I need a really solid article proving our sexual dimorphism.

[forbiddenfruitcrumble]

I've read several, but I need to locate the ultimate one. DH is saying TWAW and I need to close this shit down fast.

FWIW, he is no dumb-dumb. He has a Dphil from Oxford and has written (and lectured) about identity. I know, right?

He doesn't suffer from wokeness in any other area, quite the contrary.

Any suggestions?

Or just tell him he and everybody obviously doesn't think TW are W contrary to what they say because people are listening to them and giving them everything they want.

My child has a lovely set of books called lifecycles which explains how baby animals of different species are made. I read it to him when he was four. Perhaps you could do similar for your DO?

A friend has recently told me they believe in the theory of hormone washes, and I had no idea that this was a 'thing'.

Well, there are indications that high testosterone levels in the womb correlate with women turning out lesbian, and some insensitivity to testosterone (I believe) for boys also correlates with turning out gay. There is a theory that (as far as I remember, I hope I get it right) says second/third brothers are more likely to be gay because one mechanism may be that Mom develops antibodies to the hormones in the 1st pregnancy, and those antibodies then interfer in subsequent pregnancies.

Now, Blanchard has a theory that homosexual transwomen are transgender because they are so gender nonconforming that they may subconsciously believe transing is their best option. Something analogous might be going on with transmen, by extension. (That mechanism wouldn't work for Autogynephiles, obviously.) But in this way, hormone baths in the womb and transgenderism might have a correlation.

Still doesn't change the baby's gamete and, therefore, sex.

Ask him if men with medically low testosterone turn into women
Or whether post menopausal women are men

Yes Deepwater.

And correlation is not causation, nor is explaining why someone might feel a certain way the same as them being a certain way.

It might well turn out that hormones in utero are correlated with being any one of the following: a straight woman who just quietly gets on with being a woman (because anyone who's ever looked at a scatter plot knows that they are in fact "scattered", that's the whole bleeding point, they don't lie neatly along the x=y line); a gay woman; a biologically female individual (aka woman) who has come to believe that they ought to be a man. It may even be that there are less straight women in the subset exposed to hormones than in the population at large, and more gay or trans-identifying women in the subset than in the population at large. This might provide a partial explanation for why the trans-identifying women felt the way they did - it would not, however, establish that they were men.

(CF the famous "God" region of the brain and attendant publicity a few years ago:
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html
Activity in this region explains why some people have experiences that they interpret as the presence of god or the divine; it does not answer the question as to whether there is a god, or divine order, which is being experienced, or whether these sensations are merely a type of hallucination.)

Just ask him if he’d sleep with a trans woman, that usually does it I find.

My child has a lovely set of books called lifecycles which explains how baby animals of different species are made. I read it to him when he was four. Perhaps you could do similar for your DO?

Omg, that sounds like my DDs favourite series from the books they could choose to bring home for you to read to them when they were in reception. She started with 'lifecycle of the snail'. Hermaphrodite sex!
However, while this series was absolutely fine for a 4 year old, who had no problem understanding that mammals, insects and molluscs did things differently from each other, I fear that it might confuse the OPs DH. (Please don't tell me he's mentioned clownfish or whelks...)

thank you all so much for all your contributions - brilliant that this board is ablaze!

I will be reading back as I plan my attack, I particularly like Fermatt's 'vagueness' gambit. I did say to him, that if someone were born without legs he wouldn't use it as an excuse to say we are not bipedal.

I have also been present when he has argued passionately for the existence of god, and I'm pretty sure he a hard atheist. Hopefully we will laugh about it graveside.

Ask him which TW he fancies enough to have sex with and have a relationship with.

I have also been present when he has argued passionately for the existence of god, and I'm pretty sure he a hard atheist.

If he's doing this as some sort of intellectual exercise but it's winding you up, tell him to stop it.

The thing is, in the current 'controversy' over sex and gender (I use the word in much the same way as wrt creationism), men seem to have nothing to lose but women do. Not merely at a philosophical or linguistic level, but in real life. Maybe the women he indulges in wordplay with won't lose much, but vulnerable women and girls will.

Yes, it's tiresome when people do this (I've been at plenty of social events where usually male philosophers have done this - one in particular used to annoy the hell out of me, as well as being creepy as fuck, by trying to lend me books on "feminist perspectives on pornography" back when I was a young researcher).

As him whether he'd argue for taking "intelligent design" seriously, just for the hell of it as an intellectual joke, at a dinner party in the States where the hosts' local school board looked like it might seriously introduce such a course.

Playing devil's advocate may have a tenuous claim to being amusing when it happens over port in the Oxford Union or the SCR; it's just plain offensive when it's people's real lives you're pissing over.

If your husband is fixated on intersex for his confusion, it might be worth reminding him that intersex is a medical condition. It is a birth defect which comes with all sorts of unwanted health complications. While being born male or female is... completely normal.

The other thing which works for me is to gently ask the person to define "woman", and then point out that there are ONLY two ways anybody could define that term. They could either refer to biological reproductive systems, OR they could refer to sexist stereotypes. Then smile and ask them which one they want to use.

Tell him you are a man and if he wants sex he will have to publicly come out as gay.

Ask him if he would involve teabagging and deepthroating when giving a transwoman cunnilingus.

Thanks deepwatersolo! Much appreciated.

A very good piece linked to from another thread reminded me of this one. It's a long piece, the section that particularly seemed relevant (by a developmental biologist) is below the para starting:

But this is it, for men. We can elevate these discussions to pseudo-philosophical onanism, because it doesn’t tangibly impact us ... which perhaps unfairly made me think of the OPs DH.

medium.com/@tom_farr/the-wolf-of-masculinity-is-dressed-up-in-the-sheeps-clothing-of-gender-ideology-progressiveness-10ef8399ca6e

And there's also a section by an intersex woman.

Even an XX woman with hormone disorders like PCOS that lead to high free serum testosterone will have levels significantly below even a very, very low level for an old, old man (T levels decrease with age normally in men).

If your husband thinks women with "high" testosterone are more manly than men with "low" testosterone, that's on him. A man who thinks a bit of extra body hair is more manly than, I don't know, HAVING A PENIS...well, yes, I suspect he's trying to wind you up. And that he doesn't know the first thing about the reference levels of hormones he's talking about.