Excellent BMJ Article Responding to Previous One Featuring ATH

[Wanderabout]

www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3371/rr-0

"Proposed ‘terminology’ may mislead and fudges the reality of biological sexual dimorphism. Sex is not “assigned”, but determined at conception and in early embryonic life. Biological characteristics of male and female have “historically” been observed at birth and likely this will continue. Sex should not be confused with gender - a social construct. Although internal subjective identity, legal status and external appearance can change or be re-aligned, a person’s underlying biological sex cannot."

Also comments on lack of normal robust evidence for previous BMJ article.

Thank you for upholding science and scientific standards:
Richard Byng
GP and Professor in Primary Care Research
Susan Bewley, Chair of Health Watch; Damian Clifford, Consultant Liaison Psychiatrist; Margaret McCartney, GP and freelance writer

*Think I'll have an extra piece of toast and marmalade in celebration.
*
Celebrations galore here with a honey and banana sandwich for lunch 😋

The ‘new scientist’ magazine has drunk the kool aid too which indicates how terrified scientists are of upsetting people.

Oh dear. What did they publish?

More or less did a tiresomely obsequious piece on the number of trans people in the UK, complete with unchallenged opinion piece by GIRES.

Most disappointed in Tim Harford, thought he was made of better stuff

good to see medics finding their consciences. I will read this with interest later as currently have a 3 year old hanging off me!

Thank you to the authors of this BMJ piece for standing up for facts

Some of the names on there are hugely influential.

Margaret McCartney has previously written on trans issues here:
www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1312
commented on by Richard Byng here: www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1312/rr-6
Sounds as though Richard's wife might be on here - hello!

Thanks for those links UndercoverGC

And if any of the BMJ authors do read MN - THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More understanding is required into the complex interactions between autogynephilia (a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female) (5), sexuality and sexual preference, male to hyper-sexualized female transgenderism, and hormonal or surgical treatment. - from linked BMJ article

Further elaboration:

Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. - Autogynephilia: an underappreciated paraphilia. - NCBI

Further there's mention of Male to hyper-sexualised female transgenderism in the BMJ article - it's good to see that recognised as a distinct category of its own, that has already often been observed by many MNetters. I suppose a shortened form of the descriptive phrase is MtHSF

So now the BMJ can say it, I assume I can as well :)

Yes Bore I've sent an email to Inside Health. Though since the programme likes to get right into the latest and most definitive research I wonder if they will struggle as a major issue is the shocking lack of ethical, peer reviewed research with a decent sized cohort.
ReluctantCamper Disappointing to hear More or Less ducked the challenge, it would have been better not to even cover the issue.

Wanderabout
I hope you don't mind, but I have cross-posted this article in HCP chat.

Not at all Heresy and thanks for doing that, this stuff needs to be discussed widely.

Placemarking.

Really really good.

Yes! Thrilled to see this. It's excellent, from start to finish.

I'm so glad people are starting to find their voice. I still think politicians will be the last group who do though.

I'm waiting for a special edition of Call the Midwife - featuring manufactroversy round the coercive assignment of sex/gender at birth.

DIsappointed in New Scientist but I fully understand why scientists and researchers feel the need to keep away from controversy - their professional lives are precarious enough.