" Bringing genetics into trans identity is a terrifying path" The Guardian

[TrashyTerf]

Some gems:

"The study, called “Sexuality, gender and self-image” had a demographics section that implied that people who were trans were not real women, instead separating them into a category of their own."

Yes, not all trans people transitioning into women, isn't "Fury" forgetting about trans men and non-binary people here?

Well, given it is a TRANS identity, the identity will be TRANS to something. And what can the identity be TRANS to, if not genetics?

Click: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/23/bringing-genetics-into-trans-identity-is-a-terrifying-path

Don't TRAs argue that gender identity is innate ? You think Fury would welcome this research if that were the case.

“Until 2013, trans people in Sweden were required to undergo sterilization before they could access gender-affirming treatment.”

Well if yr having sexual reassignment surgery you WILL become sterile, that is an unfortunate side effect of the operation. Unless as a male you wish to keep yr tackle but dress as a woman, in which case yr not a woman.

Until 2013, trans people in Sweden were required to undergo sterilization before they could access gender-affirming treatment.

As happy says, gender reassignment surgery is sterilisation. What they actually mean is that until 2013, this was required before legal recognition as their chosen sex.

Sweden is often hailed as a forward-thinking society promoting equality for all, but up until 2013 transsexuals had to accept sterilization before getting official recognition for their sex changes.
www.thelocal.se/20160427/sterilized-transsexuals-could-get-payouts-from-swedish-state

TRAs seem to have a very flaky understanding of basic biology.

Wtf? So why're blaming us for the sterilization of transgender people now?

When publishing material that supports the idea that there is a biological element to gender identity, scientists, policy makers and the general public are less inclined to listen to trans activists.

Why do TRAs always jump on any study about differences in the brains of men and women, then? I thought they were arguing for the existence of a 'lady brain'.

Trans activists seek to educate people on their fundamental human right to experiment with dress, movement, identity and presentation. Talking about genes and biology in relation to gender entrenches the idea that gender is fixed and rigid – something you are born with.

Careful, that sounds far too much like a feminist argument.

Well that’s a confusing mish mash

Fury is arguing that being trans is an identity rather than something biologically innate? Is that right or have I misunderstood? I thought that any insinuation that trans was an identity not innate was transphobic?

And any research to show that there’s a biological basis for gender dysphoria is akin to nazism? But again if it’s innate is has to be biological, so they are saying it isnt innate?

But then other TRAs are saying gender is innate, which means it’s biological and are pushing the idea of trans-from-birth and pink and blue brains.

How extremely confusing. One might even conclude that the prospect of a measurable gene marker or markers for gender dysphoria is not something Fury wants.

I wonder why?

Fostering the notion of a genetic factor to gender dysphoria threatens to further complicate trans people’s access to appropriate care. As Casey says, “Those people who might not have a genetic basis – it takes away their right to self determination and the right to bodily autonomy in regards to gender expression and creativity.”

What sort of 'appropriate care' do they need if they just want 'bodily autonomy'? Surely that would only be required for people who have a medical condition.

The more this gets discussed, the more it becomes apparent that translogic is not the same as logic.

But...TRAs seem to leap on any genetic or scientific basis for their identity, and it is normally the GC people who are arguing that gender is a social construct. Am I missing something?

Am I missing something?

I don't think so. I think they're confused, trying to make a rational, logical argument out of something that makes no sense. And contradicting themselves in the process.

“Those people who might not have a genetic basis – it takes away their right to self determination and the right to bodily autonomy in regards to gender expression and creativity.”

But EVERYONE should be able to express themselves how they wish. Feminists are really all for that in general. You just can’t change sex. You can be a boy and like pink frills, it really is OK. You aren’t a girl if you dont like football.

‘Those people who might not have a genetic basis’ seems to imply that Fury thinks that only a subset under the trans umbrella have an innate ‘trans’ being.

Which implies that others don’t.

Which gosh, tad transphobic, Fury, no?

It seems to me that the article has been written thus:

‘Right, Fury, hi. We need an article With Science. Also need to get something in there that equates feminists and anyone opposing us with Nazis. Mention eugenics. Eugenics is bad, everyone knows that...’

The article exists purely to put the concept of opposition and the concept of nazism and eugenics in the mind of the reader.

You know what? I think that the Guardian is knowingly printing this shite. They want to be gender critical, but they know that they can't just yet. So, what they're doing instead is printing the TRA arguments in all their glory, hoping that their readers are smart enough to wake up.

The article exists purely to put the concept of opposition and the concept of nazism and eugenics in the mind of the reader.

It also frightens away researchers as the 'vaccine wars' did for far too long.

Also need to get something in there that equates feminists and anyone opposing us with Nazis.

And yet much of what they've written is a feminist argument - be who you want, express yourself as you want.

Fury work across media in poetry, journalism and playwriting

Is this a typo, or does "Fury" identify as multiple identities??

The idea is similar to something CS Lewis talked about - 'the materialist magician.'

the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits"

This article is a prime example of the Genderist religion's method. Vaunting 'science' as an undefined standard, the epitome of the appeal to authority while at the same time holding firmly onto the necessary obfuscation that prevents too much inconvenient scrutiny. This way there is a 'veneer' of respectability while pressing a reality that is basically a religious belief in an externally indefinable soul.

Don't TRAs argue that gender identity is innate ? You think Fury would welcome this research if that were the case.

Apparently it’s innate - but not genetic.

Like a soul or whatever that bollocks is that Scientologists believe in.

Your body is just crude matter but there’s some wafty presence that animates it but can sonehow attach itself to the wrong vehicle.

It’s also a bit rich of implying we are the ones supporting eugenics when they are sterilising autistic kids.

I’d like to hear what kind of person doesn’t have a ‘genetic basis’.

What are they made of - fucking silicon?

Confused. So confused.

So, by requiring SRS before legal recognition of acquired gender, that is forcing sterilisation.

By trying to find some biological link or cause of being trans, it could lead to eugenics and trans ideology states gender is fluid anyway, not fixed to biology, but also innate and required to be recognised and protected in law.

OK, I'm off to have a lie down!

Exactly - your gender identity is both scientific and magic at the same time.

If researching the genetic causes of phenomena leads to eugenics then we should stop research into diseases such as Huntington’s that are caused by single genes.

We should stop trying to cure cancer or schizophrenia or anything that could possibly be linked to genetics and just try to patch up people who have been struck by lightning or had pianos dropped on their head by cartoon characters.

We should stop trying to cure cancer or schizophrenia or anything that could possibly be linked to genetics and just try to patch up people who have been struck by lightning or had pianos dropped on their head by cartoon characters.

Quite.