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'.

Rubbish. The Internet is a haven for men wanting to brag about how many T**fs they'd like to rape. The fact that you find women in a parenting site discussing gender (the tool of their own oppression) rationally such a threat to that overarching misogyny says a lot about you and little about MN.

You don't have any interest in this site except the fact that women here are saying things you don't like. Sooner or later you'll get bored and trundle off.

The people who shop at MNs partner brands are not shittily dressed blue haired MRAs anyway. Doubt they're bothered by your boycott threats.

I'm dying here. So much I'd love to write, but it's a busy day here in the good ol' USA. Can't spend all day on MN!

Bowlofbabelfish, spot on!

Phenotype...umm, having a penis and testicles might be something I would consider as a key "phenotypic" feature of the XY sex.

No you are incorrect Mumtobe - I do not "like" what Bowl is saying, I know it to be true because I am myself an experienced biochemist. I know you are inexperienced because I've also been a biology teacher for 15 years and your understanding of genetics is sketchy. That's not a criticism you are young.

TERFragetteCity

You can start from DNA giving a blueprint. So what happens at the start of a transition

Your DNA will be read like a blueprint as a male or female phenotype relative to you. Pre transition before most secondary sex characteristics are formed you would be reading off one set of blueprints as you go through puberty the other set is repressed.
when you start taking hormones and GNHR injections your endogenous hormones are reduced or stopped and replaced by exogenous ones.

-Hormones bind to cell receptors this in turn effects the behaviour of cells and what part of DNA may be read within each i.e. what tissue structures they take on collectively for example facial hair follicles developing mainly in males or breast growth and the development of milk ducts in females.-

by intervening using a GNHR injection you stop the pituitary from sending that initial signal to the cells of the body and replace it with that of the opposite birth sex this means your cells start building tissues and most large scale structures of the body according to that signaling pathway.

this enhancing and repression of genes without altering underlying genetics is known as epigenetics. in this instance the factor driving the epigenetics and new female or male transcript is endogenous.

After puberty the trans person apart from a few parts of the reproductive system (which they may opt to remove) in my book is for all intents and purposes the phenotype of the sex they have transitioned to, at least for the most part.

But for what it's worth I really did appreciate you listening to me TURFragette and goingtobefine it was nice to actually be listened to for once rather than just being dismissed for a while

To be fair, i am very interested in your theory i just have no idea what it is. I am happy to wait until you are able to articulate it in some way.

After puberty the trans person

This is also something I am very interested in (sorry scientists on the thread!) What actually is puberty, and if a child is given puberty blockers and then cross-sex hormones do they actually go through the puberty of the opposite sex, or is something different happening?

You're only talking about trans people that have used puberty blockers and then cross sex hormones. Not trans people who went through puberty and then take cross sex hormones as adults. Or does the same apply to them as well?

TERFragetteCity post above yours^
but it doesn't matter I'm just being called a blue haired MRA, bad teacher and being laughed at again. it's not the first time this has happened either. IDK they want me to shut up and go away maybe I should I thought things had changed on this website.

tsAllGoingToBeFine

This is also something I am very interested in (sorry scientists on the thread!) What actually is puberty, and if a child is given puberty blockers and then cross-sex hormones do they actually go through the puberty of the opposite sex, or is something different happening?

Apart from the genitals of course they develop the same as any other boy or girl. the men can grow facial hair trans girl develop breasts capable of lactating apart from the things between our legs and in our lower abdomens we're really not to different to guys hormones are responsible for quite a lot.

I love Mumsnet

All you clever women.
(And some men, welcome GeorgeFayne, yes yes I am assuming your sex.)

It's still one of the best sites on the internet. Which is why the thought controllers want to shut it down

Don't be so touchy I just object to someone spouting incorrect science about an important issue. You obviously haven't been through the peer review process! Your writing style is extremely poor for a scientist: inexact and lacking in clarity. I wouldn't mind but you set yourself up as an expert and you're not.

mum25
IDK they want me to shut up and go away maybe I should I thought things had changed on this website.

Nope. Keep talking. Robust debate is the way ahead.

"trans girl develop breasts capable of lactating "

Do they? Do they really? Is this a well known and well evidenced outcome?

Why is it that "things between our legs and in our lower abdomens" don't respond the same way to the cross sex hormones, and become like those of the sex that they are transitioning to?

AssassinatedBeauty

You're only talking about trans people that have used puberty blockers and then cross sex hormones. Not trans people who went through puberty and then take cross sex hormones as adults. Or does the same apply to them as well?

older transitioners phenotypes do change but not to the extent young transitioners phenotypes change the longer you wait the less the effect since genetic males stop developing at 25 i'd say after this point there wouldn't be much change but again if they we're a nice person I wouldn't bring up my beliefs and just try and be polite... but I do feel sad for those that grew up in times where it wasn't socially acceptable to be trans and didn't have access to healthcare. It feels like they've had their oppertunity taken from them. let's just say I'm conflicted about older transtioners and leave it at that :c

Your DNA will be read like a blueprint as a male or female phenotype relative to you.

This makes no sense to me. DNA IS, in fact, the GENOtype on which all development is based.

Let's be very clear about something: there is a significant difference between secondary sex characteristics (facial hair, voice, etc.) and basic human anatomy. No amount of testosterone in the world will cause a woman to grow testicles, which will then autonomously start secreting their own testosterone. (Human embryology 101: the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the developing embryo to develop testes, which then dictate genital growth and development. Women do not have this gene. We cannot "grow a pair.")

Intersex individuals, (including women with adrenal disorders, which can be quite virilizing), are certainly fascinating from a developmental/biological perspective. However, these disorders are incredibly rare and are not implicated in the vast majority of individuals with gender identity disorders.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

Nope. Keep talking. Robust debate is the way ahead.

It doesn't feel that way but thank you -gives back-

I think your explanations read as science lite dressed up with a lot of technical terms which seem to be in there to credentialise what you're saying by confusing non-scientists.

I'm not a scientist but - like most of the women I see on this board - I am intelligent and well educated and I can see that there is no substance to what you're saying. If people's backs are up it's because it's patronising in the extreme to pepper your poor explanation with apologies for your higher intellect. We're not afraid of correct terminology or complex arguments, we're all capable of understanding but that doesn't seem to be your aim here. Good teachers - and good writers - use language to elucidate and inform not to obfuscate and confuse.

If you genuinely believe what you are saying and actually feel you can argue it against someone clear and informative like Babel you need to go away and work on your communication skills. Word salad is about right.

Sorry but really - genuine feedback.

I am not a scientist by training, but I do know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm sorry, mum2be, but while your theory is interesting, I don't think it's meeting that standard.

I don't understand how exogenous hormones could change such phenotypic traits as height, angle of pelvis, reach, hand size, skull size, brain size and most crucially of all, male genitalia into female genitalia. It just doesn't add up. I don't say this to be mean to you, I'm grateful that you've taken the time to explain your view, but I don't find it convincing.

I'm also curious as to why you won't direct any comments to babelfish? Her writing is very clear and easy to understand. Regardless of whose side of the debate I found myself on, her posts are more cohesive and compelling.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

Guilty as charged! I'm all woman, right down to my genes. :)

Was Nancy Drew popular in the UK? George Fayne was one of Nancy's dearest friends and probably an early feminist.

I'm still at a loss as to the phenotypes that you believe are closer to women than men. As far as I can tell, it's breast tissue (although your assertion that they are capable of lactating is over-broad and over-simplistic).

So I think you believe that although the sex organs that are the primary sexual characteristics are not phenotypically like females, the secondary sexual characteristics of increased breast tissue are sufficiently like females that you consider trans identified males to be phenotypically female.

I think you should be honest that this is a political view and not a scientific view.

Robust debate is not about the feelings mum25, it's about the evidence and the argument.

That's why mumsnet is great, so many clever people, debating

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

They're not even listening to me I've said that most of a trans persons phenotype (not genotype) excluding genitalia is that which they transition to i.e. male or female and that satisfies my personal criteria and that trans and intersexed people aren't the same but examples of where phenotype and genotype don't match ...and they're just talking about Genotype and genitalia and how i'm saying intersexed is like gender identity disorder ... I might as well not even be here just let them think I'm saying whatever they want to think. It's utterly pointless.

This makes no sense to me. DNA IS, in fact, the GENOtype on which all development is based. Let's be very clear about something: there is a significant difference between secondary sex characteristics (facial hair, voice, etc.) and basic human anatomy. No amount of testosterone in the world will cause a woman to grow testicles, which will then autonomously start secreting their own testosterone. (Human embryology 101: the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the developing embryo to develop testes, which then dictate genital growth and development. Women do not have this gene. We cannot "grow a pair.") Intersex individuals, (including women with adrenal disorders, which can be quite virilizing), are certainly fascinating from a developmental/biological perspective. However, these disorders are incredibly rare and are not implicated in the vast majority of individuals with gender identity disorders.

Oops, AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth, I misread your post. I am a woman. (Reading on my phone while nursing a wiggly baby...Can I blame it on my biology? Lol!)

Right, so I'm trying to listen and understand you @Mumtobe25. It's your definition of a woman that as long as a someone has some outward appearances that are similar enough to natal women, then that's sufficient to be classified as female and a woman. And that's your personal opinion.

What are you thoughts about trans women who don't take hormones and have no medical interventions? Is there something else about them that makes them female?

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

That's why mumsnet is great, so many clever people, debating

Clearly I'm not one of them.

Thank you to you, everythingwillbefine and TERFragetteCity for listening

signing off

p.s. Suffragette city is one of my favourites of Bowie I miss him.