Liberal Democrats: ‘why are transphobes protesting? Because they are thick’

[QuoadUltra]

In case anyone was hoping that the LibDems might offer some political sanity in turbulent times, don’t bother.

Their LGBT thread on why ‘transphobes’ - women with concerns - are ‘a bit thick’: Thread Here

We could do with a sensible third party in British politics. Too bad the Lib Dems keep ruling themselves out.

I did 'university level biology' Wakame.

I don't know which university told you that men can become women if they believe they have a ladybrain but I'd be looking for a refund on my tuition fees if I were you.

"So they could do something about it if they wanted to."

What's your problem with it? Is it incorrect? If so, which bit?

Ah, you must be one of those grade-school biology types who thinks human sex differences exist as a simple binary. I recommend some further research - try and get to university level biology - there are many wonders to discover.

LOLOL

This place really is wonderfully weird. Wakame I don't think you really understand what you are saying.

I recommend some further research - try and get to university level biology - there are many wonders to discover.

There are indeed, and not a single one of them points to humans being anything other than a sexually dimorphic species which cannot change sex. PG degrees in biological sciences are even better at explaining this.

"I did 'university level biology' Wakame."

In which case, this is just for you:

You can always listen to some biologists who specialise in human sex differences.

I know - it's THAT link again. But hey, you can always analyse it and point out their errors:

www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Sigh. Well I could repeat the points already made by other posters but here's a thought, you could read them.

That Twitter account is an embarrassment to the LDs and I'm not just talking about this set of tweets. Only the most blinkered wouldn't cringe at some of the stuff they post.

"I don't know which university told you that men can become women"

I've never heard of a man becoming a woman.

wakame I have a PhD in biology.
Humans are sexually dimorphic, same as all sexually reproducing organisms.
Some animals can change sex in response to certain triggers. Humans aren't one of those species.

Some males of certain fish species mimic the opposite sex closely to access females being guarded by males and mate with them. Strangely trans rights activists don't mention this particular animal mating strategy.

Here's an article referencing one - I thought the transphobic headline was apposite
www.nature.com/news/2005/050117/full/news050117-9.html

The most famous example is the blue gill sunfish

That nature magazine article is presented as the new testament by trans people. It's quite an interesting phenomenon to watch.

Ah, you must be one of those grade-school biology types

Ah, another American?

Especially when it's about intersex and nothing to do with transgenderism Picasso.
It's so cliche

"wakame I have a PhD in biology"

Excellent, I would love to hear your analysis of the article I posted. What are the errors that those biologists are making?

"Especially when it's about intersex"

I doubt it will be long until being trans is classified as an intersex condition. It''s be interesting to see if that conversation begins when this has gone through peer-review:

www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4592/presentation/578abstract

Excellent, I would love to hear your analysis of the article I posted. What are the errors that those biologists are making?

The entire article is about disorders of sexual development (apart from the random "opinion" paragraphs tacked on the end).

No-one is denying that DSD exist. What has that got to do with transgenderism?

Aww wakame, you're funny.

Your pretty picture was too small to read, alas, but I believe I made out the word gender in it?

I'm talking about sex. Biology is concerned with sex. Not gender, unless they (sloppily) use it as a term synonymous with sex.

Your internal beliefs and identity are not a matter for mammalian reproductive sex groupings.

This thread is the Goad to Damascus. Eventually everyone see what Wakame is.

Wakame that article you linked to is about intersex.

medium.com/@LogicalMarcus/is-julia-serano-right-that-transwomen-are-female-a989dca9d026

This one usually winds the TRAs right up because it doesn't come from a feminist.

"Your pretty picture was too small to read, alas"

My apologies - haven't uploaded a picture here before. But not matter - here is a link to a larger version - it was in Scientific American:

www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

The paper goes over various types of DSD. It talks about an extremely (less than 1% of 1%) type of chromosomal mosaicism, which is fascinating, but it doesn’t have anything to say about the human sex binary in the normal population. Or do you perhaps think that an infant with sirenomelia shows us that the default number of legs is not two in normal humans?

It talks about DSDs - in which someone is always chromosomally male or female but various issues can mimick a developmental pathway of the opposite sex. Again, that doesn’t say anything about normal human sex being a binary, any more than an extreme case of holoprocencephaly shows us that humans are naturally cyclopic.

And then it states things like people with hypospadias should be classed as intersex. And that’s the point the little alarms bells start to go ‘waaarrrrp! Warrrp!’ Because that is one of the tactics TRAs use to try to imply that there are loads of intersex people rather than it being extremely rare. A man with a hypospadia is not intersex. He has a minor developmental abnormality.

DSDs don’t show that sex is a spectrum. They don’t show that sex is not a binary. It is. The thing is that human development is really complicated and sometimes weird things go wrong.

Polydactyly doesn’t mean the default number of human digits isn’t five on each hand
Sirenomelia doesn’t mean the default number of lower limbs isn’t two
Cyclopism doesn’t mean thatcthe default number of eyes isn’t two.

These are defects - abnormalities in development. They can tell you a lot about the molecular mechanisms that underlie development, but they don’t change the fundamental phenotype of the species.

"Your internal beliefs and identity are not a matter for mammalian reproductive sex groupings."

Gender identity (a person's innate sense of their own sex) is biological in origin. This is not a very controversial observation in biology anymore. That's why, for example, the current (2017) Endocrine Society position on trans people is this:

"Although the specific mechanisms guiding the biological underpinnings of gender identity are not entirely understood, there is evolving consensus that being transgender is not a mental health disorder. Such evidence stems from scientific studies suggesting that: 1) attempts to change gender identity in intersex patients to match external genitalia or chromosomes are typically unsuccessful3,4; 2) identical twins (who share the exact same genetic background) are more likely to both experience transgender identity as compared to fraternal (non-identical) twins5; 3) among individuals with female chromosomes (XX), rates of male gender identity are higher for those exposed to higher levels of androgens in utero relative to those without such exposure, and male (XY)-chromosome individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome typically have female gender identity6; and 4) there are associations of certain brain scan or staining patterns with gender identity rather than external genitalia or chromosomes7,8."

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/priorities-and-positions/transgender-health

That's right - gender identity is a biological human sex characteristic. The science is leaving you all behind.

Have you got another bible story for us Wakame?

What about the non binary Noahs ark story. Ah no, that's not going to work is it.

A couple of points.

1. Scientific American is a pop science magazine. Considerably upmarket from New Scientist, but still not a peer reviewed journal. I read the article in question (and the two page spread Wakame posted) when it came out - the usual conflation of gender dysphoria, intersex conditions and minor cosmetic defects in development of the external genitalia which are neither of the above.

2. The Nature piece (which keeps getting held up, as a pp says, like the holy grail) is in fact an op-ed piece by a science journalist, not a peer-reviewed paper.

Goodness. Now one needs to have degree level science in order to understand how babies are made. How did the human race survive for hundreds of thousands of years before universities could tell us about biology? It's a wonder our ancestors managed to reproduce what with human reproductive biology being so complex and mysterious.