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'.

I don't think mum is aware either that the majority of transwomen take no hormones, either.

I wish you'd stay, mum2be. As PP said, I also learn most from participating in debates between people who know their stuff, and I would like to know where you think babel, george and others have gone wrong? If you do?

Also, I would like to know how you square "that satisfies my personal criteria", with the scientific method which, flawed though it undoubtably is, tries as hard as possible to exlude the subjective? That seems like a subjective statement to me, that you focus on those areas where hormones can make a differnece (facial hair, breast tissue) and hand-wave away those areas where it can't (pretty much everything else).

I wish you'd stay, mum2be

Me too. It's great to see someone actually properly engaging in debate for a change - stops it becoming too much of an echo chamber.

You've certainly sparked an interest in biology for me which I didn't have before!

bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0352-z

AssassinatedBeauty

I was about to go but I'll answer this last question.

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?

Neurologically perhaps, not in any sort of ladybrain kind of way but some instinctive drive akin to sexuality based many in physical biological self expression rather than attraction to the physiological expression of others, but phenotypically speaking no... I wouldn't say that directly to some of my older trans friends (if hypothetically they hadn't transitioned) but scientifically there is no justification for stating that person is physically anything other than the sex they were born as. Even by my criterion. but if they were just a sweet person who didn't wish harm on others, did good things and it made them happy personally I'd say hang the logic & I'll call you a table lamp if you want. "you be the best table lamp you can be."
I'd far rather be happy than right any day.

'I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
And are you?
No. That's where it all falls down, of course."

Douglas Adams - Hitchhikers Guide

have a good evening

I'd rather be right

I think it's fine for mum to say that for her, secondary sexual characteristics maketh the man (or woman) as long as she doesn't expect the rest of us/the law/women's shelters/the Girl Guides to follow along.
(This is of course leaving aside that GG are now accepting table lamps)

Mumtobe, my hunch is you care deeply about your trans friends and are trying to merge your background in science with an understanding of their identity. There is nothing wrong with looking for connections between the rational and the subjective. (We all do that, right?)

However, we have to be careful that our facts are, indeed, facts. I think many of us are just looking to clarify some of the science you are using to back up your personal opinion, (which you are perfectly entitled to have, BTW).

In all honesty, have you ever considered the question of what is a woman? I have, and each time, I'm hard pressed to come up with an answer that doesn't involve biology. As such, biology really matters. That's why we care about this discussion with you.

Or consider the alternative: what is a man? Does having a deep voice make one male, (a phenotypic expression)? Of course not, right? It's a characteristic, but not a defining feature.

I guess I'm of the opinion, (and this may be where our true differences lie), that no number of secondary characteristics can make a woman into a man or a man into a woman.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine as a complete aside, there are some interesting studies on the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the women pregnant during the Dutch famine. It shows some changes are possibly passed down.

I don't know all the biological words, but it is really interesting.

Thanks Tufted I'll look that up

@Mumtobe25

It's all very well for you to say you'd rather be happy than right but if you're going with that approach, you cannot claim that your scientific background supports your happy feeling. As a science teacher, you have a responsibility to teach based on the scientific method. Your students are no doubt going around telling people their biology teacher told them trans identified males are phenotypically female without any deeper understanding that this is based on your preference for being happy over being right.

I'm feeling quite angry about this now. You shouldn't be teaching science.

SophoclestheFox I've been reading this thread and its derail with interest as this is a subject I'm very interested in and couldn't help noticing the same. Direct answers to those who profess ignorance, complete block of the experts like George, Babel, Terfulike (particularly of the latter after mentioning her own experience).

I do wonder if this is typical for the side that demands no debate precisely because it cannot cope with facts and evidence to the contrary? Or does it come down to age and experience?

Making no pronouncements here as to Mumtobe25 qualities as a teacher btw. Let me just say that I would hope that like all good science teachers Mumtobe25 presents facts, and firmly evidence-based opinions rather than subjective interpretations based on an individual belief system.

Yes, I think the concept of it being better to be happy than right only applies in the context of interpersonal relationships. Because in those, where we rush towards "being right", we can trample on people's feelings. You can't apply that to scientific thought, though. Because if you did that, you'd have to concede flat earthers are as accurate as physicists, that creationists have as much weight behind them as biologists, and that Gwyneth Paltrow's theories on the care and maintenance of your vagina are as valid as anything your gynaecologist tells you.

I bet flat earthers, creationists and Gwynnie are super happy - but they're also dead wrong.

I can't speak for the science (well, I could have a go but other posters are far more qualified than I).

Dead impressed with how Mumtobe25 has improved their literacy skills over this thread, though.

Correcting of factual inaccuracies is not bullying.

^^This and repeat and repeat. So many people in an all out race to be the most liberal and welcoming and modern.....without feeling fettered by facts and challenging debate.

Thank you for the excellent explanations, BowlofBabelFish.

Mumtobe I think you may have got a bit muddled by the reputation mumsnet has among trans activists, as being a place filled with mums whose only thought processes are about prams and Waitrose, who vote Tory and clutch their pearls and have 2.2 children conceived by pulling our flannelette nighties up round our waists in the dark for second-Saturday-in-the-month think-of-England sex in the missionary position, children who we are then worried will "catch the trans" from being exposed to brave and campaigning teachers like yourself.

In fact, as you may be beginning to realise, the truth is rather different. There are all sorts of people on here - mums, scientists, academics, former prostitutes (I know the term is a term of contention, but several exited prostitutes on here prefer that term to dressing up the harsh reality of what they experienced as "sex work"), civil servants, lawyers, business women, transwomen. There are straight women and lesbians and women who are bi, women who like make-up and fashion, women who never "perform femininity", women who vote Labour, Lib Dem, Tory, even Marxists.

When it comes to arguing about biology I'm afraid you're a bit out of your depth. I'm coming at this from 30+ years of university/research (admittedly in the physical rather than biological sciences) and there's a certain way people who are really on top of their material talk and explain things. I can tell that Bowl knows her stuff and you do not - you come across as an undergraduate who just got through her degree by the skin of her teeth and didn't actually understand a lot of what she was taught. Stick around though, and read back through Bowl's posts, and you might learn something.

Tufted and Fine To add to the totally off-topic issue of epigenetic changes in populations over time, I have been fascinated by the research looking at obesity. (Here is an interesting one for you: www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45199/title/Epigenetics-of-Obesity/)

To further complicate matters, there may be a role in our gut microbiome as well! (If you are at all into this stuff, read Missing Microbes by Dr. Martin Blaser.)

Sooooooo, about "Gwyneth Paltrow's theories on the care and maintenance of your vagina", anyone care to enlighten me?

@purplecrowbar
I noticed that too. But I wasn't going to post it because I always get into trouble on these threads.

I cannot conceive of preferring to be happy (or kind, as whatever female politician it was said) than right. Participating in mass gaslighting and delusion to make some people happy when you know they are wrong is unfathomable.

@GeorgeFayne yes I've bee reading Sandra Aamodt "why diets make us fat" and there stuff in there about microbes and the gut flora. Loads of references that I then go off and read and get lost in!

You have to steam it and put some sort of expensive stone egg up it to maintain its robust good health, I believe, assigned.

I was actually just getting ready for bed like I said I'm a teacher and I need to teach in the morning. I forgot I left this page open, thank you for saying I sparked an interest in biology. It warms my heart when I hear that as that's all I ever really aim to do as a teacher. I need to straighten some things out though; First and foremost I teach the syllabus. Whether I like it or not students sit competitive summative assessments that require you to answer by rote. If I have to teach them antibodies destroy pathogens rather than playing a part in tagging pathogens for phagocytosis I'll teach them that. We must simplify so more nuanced understanding can be built later. if they specifically asked me about what I think about a subject, within reason, I will share it with them and if there is disagreement in the scientific community on that subject I would never present something in question as fact.

CharlieParley I appreciate you saying that just because I'm pro trans doesn't mean I'm a bad teacher. I might be back tomorrow but no debate can be had if I'm shot down as incompetent or a bad teacher or any other ad hominim strategy just to get me to stop talking. Maybe I am too sensitive but that isn't debate that's just petty and hurtful and I've had it said to me too many times to count just for sticking up for my trans friends.

I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
And are you?
No. That's where it all falls down, of course."

Douglas Adams - Hitchhikers Guide

I think my students would rather I was right rather than happy. Tends to help them pass their exams.

I also have a degree in biology and 25 years of teaching Biology and Psychology and I have to say Babelfish's explanation of the science is spot on.

SophoclesTheFox
Er. Each to their own?

Just a note on puberty blockers and trans girls growing "female" breasts - I believe there is a high proportion of tubular/tuberous breast growth which are incapable of normal lactation.

Loved the science here- learned a lot and went off to read and learn more!