Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
WombOfOnesOwn · 28/06/2020 17:34

@JohnnyW2001 I find it concerning that you think simply calling an ideology "dangerous" immediately causes personal harm to the adherents of such an ideology.

People on both sides of any political issue often regard their opponents' views as dangerous. Anti-tax libertarians view socialism and redistribution to achieve equality as a "dangerous ideology." Socialists regard capitalism as a "dangerous ideology." I'm sure you can think of many other examples, as well.

No one is harmed by these thoughts or statements. The only harm that is caused is if someone goes from saying "your ideology is dangerous" to actually hurting someone who is an adherent in some way, or engaging in harassment or cruelty.

I find it remarkable how the trans issue has managed to sneak in this equivalency between "finding trans ideology abhorrent and dangerous" and "causing direct harm to trans people."

It makes it so that one is not even allowed to contest the ideology on all available grounds, since the more dangerous aspects of it must be ignored lest we accidentally call it dangerous and hurt someone.

CharlieParley · 28/06/2020 17:43

@JohnnyW2001

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.

Like most newborn studies measuring gaze, this particular study had various methodological issues. It didn't measure what they claimed they did - alert looking time out of total looking time (their results presentation makes clear they measured looking time out of presentation time) that is they claimed to measure how long a newborn paid attention while looking at the researcher's face vs the mobile, but only measured how many seconds a baby seemed to look while being shown either the object or the face.

The researcher knew what sex each newborn was, and given the beliefs of the authors and researchers it's hard to imagine that there might not have been unconscious bias in play in how each baby was looked at.

Furthermore, at 20cms the viewing distance was just fractionally outside of a one week old's average focusing ability. At only one day old, the study subjects may well not have been able to focus as well as the researchers assumed. The world is very blurry, vision is 20/400, far too dark and they can't yet coordinate both eyes. So making any pronouncements based on something we cannot properly measure with individual differences that we cannot control for is questionable to say the least.

Given the easily identifiable issues, their conclusion is extraordinary: they state first “We have demonstrated that at 1 day old, human neonates demonstrate sexual dimorphism in both social and mechanical perception. Male infants show a stronger interest in mechanical objects, while female infants show a stronger interest in the face” and then go on to conclude that their findings "demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these [sex] differences are in part biological in origin.”

The authors of the study btw believe that sex differences in systemising and emphasising are hard-wired into us before birth, that is that human males are predisposed from birth to be better at scientific reasoning and females at social understanding.

Of course the study proves nothing of the sort, especially "beyond a reasonable doubt" due to the methodological issues alone, but the main author comes from autism research which for decades has focused on males. And from that he has drawn a number of rather extreme conclusions. Unfortunately, as many posters on FWR know from their own experiences rather too well, autism is not only underresearched in female sufferers, the lack of research into how autism manifests in our sex means we do not have a full picture of autism and cannot therefore draw such extraordinary conclusions by porting ideas based on autism in males into research about sex differences in those who are neuro typical.

And P.S. they didn't even show that boys looked longer at objects than girls or that girls looked longer at faces than boys. There was no measurable difference between the sexes. They only found, in their experiment and with these subjects that girls looked longer at the face than the mobile and boys looked longer at the mobile than the face.

prolefeed · 28/06/2020 17:43

Johnny. Stay. Learn.
From WOMEN.
Not men with opinions on what being a woman is.
Ffs.

FloralBunting · 28/06/2020 17:51

Yes, OP. It's all very well not wanting to be another male voice drowning out women. But if you're not going to actually listen to the women here, you might as well carry on being a mansplainer. Have some humility and take the time to pay attention to the women here.

Furx · 28/06/2020 18:00

@prolefeed

Johnny. Stay. Learn. From WOMEN. Not men with opinions on what being a woman is. Ffs.
Yes, stay.
CoffeeTeaChocolate · 28/06/2020 18:01

Sorry to go off topic slightly, but don’t they teach any critical thinking in schools at all?

If I understand it correctly, OP was writing a post which took some headline comments from a limited number of research reports and presented these as facts with a complete lack of mention of methodological issues or alternative interpretations?

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 28/06/2020 18:02

But please stay OP, it seemed a good discussion at the end.

Bananabixfloof · 28/06/2020 18:04

I just am interested in hearing more from Furxand then I'll be gone
So all the time and effort we put into replying to you means nothing. You just plopped and mansplained and fucked off.

Right well that's helpful to us both isnt it.
Dont let the door hit you on the way out sugar pie.

EdgeOfACoin · 28/06/2020 18:07

It's been a very helpful discussion for those of us who don't know much about this topic, though.

Thank you to those who took the trouble to respond to the OP's points.

TheId · 28/06/2020 18:30

Thanks edge
That makes it worthwhile to have responded
If I ever do respond to these it's usually with half an eye to anyone lurking

JackiF · 28/06/2020 18:41

I've learned a lot from lurking here over the years.

You are excellent company, don't eat much, never try and borrow money, always work out the answers between you all, and know when to go home.Smile

TheId · 28/06/2020 18:41

CharlieParley that's Simon Baron Cohen's extreme male brain theory isn't it?

Although he is very very highly respected and famous a lot of people are questioning that idea now which, even he would admit, was only a theory ie open to challenge based on evidence.

Even if his idea was born out and males were more analytic and females more empathic (and it really is an absolutely ridiculous stretch to say that this study shows anything like that because a tiny baby allegedly paid more attention to a picture of a spanner!) then even he postulates that this would be because of prenatal androgen exposure which is due fundamentally to having a Y chromosome.

Furx · 28/06/2020 19:17

I do wonder just how keen to listen to my feminism the OP would be if we’d met in a pub IRL.

Not to stereotype someone, but my lived experience suggests: Not very much. 🤣

ChurchOfWokeApostate · 28/06/2020 19:24

Yawn 🥱
Even if a man does have a fluffy pink lady brain, I still don’t want his penis in my changing rooms.

Thank you for dropping by

midgebabe · 28/06/2020 19:28

The researchers conducting the tests knew the babies sex before doing the test! !!

Blinking hec. Was it a student project ?

midgebabe · 28/06/2020 19:31

And even if I have a strongly masculine brain, as recently proved in some online tests apparently I don't want to use the Male changing rooms, you know history of sexual abuse , and they don't want me in there , you know, basic respect for the physically weaker sex

Karwomannghia · 28/06/2020 19:58

@Furx

I do wonder just how keen to listen to my feminism the OP would be if we’d met in a pub IRL.

Not to stereotype someone, but my lived experience suggests: Not very much. 🤣

Yep I’ve mentioned it a couple of times and it really does not go down well. Last time a man shouted at me that he had seen a woman being stoned- the subtext being that as a privileged woman in this country I had no lived experience of ‘real’ misogyny - as some kind of defence against my idea that women are abused the world over. This was about 30 minutes after he’d felt my arse.
MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 28/06/2020 20:01

Regarding dysphoria, this has just been published by Michael Briggs (sorry for the enormous link). It seems to conclude that after puberty blockers, dysphoria worsened for girls. I am not a scientist, my degrees are in Eng. Lit. so I'd be interested to hear what anyone has to say on this. Is this likely/ possible? Seems horrific is so, especially with places like the Tavistock acting as they have been.

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10508-020-01764-1?sharingtoken=VlaX9Hk16yDJtxcUYQT7PPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY7tJ6hsj2NP-qM6PdyCCkmHemmHOhWNMHmgZslXhX21lufWkKq5KnUPVP2pwA62t2iUB5NzSUXhd6GFll1aeDrXk7qjb2TuiVBJaUuaaiykDUecPmHAjOv9l18MbKQJhM%3D

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 28/06/2020 20:02

*Biggs, not Briggs

prolefeed · 28/06/2020 20:17

MB has been working in this area and talking about it for a couple of years and has been an architect of pressure to evaluate the Tavi’s work. He was banned from twitter too. I respect him a lot.
I had a quick skim through and I don’t think this study is any new information - it just formalises the questions he has been trying to get answered - why are we pushing to affirm and medicate with puberty blockers given the lack of research into them and the alarming suspicion that the Tavi are suppressing their own research because it does not demonstrate improved outcomes and in fact does the opposite of what they claim it does.
But I’m another humanities bod, so I live reading explanations from those who can interrogate it properly Grin

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 28/06/2020 20:24

Thanks prolefeed

why are we pushing to affirm and medicate with puberty blockers given the lack of research into them and the alarming suspicion that the Tavi are suppressing their own research because it does not demonstrate improved outcomes and in fact does the opposite of what they claim it does.

Seems a bloody good question to me!

TorkTorkBam · 28/06/2020 21:00

It seems to conclude that after puberty blockers, dysphoria worsened for girls. ... so I'd be interested to hear what anyone has to say on this. Is this likely/ possible?

Anecdata of my own life tells me that like Furx I would have thrown myself at being trans and I know I would have regretted it.

It makes sense really. In reality I could not have identified out of sexism and lower physical power than men even with surgery, hormones and pronouns, the reality of which tends to hit women more as they age, i.e. gain experience of the world. My health would be suffering because of the hormones. I would probably have a crap sex life and love life, which I'd feel more as my peers paired up. So, I am damn sure I would have regretted it.

Prettybluepigeons · 28/06/2020 21:01

And you had the opportunity to kindly educate me but instead you decided to patronise. And we both know that you know your doing it

you're

Bananabixfloof · 28/06/2020 21:03

you're
This cracked me up. Huzzah.

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 28/06/2020 21:05

@Prettybluepigeons

And you had the opportunity to kindly educate me but instead you decided to patronise. And we both know that you know your doing it

you're

Grin
Please create an account

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

Posting is temporarily suspended on this thread.