Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Glinner thing

359 replies

JohnnyW2001 · 27/06/2020 15:12

Hello! Yes, I'm a dreaded new user, and I registered here just to reply to @glinner's post. I don't wish to gloat or insult. I just wanted to reply to one specific point:

"a dangerous ideology that tells children it's possible to be born into the wrong body"

Unfortunately it seems I cannot reply to that thread? So I'll write what I have to say here. Hopefully it will be taken in the spirit it's intended: Non confrontational sharing of science.

The problem with the sentence I quoted is that it's scientifically unsound. Female and male brains are biologically different in ways that have been observed and studied, again and again. There are certain physical traits that identify a female brain and a male brain.

What's especially interesting is that when you put people who claim to feel in the "wrong body" (as you put it) into brain imaging, they do indeed appear to have the wrong gendered brain for their body. There are observable unique characteristics that indicate a difference. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in studies for decades, and as our imaging technology has improved, it's only become more supported by science.

There are so many studies supporting this from the last 40 years, that it's difficult to pick one. Here's a few for you to Google (I can't seem to post links):

"Neuroimaging studies in people with gender incongruence", Kreukels, Baudewijntje, et al
"Grey and white matter volumes either in treatment-naïve or hormone-treated transgender women: a voxel-based morphometry study",
Giancarlo Spizzirri, et al

(Also, before anybody brings this up, I'm aware there are some scientists - namely Gina Rippon - who believe there is no biological brain gender, and that the entire brain is blank-slate shaped from birth. For those who are unaware, her argument is that society is what shapes female and male brains, due to the sheer elasticity of that organ, and that is why we see differences. One of the many problems with this argument is that the same gendered biological differences are also seen in animals. The exact same differences we see in humans. Society isn't playing role in rhesus monkeys.

Another is that there is measurable differences in male and female brains just 24 hours after birth.

To be brief: Scientists like Rippon, who claim there zero biological differences between male and female brains are, to put it mildly, are very much on the fringe and not the mainstream, despite the incredible amount of press they get.

Mainstream science says that when it comes to the gendered differences between our brains, biology plays a role and society plays a role -- not exactly controversial or difficult to believe.

Here's an article from Stanford Medicine which goes through the countless ways in which we have demonstrated biological gendered differences between brains over the decades, and how it cannot just be society as Rippon insists: "Two minds: The cognitive differences between men and women", Bruce Goldman at StanMed. Many of the falsehoods in Rippon's work are pointed out in Professor Simon Baron-Cohen's review of her book in The Times (March 2019), too.)

Just to be clear, I'm not making a political statement, I'm just sharing the science. And all mainstream science indicates that it is indeed biologically possible to have a female traited brain in a male traited body, and vise versa.

I will add one personal note: I have to say that this doesn't surprise me at all. Our genes are programmed to be occasionally random: Some people are born without a sense of smell, or missing limbs, or extra limbs, or whatever. So if there is such a thing as a female brain and a male brain then it makes perfect sense to me that occasionally someone would get a male brain in a female body, or vise versa.

And history has also repeatedly shown us that people who claim to be suffering from something that ultimately complicates their life in ways that anyone would rather avoid (like being gay, for example, which opens you up to persecution and complications and which historically was seen as a malady to be "cured") are usually right. These people really ARE suffering, and today we even have the science to prove that their complaint appears to be true.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not pushing any political agenda, or even suggesting the best way to address this situation, I'm just sharing the science, and hopefully appealing to your higher self. Pointing out that those who listen with compassion and empathy tend to sit on the right side of history.

Thanks.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
titchy · 28/06/2020 13:58

I'm a man, responding directly to one sentence another man wrote. And that is all. I wasn't addressing "women" or even a single woman (unless Glinner is now claiming to identify as female, but that seems unlikely)

Odd you should choose a predominantly female website to not address women? Wonder why you did that?

JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 13:58

@TheId

How marvellous of you to pop back on and let all us girls know that we are wasting our breath as you were not talking to us because you only talk to other men.

Can you not see at all the staggering misogyny in not addressing any of the scientific challenge in this thread because it was posted by women

Biscuit
I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect me to reply to 220+ messages, and I don't think it's really appropriate for me to, either. It's a bit ironic that I was literally replying to one such message as you were writing your reply, though.
OP posts:
JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 14:00

@titchy

I'm a man, responding directly to one sentence another man wrote. And that is all. I wasn't addressing "women" or even a single woman (unless Glinner is now claiming to identify as female, but that seems unlikely)

Odd you should choose a predominantly female website to not address women? Wonder why you did that?

I simply followed Glinner here. That is all.
OP posts:
titchy · 28/06/2020 14:01

So why didn't you post on the thread he started? Or perhaps PM him?

merrymouse · 28/06/2020 14:02

I'll just say I read and took onboard what you wrote, and it made me think.

If there is one thing I would like you to understand, it is that women don't need rights because of their brains, they need rights because of their sex, regardless of how they identify.

Your argument about right and wrong brains is irrelevant to the need for sex based rights.

stella47 · 28/06/2020 14:02

I enjoyed this, in reply to Datun :)

"This is a serious thread about an important issue that impacts our lives as women and you want to hijack it by picking through something I said. If you want to attack me please start another thread as what you are doing here is undermining the women who are contributing to the discussion. Do you have any views on the topic at hand?"
Just awesome. Datun, do you have any views on the topic at hand? Because if you do, you could have said! :)

TheId · 28/06/2020 14:03

I think it's a bit unreasonable of you to post and piss off then only reply to one seemingly randomly chosen post.

Either you don't understand how talk boards work (clue is in the question- you are supposed to have a conversation) or you don't think talking to women is worth your time and effort.

TheId · 28/06/2020 14:06

If it was 'appropriate' for you to post at all then it is merely common decency that you reply

stella47 · 28/06/2020 14:07

"I make no claim to have any idea how to best address this issue, or how women should or shouldn't feel about it. That's really not for me to have any opinion on, and I fully understand that. Very happy to get out of the way."

Ermmm, it was you that started a thread on it . . .

JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 14:13

@twoHopes

Another scientist here with golly gosh - a female brain! Johnny it appears you've had arse royally handed to you. I suspect you thought we're all silly wimmins on here but, believe it or not, some of us have actually read the bullshit studies you cite. Must try harder.

I'll leave you with this from one of the many papers that debunk the nonsense:
"One should use the term sexual dimorphism only for those aspects of differences that come in two distinct forms. As an example, they suggest male and female genitalia or X and Y chromosomes that appear in just two forms (with some exceptions). With respect to sex/gender differences, it is obvious that even very large sex/gender brain and behavioral differences are not dimorphic since the reported features overlap too much when the feature distribution for males and females is considered. They also point out that true sexual dimorphism is extremely rare in the human brain (but also in terms of behavior and cognition). As examples, they mention the very large sex/gender differences for the intermediate nucleus (InM) of the hypothalamus, which is on average twice as large in males as it is in females. However, in about a third of the cases, males and females demonstrate InMs of the same size. Thus, terms such as “female brains” or “male brains”, which are frequently used in popular writing, should not be used since it is difficult or even impossible to identify typical and dimorphic features that justify a clear sex/gender classification."

Very happy to have my arse handed to me if there's science behind it. Thank you! I'd actually love to stay and debate the interpretations of this study ("Sex/gender differences in cognition, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy" Lutz Jäncke, et al.), but you don't really need another male voice in this discussion. (My next question would be to how you explain the measurable differences in newborns if there are no female/male traits at birth -- genuinely interested in learning more.)

But yeah, I've said what I wanted to say to Glinner, and really that was it. I have no doubt yet another male voice is really unnecessary and unhelpful this discussion. So I'll bow out. Thanks for sharing that study.

OP posts:
Doyoumind · 28/06/2020 14:14

Perhaps while you're here you could do some further learning on the subject.

Here's a good place to start:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 14:15

@titchy

So why didn't you post on the thread he started? Or perhaps PM him?
I did explain that in my post? For some reason the system wouldn't let me reply there. No idea why. Also I didn't even know I had the option to DM someone here, being a new poster.
OP posts:
TheId · 28/06/2020 14:17

Would you like to address the following scientific points?

  • brains are made of neurons which all come from one cell in an embryo. All male cells have XY chromosomes and all female cells have XX. At a fundamental biological level you literally cannot have a female brain in a male body because the body and the brain are made of the same cells
  • if there was a reliable way to tell male brains from female there would be a gender diagnostic scan and there is not. Because male and female brains are not different in any clear cut way
  • brain Plasticity (not elasticity) starts even in utero due to different effects of sex hormones so it is impossible to tell whether any later observed (very minor) brain differences are due to genes or the environment.
  • the study YOU quoted does not even say what you think it does. It's own conclusion is that there is a LACK of any consistent or reliable data.

-none of this matters anyhow because the oppression of women and their need for sex segregation is because of their biological bodies and nothing to do with their brains.

maudspellbody · 28/06/2020 14:20

I am not sure your OP really made the point to Glinner that you thought you were making, though.

He said that trans ideology is teaching children that it is possible to be born in the wrong body - and worse than that - that it is possible to 'correct' this by changing sex.

None of any he said is untrue - and none of your studies have shown it to be so.

There is learning material available for use in schools which explicitly says these things.

You might not think that is a concern. I absolutely, bloody do.

TheId · 28/06/2020 14:23

If you actually were interested in debate you would read all 220 posts in the thread you created.

All the answers are there including to why there are (allegedly) differences at 24hrs ie pre-natal androgen exposure.

Just on this thread you could benefit from the collective wisdom of women who are scientists, Drs, historians, philosophers and many more and crucially women who all have lived experience of being women.

But you won't because you don't listen to women
It's your loss.

JohnnyW2001 · 28/06/2020 14:23

@merrymouse

I'll just say I read and took onboard what you wrote, and it made me think.

If there is one thing I would like you to understand, it is that women don't need rights because of their brains, they need rights because of their sex, regardless of how they identify.

Your argument about right and wrong brains is irrelevant to the need for sex based rights.

Thanks, I can totally see why this is an emotionally charged issue and very complicated. And I understand your point that about rights relating to sex, regardless of how they identify. That makes perfect sense.

I have nothing else to say about that, really. (What could I possibly say as a man? I can't really fully understand how that feels, so it's best I get out of the way.)

My only point was to Glinner saying that trans people are part of "a dangerous ideology that tells children it's possible to be born into the wrong body". Whatever the ultimate resolution for trans people, I see your point about the need for sex-based rights.

OP posts:
MIgZig · 28/06/2020 14:24

Ladies (and some gentlemen) of FWR I salute you. As ever, these threads are a joy to behold and demonstrate that critical thinking can still be found.

I am very appreciative of your efforts. Thank you

TheId · 28/06/2020 14:26

They are part of a dangerous ideology

It IS wrong to say you can be 'born in the wrong body'

It IS dangerous to encourage and facilitate young girls to mutilate their own bodies and become infertile because they believe they have the 'wrong body'

It IS dangerous to allow male bodies into women's sport, women's prisons and women's refuges

merrymouse · 28/06/2020 14:27

I have no doubt yet another male voice is really unnecessary and unhelpful this discussion.

I'd be happier if you could address the many comments made about this part of your OP, because I think it is concerning.

"What's especially interesting is that when you put people who claim to feel in the "wrong body" (as you put it) into brain imaging, they do indeed appear to have the wrong gendered brain for their body."

Do you really think that it is helpful to describe a human being as having the 'wrong gendered brain for their body'? What about people suffering from gender dysphoria who turn out have 'the right gendered brain for their body'? Are they faking their dysphoria?

Some of the research on this topic lumps in gay men and people suffering from gender dysphoria. Do the gay men also have 'the wrong gendered brains for their body'?

A man of 5' 4" has the average height for a woman in the UK. Do you think that their sex changes because they have a height that is at the lower end of the normal range for men?

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 28/06/2020 14:28

I'm getting a touch of Monty Python here..."Run away! Run away! Run away!"

What you should take from this, Johnny, is that women are not collectively stupid, that we have thought about all this quite thoroughly and we would like it if men were interested in, or, understood WHY we need single sex spaces.

It's not to do with our brains, it's because someone from our sex class is murdered two or three times a week by someone from your sex class.

We'd like to keep people with penises far away from places where we are vulnerable because some people with penises can't behave themselves.

You don't need neuroscience research to understand that - you just have to read the news.

TheId · 28/06/2020 14:34

The 'wrong gendered brain'

Can you not see how very stupid that phrase is??

Do you really think you can 'see' someone's 'gender' on a brain scan

Women who very clearly know a lot more about this than you do (have you ever seen an MRI scan or critically appraised a scientific paper?) are asking you to have a little think and admit you are wrong. Change your mind. Stop swallowing this crap and start challenging it.

TheId · 28/06/2020 14:35

Or yeh run away

FlamingoAndJohn · 28/06/2020 14:47

Thank goodness.

The Glinner thing
MadamBatty · 28/06/2020 14:57

it’s it like seeing someone’s soul in a brain scan isn’t it?

What’s the ‘measurable difference in newborns’. Is it that they hAve a different sex? Are there studies in newborns brains highlighting the differences in sex?

Deliriumoftheendless · 28/06/2020 15:07

I believe they hold up a lipstick and a spanner and see which the newborn reaches for.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Posting is temporarily suspended on this thread.