfish invited you to rebut these points with evidence. Do you think any of your links do this? If so please let us know which ones. I would expect Bowlofbabelfish as a scientist might well have have access to some of the paywalled stuff.

• Humans cannot change sex
• Transwomen remain Male
• Transwomen have Male patterns of sex offending and violent offending
• Self ID will reduce protections for women and girls
• Self ID will dilute child safeguarding procedures for all children
• Most children diagnosed as trans desist

I asked you what the "extensive studies" you mentioned were and what you though they proved. You've posted some studies, so you're half way there on my query, great! But - what do you think they prove? That's what I asked.

Meanwhile several other posters asked you to respond to points raised or expand on your ideas. You could do any of these by referencing studies to back up your points.

I'm not in the mood or business of writing academic essays because you don't want to bother reading links that disagree with your world view :)

As I've said, your reactions over and over again have shown that you're close-minded, bigoted echo chamber that has no intention of actually listening to any views which divert from your entrenched opinions.

Have fun, but know that in the end, you are fortunately not the majority and you do not speak for all women or even all feminists.

Honestly, no one's asking for an academic essay. Just pick one of your links, say what it supports and which part is particularly relevant.

Aaaand FLOUNCE!

Look we are just asking for a reasoned argument. You say that transwomen are women - but you offer no factual evidence. You offer no rational argument, no analysis, no evidence.

Absolutely no one on here except you has used the kind of language you’re using - bigot. Echo chamber. Hatred. Wrong side of history. We’ve just set out what we believe and backed it up with reasoned argument.

If you can’t do that, and if you can’t answer simple yes/no questions and explain your beliefs, then consider that your position has no substance. TRAs always flounce. Always. Because their position does not stand up to scrutiny.

If your position had substance you could defend it simply, reasonably, without resorting to name calling. You cannot.

Those academic essays don’t disagree with my world view.

I believe that people can get gender dysphoria, I think people with gender dysphoria should be treat with kindness and should access treatment and appropriate medical care.

I don’t think that having gender dysphoria literally means you change sex though, and those papers don’t say that either.

Bibijayne you have been asked lots of questions here that you haven't been able to answer.

The nature of debate is that you put across an argument and then back it up with your own words, sometimes with peer reviewed links etc to support. Then people might rebute what you say, they may ask you questions. So then you counter argue, answering the questions as you go. You may then ask the other person some questions of your own to back up your argument and so on and so forth.

You don't state your position, come back with a load of stuff that doesn't answer any of your opponents questions, link to some fairly unrelated stuff and then just call everyone bigoted and hateful because they don't agree with you.

The standard of debate on MN is usually very high, not just on trans or feminist issues but on lots of stuff. I have certainly had to question a lot of my positions over the years from debating with people on here.

know that in the end, you are fortunately not the majority

I think you'll find we are.

Trans issues haven't hit the mainstream yet, not really.

If you go ask people in the street if people with penises can be women and/or lesbians, you'll get short shrift!

It takes quite a bit of conditioning to believe that black is white, and most of the general public haven't been brainwashed to believe that men can be women, thankfully.

Most of them think transgender=transexual i.e. someone who has had, or wants to have a sex change.

The general public don't realise there are fully intact male bodied people demanding people call them women, that lesbians sleep with them, that muslim female beauticians should be sued if they won't give "women" with dicks a sack & crack wax, that convicted rapists be housed with female prisoners.

They will though, right about the time the voices of the desistors get too loud to ignore any more.

Ah bless, Bibi, you seem to think that it's OK for a lesbian to not want a relationship with a transwoman and everyone agrees.

Can I introduce you to Riley J Dennis, the 6'2" tall American transwoman who grew up playing soccer (hello gender as a cultural construct!!), had facial feminisation surgery last year and of the author of such informational videos as (personally, I think they should be); (errrr, yes, yes they are); and the smash hit video (spoiler alert: yes, they are)

First article says Gender identity disorder has some genetic component.

Wpath.. how best to help people with gender dyspohria and more general gender non compliance. Great. Suggests that these guidelines may need to be varied by culture...not surprising since gender is a cultural concept.

So my conclusions from those two articles are that gender is a social concept. People are all different. Therefore unsurprisingly If you force ridged gender expectations on people based on their sex then many people will feel that they do not match their gender. In some cases this can become extreme so that the persons mental health suffers.

So please someone explain which of my opinions listed below I am meant to have changed as a result of the recommended reading?

Gender != sex. Otherwise gid could not exist.
Woman != man. Women = born female and socialised accordingly.
Trans = wanting to be socialised in discordance with their sex. The essenc of gid
feminist = socialisation irrespective of their sex ( my form of feminism anyway)

The rates of violence by men to women is a result of their sex not gender. No one was attacked for cake baking, they were attacked because they were physically weaker and had female genitals . As such that there is a need to encourage society to respect sexual boundaries ( those genitals belong to a human not a piece of meat. ) through eg separate changing rooms. The trauma woman can experience as a result of sexual violence means that we should be allowed to insist on no men in situations such as rape crisis centres.

This implies that there is a limit on the maximum possible socialisation of transwomen. Many transwomen respect this.

@Bowlofbabelfish

Infantilising language 'bless' and gendered language 'Flouce' pretty much indicate that no, you do not want reasoned debate. Which makes it a totally pointless exercise. Especially as whenever a goal is met, the goal posts are moved.

I'm happy to debate with people who want to debate. Not with people baying for blood because someone dare question their world view. To be frank, it achieves nothing.

There are plenty of posters who have asked nicely, @Bibijayne. I find it helpful to ignore posters who I think are rude/dismissive and focus on having an effective discussion with more productive people.

Apology..the definition of woman I took from genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/gender.html supported by European Commission and nsf.