The Glinner thing

[JohnnyW2001]

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.

@MadamBatty

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?

There was a study where they showed different objects to newborns. Here's one of the researchers describing it:

"In 2001 our team at Cambridge published what is still the only study of sex differences in 24-hour-old newborns. We showed babies a human face, or an object, to gauge what took their interest. While many babies showed no preference, more boys looked longer at the object and more girls looked longer at the human face. At 24 hours old, these babies could not possibly have been influenced by cultural expectations of what boys or girls ought to be interested in.

"The scientists took every precaution to remain blind, by having independent judges coding the videos of the baby’s eye movements. One set was on the maternity ward and asked the mothers not to reveal their baby’s sex, and the other set was in the lab so they could never know the baby’s sex; all they saw was a film of the baby’s eyes."

(It's worth remembering that these are only averages. Obviously male and female brains have more in common than they have differences, and there's no special traits that only men have or only women have. Just as there are tall women and short men.)

(It's worth remembering that these are only averages. Obviously male and female brains have more in common than they have differences, and there's no special traits that only men have or only women have. Just as there are tall women and short men.)

We know, Johnny, we know.
So the whole idea of wrong brain in your body or the other way round is completely and utterly bogus. And yes, it's dangerous. It causes immense, personal harm to young people, especially young women. Take the time to read some of what 'desistors' have to say, before you judge why glinner says some of the things he does,

it is scientifically unsound to say that all trans people are part of a dangerous ideology that tells children it is possible to be born in the wrong body

The ideology in question is the belief: "it is possible to be born in the wrong body". This belief is scientifically incoherent and completely unproven, yet it has directly resulted in many young people doing irreversible damage to their bodies. It is therefore completely correct to call this belief a "dangerous ideology".

Do all trans people subscribe to this ideology? Clearly not. Blair White and Buck Angel are probably the highest profile examples. Do some non trans people subscribe to this ideology? Yes, plenty. Does subscribing to a dangerous ideology make you a dangerous person? Maybe. If you do things based on false beliefs that cause harm to others (like telling children they might be born in the wrong body, leading to them having unnecessary surgery) then you do bear responsibility for that. The same way as people who push alternative medicines and discourage people from visiting doctors bear some responsibility for the harm that they cause. But that doesn't necessarily mean the harm is intentional or caused through malice. I think most of the people caught in this belief system probably really think its true and think they're being helpful. Basically, if you're trying to interpret Glinners word to say that he thinks all trans people are dangerous, then you've read what he said wrong. But the ideology is dangerous and anyone who subscribes to it or promotes it, whether they are trans or not, has played a part in the resulting harm it causes .

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

it is scientifically unsound to say that all trans people are part of a dangerous ideology that tells children it is possible to be born in the wrong body

The ideology in question is the belief: "it is possible to be born in the wrong body". This belief is scientifically incoherent and completely unproven, yet it has directly resulted in many young people doing irreversible damage to their bodies. It is therefore completely correct to call this belief a "dangerous ideology".

Do all trans people subscribe to this ideology? Clearly not. Blair White and Buck Angel are probably the highest profile examples. Do some non trans people subscribe to this ideology? Yes, plenty. Does subscribing to a dangerous ideology make you a dangerous person? Maybe. If you do things based on false beliefs that cause harm to others (like telling children they might be born in the wrong body, leading to them having unnecessary surgery) then you do bear responsibility for that. The same way as people who push alternative medicines and discourage people from visiting doctors bear some responsibility for the harm that they cause. But that doesn't necessarily mean the harm is intentional or caused through malice. I think most of the people caught in this belief system probably really think its true and think they're being helpful. Basically, if you're trying to interpret Glinners word to say that he thinks all trans people are dangerous, then you've read what he said wrong. But the ideology is dangerous and anyone who subscribes to it or promotes it, whether they are trans or not, has played a part in the resulting harm it causes .

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense, and I completely agree with a lot of what you say. (Personally I find the idea of surgery on children deeply concerning.) And I agree that nobody should be pushed into any way of thinking -- personally I feel only an adult is capable of making such decisions for themselves.

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others? I am genuinely asking.

it is scientifically unsound to say that all trans people are part of a dangerous ideology that tells children it is possible to be born in the wrong body
So you're just fine with these children becoming sterile? At an age when most kids cant decide if they like a cartoon character?

I'm sure there are a vanishingly few children that actually do know from a relatively young age that they feel like the wrong sex. So you advocate drugs to make them sterile, drugs that will give them other huge problems later in life just to "pass" instead of telling other men you know that being a man who wears a skirt/makeup/whatever 'womanly' thing is fine and you should just accept that and oh yeah "be kind"
If men were less toxic, then trans people would have a better life. Because amazing as it seems, it's not women who beat up transwomen.

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others? I am genuinely asking

Where is ANYONE denying the experience of someone with gender dysphoria?

Many of us on here have it. What we are saying, is that feeling gender confusion is NOT a reason to uncritically throw open all single sex spaces without doing a thorough risk assessment, impact assessment and having a good hard think as to why that space might have existed in the first place. (We aren’t even saying a default no to mixed sex spaces, just that it will need thought as to where it isn’t and isn’t appropriate)

Dysphoria is also not a reason to unquestioningly Start children on a medication/surgical path that can lead to lifelong complications and sterility and hasn’t really ever been proven to have better long term outcomes. Especially as it seems that dysphoria can be an indicator of either ASD or sexual abuse.

Don’t see how working on having good outcomes for a majority of people after careful assessment is denying anyone’s experience.

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others? I am genuinely asking.

Gender dysphoria demonstrably exists, because people demonstrably experience it. Obviously they should not suffer from prejudice, and neither should people who are gender non conforming, whether or not they have dysphoria.

However, that does not mean that they have 'the wrong brain'.

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others? I am genuinely asking

Adults can do what the fuck they like with their own bodies.

The “dangerous ideology” starts when thise adults start telling chidren they can change sex, and if they like dolls and pink, maybe they have a girl brain. Followed up with children with girl brains are trans and should be validated, given hormones and surgery to become their true selves.

Trans ideology- straight to permanent body changes because pink brain is real- is dangereous when applied to children.

Children should have extensive counselling before making any physical changes.

Also children should be allowed to like pink, babies, sparkles, footbal, tree climbing, dresses, without being told they’re abnormal or the “wrong brain”.

Gender stereotyping is dangereous.

No one is denying the experience of those with gender dysphoria. Telling young people with it though, that their dysphoria will be cured if they lop off their breasts and take drugs that will make them infertile amongst other undesirable side effects is incredibly dangerous - to those young people.

It IS therefore a dangerous ideology. As well a dangerous to females for the reasons already mentioned.

@Furx

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others? I am genuinely asking

Where is ANYONE denying the experience of someone with gender dysphoria?

Many of us on here have it. What we are saying, is that feeling gender confusion is NOT a reason to uncritically throw open all single sex spaces without doing a thorough risk assessment, impact assessment and having a good hard think as to why that space might have existed in the first place. (We aren’t even saying a default no to mixed sex spaces, just that it will need thought as to where it isn’t and isn’t appropriate)

Dysphoria is also not a reason to unquestioningly Start children on a medication/surgical path that can lead to lifelong complications and sterility and hasn’t really ever been proven to have better long term outcomes. Especially as it seems that dysphoria can be an indicator of either ASD or sexual abuse.

Don’t see how working on having good outcomes for a majority of people after careful assessment is denying anyone’s experience.

I completely agree with everything you've just said.

We aren’t even saying a default no to mixed sex spaces, just that it will need thought as to where it isn’t and isn’t appropriate

I'm certainly not arguing that. For one thing mixed sex changing rooms are necessary and already exist for parents with opposite sex children.
However, I also need the law to allow single sex provision where, as the law states it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

More than that, I need institutions to understand that women do have legitimate needs that can only be met by single sex services, and that when they ask for these needs to be met they are not being transphobic.

By the way - most transgender people don't have gender dysphoria.

But surely denying the experiences of those with gender dysphoria, calling them part of a "dangerous ideology", also causes immense personal harm? Is it not possible to acknowledge the experiences of trans-people without that causing harm to others? I am genuinely asking.

Where has anyone said that? Gender dysphoria exists, I think we can all agree on that.
I don’t see how not wanting children experiencing this to seek the help of people who will given them drugs leaving them sterile is causing them ‘personal harm’, quite the opposite.

I did graduate classes in child development, so I can comment on the baby study:
"In 2001 our team at Cambridge published what is still the only study of sex differences in 24-hour-old newborns. We showed babies a human face, or an object, to gauge what took their interest. While many babies showed no preference, more boys looked longer at the object and more girls looked longer at the human face. At 24 hours old, these babies could not possibly have been influenced by cultural expectations of what boys or girls ought to be interested in."

The first thing to note is that the looking paradigm to test babies is notoriously tricky. Babies at a very young age can't see very well, can't focus their gaze, and find it hard to focus attention. It's also not the most exact science: the researchers will watch a video of the baby and count how long their gaze falls on the target. The results can be pretty random.

These researchers seem to imply that 'objects' are 'masculine" and 'faces' are "feminine'. This is a strange assumption, however. All humans have to interact with faces and objects in their day to day lives. Faces and 'objects' are highly salient because they are crucial to our survival. So where are they even getting this idea that females are more attracted to faces and males to objects?If you didn't have this strange assumption in the first place then the data doesn't really tell us very much. There are many explanations for the study result. The researchers seem to be the ones importing stereotypes into it.

There's also a lot of debate about what the looking test measures. The boys looked longer at the object. Ok, but why assume that means they have a preference, or interest, as these researchers seem to do? It could also mean that babies are confused or freaked out by the object. Babies will look longer at things they like, sure, but they also stare longer at things that puzzle or scare them. The researchers could just have easily concluded that male babies struggle to understand objects and female babies are scared of strange faces!

Finally, this study could also very well be a fluke. The dominant theory is that newborn babies have an innate instinct to look at faces, and orient themselves to faces, because faces= caregiver. Most babies at an early stage of development will seek out faces and aren't interested in other objects. Babies only really become interested in objects once they become mobile (which makes sense.) So this study really goes against the grain and would even suggest that male babies don't have as great survival instincts as female babies. But the main takeaway from this is the finding that "many babies had no preference". I would bet the results in this paper are actually very modest.

It sure is interesting though how these kinds of studies keep getting funding. One day they will find the mythical lady brain!

Hi @JohnnyW2001 - as a woman in a very male dominated STEM job - the misinformation around male/female gendered brains does me personal harm. It reduces my career prospects and opens me up to persistent sex-based discrimination. Why should I be forced to accept an unscientific lie just to placate the feelings of someone with gender dysphoria? Why don't my feelings matter?

I'm sure there are a vanishingly few children that actually do know from a relatively young age that they feel like the wrong sex

Yep, I’ll hold my hand up and say I’m one of them. I KNEW for certain, in my very earliest memories (and backed up by myriad family recollections) I absolutely did not want to be a girl. I felt more like a boy, liked boy things. That feeling only grew stronger as I matured, peaking very painfully when I hit puberty.

Spoiler — im not a transman. I now know what drove those feelings. Transitioning would have made it worse, in the long run. But it would have given me a temporary fix that I estimate would have felt great, and lasted about 5 years.

So, far from being evil. T3RFS who don’t believe in trans people, many of us are actually trying to warn that the current dysphoria screening process isn’t fit for purpose and 5 to 10 years down the line theres going to be an utter shitstorm of legal action from all the poor bastards who were led down the garden path by well meaning, but misguided people.

WeeBisom:

Babies at a very young age can't see very well, can't focus their gaze, and find it hard to focus attention.

I'm pretty sure the researchers in this study were aware of that.

These researchers seem to imply that 'objects' are 'masculine" and 'faces' are "feminine'.

No they didn't. They simply recorded the results to reactions to different things. The results indicated one was feminine and one was masculine.

The researchers could just have easily concluded that male babies struggle to understand objects and female babies are scared of strange faces!

Yes, they could have. But the researchers didn't conclude anything. They simply reported the results: There was a difference in behaviour in male and females. That's what the study concluded. It doesn't matter WHY, it matters that there was a difference.

I can totally see why this is an emotionally charged issue

It's actually not an emotional issue: it's a legal issue about women's rights.

It's about women's control over their own definition, boundaries and rights.

You're not just homophobic, but sexist as well, ascribing "emotional" to any women discussing their legal rights.

That's what the study concluded. It doesn't matter WHY, it matters that there was a difference.

But having observed the difference you have to make an assumption to analyse what the difference in behaviour was - are new born girls born with better eyesight?

Does this test at 24 hours imply a difference that endures throughout life?

@JohnnyW2001 for every study that finds a difference between male and female baby brains, there are two more finding no differences at all. Some of us have actually researched this stuff - we're not just idiots wittering on. You're way out of your depth here and I'd recommend you do a bit more reading yourself.

The conclusion of almost every paper on this topic is that while there are average differences in male/female brains, they are small and the standard deviation is much larger. A male brain is one in a man's body, a female brain is one in a woman's body. You cannot have a brain in the "wrong body". It's pseudoscientific nonsense.

We do that eyesight in males and females is not the same - colour blindness is far more common in males.

“We do know”

I completely agree with everything you've just said

And that’s the rub. I can say it here. Anonymously. I’m very careful, I Change names every few months, I even have different usernames on various different board on there, and I obfuscate personal details (number of kids, location, my job etc)

Why

Because look what would happen if I were to post that relatively bland opinion on, say Twitter or Facebook under my own name.

So that’s our other big problem. All we have been asking for is reasoned, evidence backed debate. This gets us doxxed, rape threats, death threats. As a punishment for asking for a debate.

Even better (!) , as a bloke, you almost certainly could say that on Twitter and pretty much no one would threaten to rape you with a broken bottle. Or even care very much.

See why we are a little bit pissed off now?

today we even have the science to prove that their complaint appears to be true.

You said this in your first post OP. And then went on to tell glinner all about the wrong side of history.

Giving people moral lectures with absolute certainty when the material you are quoting actually contradicts the the thing that you are certain about it really poor.

If you are this sloppy and high handed in all areas of life can you imagine what hard work you must be for other people to deal with?

Also @JohnnyW2001 how do you know some of the babies in that study weren't trans? Did they do a follow up to check if any of them turned out to be trans? No of course they didn't because no one actually believes this shit. Neither do you if you really think about it.