Can someone please explain... (trans)

[WednesdayAllTheWay]

So I've been trying to follow this trans situation for a while but now having skin in the game in the form of a child (and also noting through work how more and more people are identifying as the opposite gender) I need to understand it better.
Feel slightly embarrassed asking but:

1. How exactly do the words sex and gender differ in this area?
2. What reasons do trans people give for wanting to change their physical bodies? As in what do people believe they will get from this that they couldn't get in the body they were born with?
3. What are children being taught at school about this?

Thanks!

Being trans is a disorder of sex development.

Being "trans" is a meaningless umbrella term which covers everyone on earth in the way its defined by some people, so no.

If some science students and self interested doctors with an eye on the cash make false pronouncements in their blogs based on cherry picking unconvincing evidence that doesn't live up to the claims made, well, it's not the only pseudoscience ever supported by some scientists.

Most of your arguments are based on the notion that sex is a simple binary purely defined by gametes. It isn't - they are just one of thousands of sex characteristics. Having said that, some of you seem to prioritise gonads rather than gametes whilst others prioritise chromosomes. But that's the point, there are many sex characteristics and the particular ones we use when trying to fit a person into the artificial binary that our culture has constructed vary. You use the above, I prioritise gender identity above all of those.

DSDs are relatively uncommon differences of sexual development.

I've quoted two bits of your long post @Positrans, because the second quote gives important context to the first one.

You have said that you understand that DSDs are uncommon. This means that the vast majority of people are unambiguously male or female at birth, with matching chromosomes of XX for female and XY for male. This is not an 'artificial binary', it's the way the animal kingdom for mammals (including humans) is categorised.

Male and female. It's how we reproduce.

Yes, there are people who don't fit comfortably into 'male, XY chromosomes, full, functional male reproductive system' or 'female, XX chromosomes, full, functional female reproductive system'. But just as the existence of people born with only one leg doesn't mean that humans are not a bipedal species, these people with DSDs do not prove that humans are not a species where there are two and only two sexes.

Why would anyone prioritise 'gender identity' above all this? 'Gender identity', a term which has no definition. There is no evidence that anyone has a 'gender identity', apart from the assertions of some activists such as yourself, and it cannot be objectively observed. Why would you prioritise this meaningless term over the reality of biological sex?

I always get lost in the whole spectrum and complex thing of sex and gender identity which is then followed by a statement that they transitioned from one end of the 'spectrum' to the other. That already suggests it is binary even in their own line of thinking.

It does, doesn't it. Good point.

In a general sense, might I just note that it is typically men who have the energy, time and will to be internet trolls.

but let me say yet again

You can say it as many times as you like. It isn't convincing to me, and I doubt most other people on this thread. This is why I love Mumsnet, because we get to draw out these bizarre ideas for bystanders to see in a way that isn't so easy to do in other social media.

@sanluca

I always get lost in the whole spectrum and complex thing of sex and gender identity which is then followed by a statement that they transitioned from one end of the 'spectrum' to the other. That already suggests it is binary even in their own line of thinking.

The other complete gobbledygook is that gender identity is something scientifically proven and reliable when no one can clearly state an objective and externally verifiable definition and measurement for what constitutes a gender identity. It is like trying to define what it means to be happy. Because being happy is so personal and impossible to compare, that when measuring where children are most happy, they measure verifiable stats like education, availability of playgrounds, after school activities, mental health support etc etc. Because being happy, like your gender identity, is an internal state of mind. You cannot legalise based on a state of mind.

You can say the same about depression. However, doctors recognise it as real, diagnose it on the basis of the patient describing how they feel, and they have a range of treatments available for it including surgery in some cases (deep brain stimulation).

you see there is no point making reasoned, logical arguments, apart from for lurkers to read.

Male and female. It's how we reproduce.

It really is that simple. Whether we can reproduce, or we want to, every human being alive depended on female and male gametes fusing. There is no third gamete, and no third sex.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

but let me say yet again

You can say it as many times as you like. It isn't convincing to me, and I doubt most other people on this thread. This is why I love Mumsnet, because we get to draw out these bizarre ideas for bystanders to see in a way that isn't so easy to do in other social media.

"Sex is real" is a bizarre idea. I'm not sure everyone here will agree with you on that.

I always wonder why male-born people who are so desperate to be women, are very reluctant actually to listen to women, and learn from them.

It's an interesting question.

It is a very, very low thing to do to bring depression into this discussion, particularly given the callous way suicidality is used by activists.

"Sex is real" is a bizarre idea.

Now you really are trolling.

How do you think you were conceived and gestated and birthed? It was through dimorphic sexual reproduction, through the sexed bodies of your parents. At the foundation: the uniting of an egg (produced by a body making large gametes) and a sperm (produced by a body making small gametes).

You need to learn the difference between sex and gender if you want to have credibility in this sort of discussion. You would profit from actually reading the posts on this thread, reflecting on them, and learning from them.

@Alethiometrical

Most of your arguments are based on the notion that sex is a simple binary purely defined by gametes. It isn't - they are just one of thousands of sex characteristics.

They're called " secondary sex characteristics." For a reason.

But I think Positrans is basically trolling. Not listening.

I always wonder why male-born people who are so desperate to be women, are very reluctant actually to listen to women, and learn from them.

Everything Positrans has said in this thread really makes me suspect that they have a deep mental health issue.

And you also see in action, the problems of the ideology of the Cartesian mind/body split. The denial of the material reality of the body, and the insistence that an idea (I'd call it a 'category error' actually) transcends that material reality.

I think that women, whose bodies do things without any thought or bidding from our minds, are far less likely to assume that we can live through mind, over material reality. Interestingly, the bodily functions over which we have minimal control (menstruation, specifically) are to do with our biological, evolutionary role as large gamete carriers. Everything else is secondary.

Not agreeing with you isn't the same as not listening to you.

Here come the ad hominems as usual - now I'm a mentally ill, male, troll when all I actually am is a woman, politely arguing her case.

"I always wonder why male-born people who are so desperate to be women, are very reluctant actually to listen to women, and learn from them."

@Alethiometrical this is it exactly.

Scientists don't agree with you on gender identity being purely a social construct. Nor do I.

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

I replied to your earlier post about this statement here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4104554-Can-someone-please-explain-trans?msgid=102653462#102653462

This is the reference for the part of the statement you quoted: Saraswat A, et al. Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. Endocr Pract. 2015 Feb;21(2): 199-204.

This paper concludes: "Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity."

What this means (since you don't seem to understand it) is that scientists have not found any proof that gender identity has a biological origin.

@Alethiometrical

"Sex is real" is a bizarre idea.

Now you really are trolling.

How do you think you were conceived and gestated and birthed? It was through dimorphic sexual reproduction, through the sexed bodies of your parents. At the foundation: the uniting of an egg (produced by a body making large gametes) and a sperm (produced by a body making small gametes).

You need to learn the difference between sex and gender if you want to have credibility in this sort of discussion. You would profit from actually reading the posts on this thread, reflecting on them, and learning from them.

My apologies - typo. It should read "Sex is real is a bizarre idea?" But you can verify this by scrolling up to my previous post where I openly state that sex is real.

"Sex is real" is a bizarre idea. I'm not sure everyone here will agree with you on that.

Do you remember that you are on a parenting forum? Sex is real. You just admitted though that you prioritise 'gender' because that suits the way 'you' define yourself. I notice that you have also denigrated any other trans person who does not agree with your wholly 'genderised' and pseudoscientific point of view.

There is a wide spread to the beliefs held by transpeople. As wide a spread as held by the population as a whole. But you are currently on a parenting forum with millions and millions of readers who absolutely know that sex is binary in that there is only two.

I doubt the veracity of your statement completely.

Once again - it is only people who are privileged who have the inclination to spend time in a forum where they imagine themselves to be ill-treated.

I fully agree with comments people have made, but do report any posts you personally think are goady trolling rather than call them out on the thread, as trollhunting not allowed.

Being trans is a disorder of sex development.

That's a new one. I thought it was a 'condition' that is neither a mental health condition nor a physical health condition, but nevertheless requires major, irreversible medical interventions. (But only in children - adult males are free to have a female penis).

Once again - it is only people who are privileged who have the inclination to spend time in a forum where they imagine themselves to be ill-treated.

I completely agree. It's an odd way to spend precious time.

@OldCrone

Scientists don't agree with you on gender identity being purely a social construct. Nor do I.

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

I replied to your earlier post about this statement here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4104554-Can-someone-please-explain-trans?msgid=102653462#102653462

This is the reference for the part of the statement you quoted: Saraswat A, et al. Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. Endocr Pract. 2015 Feb;21(2): 199-204.

This paper concludes: "Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity."

What this means (since you don't seem to understand it) is that scientists have not found any proof that gender identity has a biological origin.

That's only one of the papers linked to on one summary. And you have missed the actual conclusion drawn by that particular study's authors:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25667367/

"Conclusions: Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity. "

You can say the same about depression. However, doctors recognise it as real, diagnose it on the basis of the patient describing how they feel, and they have a range of treatments available for it including surgery in some cases (deep brain stimulation).

But we don't legalise based on having depression, do we? It is not a protected characteristic like sex is. So again, if gender identity is to replace sex as the grounds for sport categories, changing rooms, wards, grounds for challenging discrimination etc, you need a clear verifiable definition. Which doesn't exist. Your gender identity is only 'grounded in reality' for you, but for no one else because we can't see or verify your gender identity.

@OldCrone

Being trans is a disorder of sex development.

That's a new one. I thought it was a 'condition' that is neither a mental health condition nor a physical health condition, but nevertheless requires major, irreversible medical interventions. (But only in children - adult males are free to have a female penis).

It's a physical condition that typically leads to mental health problems, as do many physical conditions.