Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Newsnight now

233 replies

PaleBlueMoonlight · 25/11/2019 22:47

Now

OP posts:
OldCrone · 04/12/2019 09:16

That is thought by most specialists involved in the field to be a significant contributor, yes.

Contributor to what? Homosexuality?

I only read the abstracts, but I assume that is what is meant by 'sexual behaviour' in rats.

littlbrowndog · 04/12/2019 09:18

I complained to bbc Scotland about a year ago about use of assigned at birth in a news piece

Eventually they replied saying they thought it was appropriate 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Fieldofgreycorn · 04/12/2019 09:45

Rats probably don’t have identities so you can only observe behaviour. A bit more complex than just ‘homosexuality’ but yes it’s sexual behaviour as in mating/ mounting, receptivity and proceptivity.

Point is brain development is affected by prenatal sex hormones, and there is a complex link between sex, sexuality, gendered/sex behaviours and development of human identity.

It’s likely other factors as well. As proposed in the other paper being discussed on this forum.

Ereshkigal · 04/12/2019 09:48

Eventually they replied saying they thought it was appropriate

It's not impartial. It's the language of transgender ideology. They are failing in their need to represent fairly the views of everyone. There is little evidence for the beliefs of genderists.

Ereshkigal · 04/12/2019 09:50

Rats probably don’t have identities

Have you ever even asked one for its pronouns? Do better.

birdsdestiny · 04/12/2019 19:47

I am now worrying about how rats identify.

Stopthisnow · 04/12/2019 20:49

I’m sick to death of these claims that hormone washes in the womb determine one’s sexuality or determine if one will conform to sex role stereotypes. It is no different to the old homophobic and misogynistic claims that lesbians and gay men have too many opposite sex hormones or not enough same sex hormones, and anyone who does not conform to sex role stereotypes must have too many hormones of the opposite sex. They are regressive and do not prove what the researchers claim they do.

Way back in the 1920’s they tried to claim that taking cross-sex hormones made people attracted to the same sex, they used rat experiments to try to prove it. When they tried the same experiments on gay men by giving them testosterone it just made them engage in more gay sex not seek out female partners.

The hormonal wash nonsense is just a continuation of that same old pseudo science and is used to push a narrative. All of these kinds of ‘experiments’ start from the assumption that homosexuality and non conformity to sex role stereotypes is a sign of someone being somehow like the opposite sex in a biological way. I think that premise needs to be named as the nonsense that it is. The only good thing is it shows just how regressive trans ideology is as it relies heavily on these decades old homophobic and misogynistic assumptions.

Birdsfoottrefoil · 04/12/2019 21:42

Surely this hormone wash rubbish could have been proven with twin studies. The fact it hasn’t suggests it is just that: rubbish.

But even if a male foetus was exposed to more oestrogen in the womb than normal (??) and subsequently decided they felt at odds with their sex/body/stereotypes they would still be a man, they would still on average commit crime at the same rate as other men, they would still have a penis, still the advantages of a male body for sport. They still wouldn’t be a woman. So surely all this hormone wash theory leads to is that men should be more accepting of a variety of presentations of masculinity?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page