Excellent article on the problem of transphobia

[crispbuttyfan]

www.huckmagazine.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/mumsnet-transphobia-online/

"Regardless of intention, it seems to me that Mumsnet has allowed transphobia to become associated with their brand through their inaction. These boards have now become nothing short of echo chambers, spaces in which anti-trans rhetoric is continually employed with little objection."

The evidence is apparent throughout the feminism board.
Where lies are spread with abandon and the truth is slandered as 'gaslighting'.

Sorry but having a problem with the idea that a man pretending to be a woman has more rights than me as an actual woman is absurd. Why is my right to safety and privacy less important than his right to invade my space? That's not transphobia. It's a sincere concern that has yet to be adequately addressed.

The problem of transphobia is where does it begin and were does it end.

If you do not mention those problems, limitations and issues then any article about transphobia is just hot air rambling on about why their opinion trumps everyone elses.

in this instance the factor driving the epigenetics and new female or male transcript is endogenous.

Again, no.

If you get alterations inbgene expression due to exogenous (that means from outside) hormones, you do NOT suddenly start making ‘a male transcript.’

There is no such thing as a male transcript (a transcript is the readout of the gene) of any non sex chromosome gene

Not only is that not how epigenetics works, it’s not how genetics works and it’s not how biology works. You do not turn on some sort of hidden female genetic program by adding female hormones.

What you do is alter the adult organism’s appearance to some degree. Breast tissue may grow because both sexes have breast tissue. Musculature may alter somewhat but it can only go so far - you still have a male frame under there. Hair, that kind of thing, may change texture and growth pattern.

These are largely cosmetic changes. They don’t turn one sex into the other because that is coded into each cell when each cell is formed.

I’ve noticed this is a technique being used since a few months back. TRAs take a slew of very impressive sounding words and combine them in a solemn nodding tone to make a point that sounds really serious and sciency. But it’s just a jumble of words that don’t actually mean anything.

And this stuff is fairly niche - I mean I’ve got a twenty year career in it and four degrees so I don’t expect everyone to suddenly be an expert in epigenetics and human genetics but you can see that plenty of posters on here are thinking ... umm no that doesn’t sound right. And they presumably have various levels of science knowledge.

That is what feminists, whether male or female, fight for: the rights of natal women and girls. Trans rights campaigners fight for trans people - we're not asking them to center black people or blind people or bisexual people in their fight, because their fight is for trans people. When we feminists therefore center natal women and girls, that is our right and the only way to achieve our aims is to concentrate on our goals, not everyone else's.

YY.

Sorry but having a problem with the idea that a man pretending to be a woman has more rights than me as an actual woman is absurd. Why is my right to safety and privacy less important than his right to invade my space? That's not transphobia. It's a sincere concern that has yet to be adequately addressed.

Absolutely. We need to stop letting them reverse and deflect to avoid answering this. Don't play their games.

I mean I’ve got a twenty year career in it and four degrees so I don’t expect everyone to suddenly be an expert in epigenetics and human genetics but you can see that plenty of posters on here are thinking ... umm no that doesn’t sound right.

I'm not a scientist but I've been on Twitter. It's depressing how cookie cutter these conversations always are. I've seen it played out at least fifty times already, I'm sad to say. And nobody ever brings anything new. It usually begins with "Speaking as a biologist..." and ends with a flounce of faux outrage. But I thank you and the dozens of other patient scientists who have engaged and educated me about this particular niche. I know far more than I ever expected to know!

"And this stuff is fairly niche - I mean I’ve got a twenty year career in it and four degrees so I don’t expect everyone to suddenly be an expert in epigenetics and human genetics but you can see that plenty of posters on here are thinking ... umm no that doesn’t sound right. And they presumably have various levels of science knowledge."

This, a thousand times over. We can spot when we're being bullshitted.

It reminds me of the Sokal affair (which hit when I was a grad student many many years ago):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

The thing about the Sokal affair is you can't pull it in reverse - you can't take a post modernist literary theorist and have them write a paper in the hard sciences and get it accepted in a peer reviewed journal because it's immediately obvious to anyone reading it that it is, in your memorable phrase Bowl, scientific word salad.

I’ve noticed this is a technique being used since a few months back. TRAs take a slew of very impressive sounding words and combine them in a solemn nodding tone to make a point that sounds really serious and sciency. But it’s just a jumble of words that don’t actually mean anything

This is happening a lot on Twitter Bowlofbabelfish, endless reams of tweets talking in vaguely scientific language designed either to muddy ones understanding or bore one to death. The general point is either “but clownfish” or “intersex”, though I’ve not yet made it to the end of one yet -my record is 49 minutes of notifications before muting.

Thank you for your explanations. Clearly you have far greater knowledge on this than most of us but you explain the subject in a very accessible way.

And this stuff is fairly niche - I mean I’ve got a twenty year career in it and four degrees so I don’t expect everyone to suddenly be an expert in epigenetics and human genetics but you can see that plenty of posters on here are thinking ... umm no that doesn’t sound right. And they presumably have various levels of science knowledge.

Spoilsport. I genuinely want to know the inner workings of the justification that someone gives themselves that people can explain the metamorphosis from one sex to the other. It is fascinating.

It usually begins with "Speaking as a biologist..." and ends with a flounce of faux outrage.

Oh yes. "You can't argue with science, with your fifth grade biology!"

It’s a shame because it needs countering - and people on here who presumably have a range of science backgrounds from GCSE/O level and up can see it sounds dodgy, so it’s obviously dodgy.

I suppose the problem is it’s one thing to think something sounds dodgy and another to construct a cogent way of challenging it.

I’ve not got a background in the history/feminism/analysis side of the argument so I often struggle to put my points across when people are talking about specific authors/POMO etc.

But I can do the science, so if you ever need a hand with that lang sweary eresh fermat et al then do just call

There is actually at least one dev. Bio type on here who I think has a background in things like DSDs / intersex etc. She writes great posts. Then there’s flouncing and cakes to ice

Mumsnet is not transphobic many of us believe transmen/transwomen are what they transition to

Mumsnet isn't transphobic, it's just about the only place we can freely discuss the impact on girls & women of males in formerly female spaces.

I believe that a transwomen believes with absolute sincerity that they are their version of what it is to be a woman. It in no way follows that I believe that a transwoman has actually become a female, I am merely respecting their belief.

Over intellectualising the subject to try and exclude by the use of language. But all it is, is a presentation of weak points which are easy to argue with, for anyone with sufficient knowledge.

Its just another type of propaganda and method to silence by adding faux authority to the subject.

From the non-scientists, we appreciate those of you with strong science backgrounds taking the time to pick the reams of nonsense apart piece by piece. Even to a non-scientist "neither genetics nor epigenetics work like that" is the obvious conclusion, if you have even a bit of general knowledge, but the goal of that particular tactic is to get people engaged in endless rounds of argument about each and every bit of nonsense proposed so that the TRA can at the end conclude "well there's lots of controversy and nobody knows for sure so maybe some women really have provided the sperm needed to create 3 children, and their penis is just as female as your vagina".

Clear, concise rebuttals from scientists cut right through the waffle, and for that I thank you.

A bit of intellectual snobbery - but I wonder if MN has developed as the place for GC free speech because it has so many higher level educated women (whether self educated or university), who are highly skilled in logic and critical thinking?

Certainly on this board there is a certain "tone" and rigour is expected. It may put new posters off but it encourages good debate as well.

I’ve not got a background in the history/feminism/analysis side of the argument so I often struggle to put my points across when people are talking about specific authors/POMO etc.

But I can do the science, so if you ever need a hand with that lang sweary eresh fermat et al then do just call

You see why they want to silence FWR, don't you? There's a wide range of expertise here and the ideology is built on a house of cards on every level. Expertise of any kind must be excluded at all costs.

I lurk here. Breaking cover to simply say;

It strikes me that behind the scientific language mummytobe25 is using is actually a very nasty sexist view that would also be considered highly transphobic by many TRAs.

That being a woman is entirely defined by a trans woman’s ability to ‘pass’ as genetically female. That these trans women are the ones she supports and that the process of transition should begin prior to puberty in order to make people more comfortable with the appearance of trans people.

It is hard for me to understand how this has been able to scoot by without any critical analysis since it seems to suggest that what really really matters regarding womanhood is how one appears.

Oh yes. "Dangerous" amount of expertise here

*Dangerous to false arguments

The endless picking apart reminds me of a friend who is a climate scientist. She has an international reputation. She says it's really hard dealing with sceptics in real-time (e.g. at an outreach stall at a conference) because they practise a technique known as a Gish Gallop
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

They bury you under a pile of randomly collected (cherry picked) snippets from individual papers, taken completely out of context (often the paper as a whole will say the opposite of what the tiny snippet says), and unless you have an encyclopaedic knowledge and eidetic memory, sooner or later you'll have to admit you don't know that particular paper, or don't remember that particular argument - at which point they pounce. "Climate scientist admits she doesn't know the research" says the headline in the next day's Telegraph or Mail.

This is exactly the same technique. Waste people's time countering a shit-load of random, unconnected facts, and also hope for the "money shot" - the one small factual error or admission that you haven't read a particular paper - which can then be blown up out of all proportion as a propaganda tool.

These people (as in groups with a vested political interest in distorting and suppressing science) have been at this technique for a long time, and they are very, very good at it... read
www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1408824833?linkCode=xm2&SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&creativeASIN=1408824833&tag=mumsnetforum-21&creative=165953&camp=2025

A bit of intellectual snobbery - but I wonder if MN has developed as the place for GC free speech because it has so many higher level educated women (whether self educated or university), who are highly skilled in logic and critical thinking?

'When i thought mumsnetters just talked about prams and porridge spills I left them alone, but when I realised that women with critical thinking skills were also on there, I just had to go in and silence them'.

When authoritarians take over government they always crack down on the intellectuals, scientists and critical thinkers first.

This is not a coincidence.

It's a bit like some of the discussions on the religion &philosophy board. Creationist c&p'ing from 'answers in Genesis' versus a range of PhD scientists and sometimes a biblical scholar.

You see why they want to silence FWR, don't you? There's a wide range of expertise here and the ideology is built on a house of cards on every level. Expertise of any kind must be excluded at all costs.

Bang on - and it’s not just here - I was talking to my husband last night about the growing trend to ‘ignore the experts’. Didn’t Jeremy Hunt come out with some guff on this about ‘so called experts’? As DH said, when I get on a plane I don’t tell the fucking pilot he’s doing it wrong. I sit down and let him or her fly.

And yes I do worry about anti intellectualism- I’ll probably be first against the wall.

fermat the way to deal with that is for her to turn it round and call it out. Directly say to them ‘aha! Oh this is the Gish gallop technique where you....’ with a big beaming happy smile on her face.

I'd quite like to invite the 'tired of experts' types onto a plane with a flatearther in charge of the navigation system.