Help me to understand the changes

[categed]

I have been reading about self id and trans women (very little on transmen). I am coming late to this and feel a bit out my depth so am reading links recomended by all sides. However this links flummoxed me. It seems to suggests that sex is so varied that in scientific terms it is useless to rely on and that gender should be the decider. However in my mind it seems to be trying to manipulate the reader in some ways.
Sports- it says there is no scientific evidence that testosterone increases sporting prowess and that many male top athletes have very low levels of testosterone and that this is not a good way to seperate people doing sport (fair enough) but it doesn't touch on why men are physically faster and stronger on the whole. It then talks about sex segregated public spaces and that there is no justification for this as men are not biologically more aggressive to women. It also says that transwomen are women but at no point defines what a women is.
So can you please help me to make sense of this. I admit I am struggling to get my head around self id and how anyone can identify as someone else without ever having experienced that life, and whilst i understand that some do can it really be the numbers that stonewall suggest? I am open to learning how this is the case but as there appears to be debate allowed on this everything is one sided or biased or a fight. Appart from mn i haven't found a place where it is debated or opposing views are offered.
I am already aware that my pre concieved ideas about sex may well be wrong. Although i am struggling with the spectrum idea. Also the studies into gender as nature/nutrure often seem to downplay the fact that gender is nurtured in society from the moment of birth, not just from toddlerhood and toy choices.
Sorry this is so long.

Sex being a spectrum is bullshit. Total and utter crap. Don't give the idea more than three seconds.
Humans are male or female and a miniscule number of humans have a DSD which means they don't develop in the same way. The end.

More and more people are identifying as trans because it's extremely fashionable so the numbers put out by Stonewall could be out dated anyway. At the BBC 1 in 50 employees identify as trans. Probably at the Guardian too. I've heard of schools where 3 or more girls have all come out as trans at the same time. There's a social contagion element in ROGD but it's 'transphobic' for anyone to actually do research on it.

Agree GNCQ
There's another thread about Jordan Peterson but I'll just say he's spot on about this. Asked about the many genders which are now recognised (over 30 in New York and I believe Facebook offers over 70?) he replied "I'll give you one word for it. FASHION ".

I am already aware that my pre concieved ideas about sex may well be wrong.

They aren't.

It takes sperm to fertilise an egg, which is gestated by women.

Everyone on the planet knows which class they belong to.

Every girl knows that they run risks as soon as they reach puberty, if not before.

I am already aware that my pre concieved ideas about sex may well be wrong.

Why? Wouldn't you want pretty solid evidence before you changed your mind about a widely accepted fact which you can see with your own eyes?

There are a number of disorders of sexual development. Most of them make no difference to whether someone is perceived as male or female. A very, very small percentage of the population have conditions that might reasonably described as 'intersex' (i.e. there is a substantial mismatch between some of their physical, sex- based characteristics). This doesn't change the nature of biological sex any more than someone losing an arm in an accident invalidates the idea that humans have two arms.

'Intersex' people have repeatedly asked for their medical conditions not to be appropriated in this debate. There is no relationship between having a DSD and being Trans- the latter is a psychological condition.

Try as you might, you will never find a Scientific text that claims sex is a spectrum. If you are in any doubt, please order an encyclopedia of biology or similar from your local library and check.

It then talks about sex segregated public spaces and that there is no justification for this as men are not biologically more aggressive to women.

Men are, on average, much more aggressive than women. Much more violent crime (measures vary by society, but usually at least 85%) is committed by men in every culture on Earth.

Thank you for replying. That was my thinking that there are two, faurly distinctive sexes with some dsd in the middle. I just keep reading scientific papers where they state sex is a spectrum or not straight forward. However i then question what does sex mean when diacuased like this?
I do agree with the idea that it can be fashionable, having worked with kids who want to be more open, more extream and to challenge the norm or the barriers percieved by their parents generations.

Sorry i also forgot the link to the paper i read.

qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/

Again thank you. I am trying, and failing to see all sides but keep coming back to the fact that seems to be a way of creating a new class of women, tberby placing women in a lower class of women without a voice or the righta of others.
I have never felt the emotions about male/female that this issue is raising in me before so have been trying to legitimise the claims made by the trans debate. However i am coming to the conclusion that it is a trojen horse, a modern one that will put women in their place and restrict free speech, debate and rights. I have two girls and am concerned for their future.

Anyone claiming sex is a spectrum can safely be ignored. Sex is immutable.

Sports- it says there is no scientific evidence that testosterone increases sporting prowess and that many male top athletes have very low levels of testosterone and that this is not a good way to seperate people doing sport

Utter bobbins. Testosterone is the most important difference for most sports- it directly impacts aggression, physical strength and stamina. It is far from the only difference, some examples:

• Men are (on average) taller.
• Men have (by a big average margin) more muscle mass. This decreases somewhat when cross sex hormones are taken.
• Men have bigger lungs and a larger capacity to take oxygen into their blood.
• Men have higher bone density. Again this decreases somewhat when cross sex hormones are taken.
• Men have a completely different skeletal shape. For example their hips apply pressure to a bicycle pedal more efficiently.

There are a few sports where men and women might compete together effectively. In motor racing, for example, it's unclear whether there is an innate reaction time advantage- if it's there it's probably not huge.

The problem is that:

1. Transsexual (biological) men are being permitted to compete in sports where they have an innate advantage (like cage fighting) even if their testosterone levels are low.

1. Transgender (biological) men are being permitted to compete in some sports, especially at the level just below professional, while still having male biology.

Sorry i also forgot the link to the paper i read.

That's not a paper. It's not peer reviewed and It makes two referenced Scientific claims:

girly toy preferences aren’t simply a reflection of gendered social pressures

The study quoted is a meta study of 8 others. You can't just cherry pick 8 studies out of 1800 and come to a firm conclusion. Other evidence suggests that children are picking up gender stereotypes from a very young age indeed. The studies conclusions are wildly overstated.

found relatively small behavioral, intelligence, and personality differences between genders

This is true. The mass of evidence in recent decades has been that things we previously assumed were innate are often based on social pressures. As society equalises women become better at things they historically 'can't do'. There are undoubtedly are innate (average) differences in psychology between the sexes, but they are much less than people think.

I tend to agree with much of that article. None of it seems to me an argument for self ID.

However i then question what does sex mean when diacuased like this?

This is a very good question to ask. Sex, in terms of its scientific meaning, is being discussed in the realm of politics. As such, pseudo-science gets dragged into the argument to get to the "right" political viewpoint.

When this happens it's not science. This kind of political manipulation has happened throughout the history of science. There are many examples of this.

My company used to sponsor a woman racing driver, donquixotedelamancha. She explained that men and women couldn't compete against each other because of the effect of G force on the driver's neck. Women's necks just can't take the same amount of pressure.

I just read the article and also agree with some of it.
It's talking about gender, which is basically in my mind "personality" and how it links to sex.
Sex is immutable and biological. Some of your personality or "gender" will be linked to your biology, some (imo most) will be linked to the social expectations of your sex which are absorbed from infancy and projected onto others on an unconscious level.

There's an interesting video where boy babies were dressed in pink frills and girl babies were dressed in blue t-shirts, adults were filmed interacting with the babies, in a room full of various toys. The difference in interaction was astonishing. To be fair I don't know why they needed to "swap" the babies but I guess it added extra viewing drama.

Most adults offered the boys mathematical or educational toys and the girls were offered soft cuddly animals or baby dolls.

I wonder if you are confusing sex and gender, if you are that article would be very confusing. It is trying to say there is a biological element to gender which arguably there might be. It still doesn't make sex a spectrum or mean humans can change sex.

Males make up 88% of the prison population and are responsible 98% of all sexual crimes regardless of their self-declared gender. Is this because of their biology or their socialisation? Feminists can't answer but do want to preserve same-sex spaces, not move to gendered spaces.

^ Eek
I meant Most adults offered the babies they thought were boys mathematical or educational toys and the babies they thought were girls were offered soft cuddly animals or baby dolls.
It was by the BBC or channel 4.

I just keep reading scientific papers where they state sex is a spectrum or not straight forward

They used to say that intersex proved that sex was not binary - however when it was pointed out that intersex proved that sex WAS binary, they changed it to this spectrum nonsense.

The existence of intersex people, does not mean that middle aged men wearing clothes that are typically female makes them into women.

The existence of intersex people does not mean that young women who are sick of toxic patriarchy and who want to disappear as women, can become men.

If you look at the spectrum that they are now in schools teaching to kids, Barbie on one end and GI Joe on the other; 99.9% of the population is likely to be somewhere in the middle, and the only thing that changes on that spectrum is clothes. A woman who dresses as GI Joe will still be a woman.

The take I have is that it is important for cross dressing males to have a pseudo scientific non fetish justification for their AGP and so this misuse of the word spectrum is beneficial to that, and when you combine this with a lot of females being sick of the ultra sexualised version of femininity being supposedly the norm falling thankfully into the the conveniently provided non binary category you get a large group of people manipulated into bashing on about a sex binary being bigoted. It's very visible once you can see it.

I don't need to be classed as non binary to do the "manly" things I have done, I just had to ignore the poor stereotype expectations. I certainly won't be used to pretend a cross dressing fetish is as valid a definition of woman as adult human female is and I am exasperated as to how many women have been blagged into providing a smokescreen.

On the sports issue, its a clear case of people conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

I've read a few glossy informational leaflets which say things like 'scientists have not found any difference in the performance of transwomen and ciswomen'.

However, the scholarly pdfs I've read have said more along these lines:
Little research has been conducted comparing the performance of transwomen and ciswomen. Although hormonal treatment can reduce muscle mass and bone density, there is no evidence that sporting performance is limited to these factors. Additionally, a comparison of the average trans woman and woman would not indicate the same results would be true in professional athletes. Finally, because of the sparsity of professional trans athletes, it may not even be possible to make a scientific comparison of trans and female athletes.

So whilst it may be true that they haven't found any difference YET, its more because the research hasn't been done and may not even be possible, rather than because there isn't any.