Following The Science

[stuckinatrap]

Ok. So I've been down the #superstraight rabbit hole on Twitter and I keep coming across the same comments:

Things like:

'Transwomen are women. Read a science book'

And

'You are scientifically inaccurate. There are more than two biological sexes. Educate yourself'

So I'm attempting educating myself.

What is the science they are referencing? Is it just that DSDs exist (because that isn't evidence of more than 2 sexes as far as I am aware - just that things don't go according to plan sometimes) and clownfish?

Or is there a whole world of science of which I'm ignorant? (Which wouldn't be a surprise as I'm more of a humanities kind of a woman).

This is sort of following on from the whole 'Are we the baddies?' thread. If there is real scientific evidence and I'm wrong, I would like to be educated. It might change my mind.

Does anyone have the studies?

Feminised men and masculinised women certainly exist. They're generally gay. And I'm sure you could locate biological factors.

The traditional transsexual that the "T" in LGBT denoted were that group.

The "transbian" is not remotely feminine - they are hyper-masculine in behaviour. If there was a biological factor, it wouldn't pass the common sense test to think they had a "female" brain, rather than an extremely male one.

I believe Anne Lawrence(?) wrote a book with the apropos title "Men trapped in Men's Bodies".

Thanks for those links @Hibari. I'll try and have a look at them all, but I'll start with the ones which have a free link to the full text (and see if I can get the full text of the others later).

Disregarding the ones about DSDs (not what this discussion is about), the first one with a link to a free link to the full text is this one.

2018 Evidence needed to understand gender identity: Commentary on Turban & Ehrensaft (2018) - Sheri A. Berenbaum
Full text here (free access):
acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.12997

I'll start with a quick comment about Turban and Ehrensaft, referred to in the title.

Diane Ehrensaft is best known (on here, anyway) as a psychologist who thinks that babies can know they're transgender and will show this in a nonverbal way. Baby girls who pull barrettes out of their hair and baby boys who make a dress out of their onesie by undoing the fastenings are transgender. See video here:

Jack Turban has written some fairly dubious stuff on this topic. Some earlier threads which mention his work here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3999874-Most-disingenuous-claim-by-a-TRA-doctor-I-ve-seen-yet
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3978928-marcus-evans-psychiatry-sits-on-a-knife-edge

This paper is a 'commentary' about another paper, which itself is a review of the available literature. It turned out to be more interesting than I had anticipated.

The author is unconvinced that gender identity is immutable (my bold in this paragraph):

Rather than being immutable, gender identity is plastic – in both directions. Some individuals develop transgender identity in adolescence or adulthood; some, but not all, have a history of transgender identity. The majority of children with gender dysphoria desist in adolescence, although much remains to be learned about factors that differentiate children who will persist versus desist (Ristori & Steensma, 2016). Interestingly, social transition contributes to persistence, and it is unclear whether it does so by allowing children to be who they really are, or instead pushes them to assume a binary identity when they would have been happy with a nuanced cisgender identity that does not involve medical interventions.

Under 'Affirmation benefits and costs' (I've quoted most of this section, because it's just what many of us have been saying here for years):

Little is known about the long‐term costs of affirmation or the ‘medicalization’ of gender identity. Interventions to alter the body to accord with a transgender identity have significant long‐term consequences, but decisions about those interventions are made when children are in distress and when their cognitive capacities may not be fully developed. It is important to study, for example, effects of hormonal interventions on the developing brain (particularly during the sensitive period of adolescence), fertility concerns (will people regret sacrificing their fertility?), and health risks (e.g. hormonal effects on bone).

A caution about the affirmation approach arises from the tendency on the part of some people (both children and clinicians) to use gender expression or adherence to gender stereotypes as a marker of gender identity. This contrasts with the evidence that most children who are gender‐atypical in their appearance and behaviours are not transgender. Although there are clear professional guidelines for determining whether a child has gender dysphoria appropriate for affirmation, the host of writings on the topic make clear that those guidelines are not always followed, and there can be a rush to judgement for children whose behaviour is gender‐atypical.

Oddly, increased tolerance for transgender identities might be associated with reduced tolerance for non‐normative gendered presentation and activities. It does not and should not require gender change to act in gender‐atypical ways, nor does acting in gender‐atypical ways signify a need for gender transition. The assumed (but scientifically unsupported) equivalence of gender‐atypical expression and transgender identity has adverse consequences: it reduces the freedom of children to behave in ways that transcend gender roles, perpetuates the gender binary and reinforces gender stereotypes.

(My bold in last paragraph.)

An interesting paper. Thanks for posting the link.

But what is a masculine woman or a feminine man?

I wasn’t talking about the desire to use eyeliner. When we look at faces (or other sexually dimorphic aspects of the body) there will be certain characteristics that will be associated with one sex or the other. You can generally look at a person and tell which sex they are.

With some people those secondary sexual characteristics are very well developed, for other people it’s less so, and a very few are androgynous to the point where it’s difficult to tell.

If a very androgynous (or feminine-looking, relative to the male average) man transitions, he is much more likely to be mistaken for female than a man with a very masculine face. So when I mention feminine men, that’s what I mean.

I can’t tell whether it extends to certain behavioural characteristics as those are less easily categorized, but it may well do so and the possibility shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. That hormones have some effects on behaviour would appear to be true among other mammals, why not humans?

stuckinatrap, I don’t think anyone is looking for b) but those who’ve worked with a lot of children with gender dysphoria have mentioned the regularity of co-morbidity with other mental health problems, homosexuality, autistic traits and difficult family circumstances. To say that it is all physical and there is no b) seems utterly counterintuitive in the circumstances.

But nobody is supposed to say it openly at the moment as various authorities such as WHO and some US medical associations have designated “trans” as something neutral that exists and can’t be questioned.

A quick question to @Hibari about this paper which I posted about earlier.

2018 Evidence needed to understand gender identity: Commentary on Turban & Ehrensaft (2018)

In what way do you think this paper supports the statement 'transwomen are women'? It seems to me to do the opposite, by stating that gender identity isn't innate or immutable and that brain differences can't be used to support gender identity theories.

Much has been made of differences in brain structure and activation between transgender and cisgender people, but the significance of that work is unclear. Differences are found in regions with no obvious ties to gender identity. There is little work on the neural substrate of gender identity itself, and it is unclear how cortical thickness, white matter microstructure, or activation to various stimuli have conceptual relevance for gender identity. But, even if such differences are better understood, they do not necessarily reflect predetermined or innate behaviour. The brain is plastic, and changes in response to behaviour and environmental input. Brain differences between transgender and cisgender people may simply reflect (or result from) their behavioural differences and not mark a cause of their gender identity.

So it doesn't support the ladybrain narrative at all. I'd be interested in your comments about this paper, and why you selected it to support your arguments.

For argument's sake it's not difficult to imagine that the brains of female mammals are adapted so that mothers don't just leave their vulnerable young to fend for themselves.

However, most human females don't find breast feeding easy, despite all the lovely hormones you hear about in NCT classes. Also, if you go down that route you are suggesting a very heteronormative idea of child rearing, which I suspect is not the goal of the people making these arguments on twitter.

For argument's sake it's not difficult to imagine that the brains of female mammals are adapted so that mothers don't just leave their vulnerable young to fend for themselves

I thought that some species did if the offspring was weak or they had a preference for a stronger one or they needed to save themselves.

The 'science' consists of taking rare intersex conditions, pretending they're common and somehow also apply to gender non-conforming endosex people, while constantly conflating sex and gender.
Ultimately, its pretty much the same relationship that astrology has to astronomy. The deeper you dig into it, the more you'll find and the more complicated it gets, but the evidence for it is just as thin.

Oh gosh, that's a lot of replies. I'll get to this ASAP.

Skimming through the thread though, I noticed a lot of appeals to conspiracy and a visible degree of mistrust for the scientific community on display - with a couple of references to some rather dated theories. I'm not going to engage with those as, to be frank, I have better things to do and kind of burned myself out on that subject over the past year analysing COVID denial.
If you feel attacked by this statement: It suggests that you know you're arguing in bad faith and I'm sorry if something highlighting that hurts your feelings.

Also I'd like to clarify something before people waste more time on a misassumption:

In what way do you think this paper supports the statement 'transwomen are women'?
I'm not here to answer this question for you. Nor am I making arguments for or against it. Or any part of this to be perfectly honest, I'm literally just posting everything I have on the topics people seem interested in.

If there's any specific area you'd like to read, I can see what I have and share it.

In what way do you think this paper supports the statement 'transwomen are women'?

I'm not here to answer this question for you. Nor am I making arguments for or against it. Or any part of this to be perfectly honest, I'm literally just posting everything I have on the topics people seem interested in.

OK. I obviously misunderstood what your intention was. In your earlier post you said:

Moving away from DSD/Intersex stuff and back to the quote from your original post "Trans Women are Women. Read a science book."

This is pretty vague but let's go with a Biological Basis (again, limiting to post-2018 studies to avoid more spam):

So I assumed that the papers you provided links to were to back up the 'biological basis' for 'transwomen are women'.

I'm not sure that posting 'everything you have on the topics people seem interested in' in the form of links to papers is particularly helpful to a discussion if you are not prepared to discuss any of it. Do any of the other papers support the 'biological basis' for the statement 'transwomen are women'? Or were none of them supposed to do that? What point are you trying to make with those links?

If there's any specific area you'd like to read, I can see what I have and share it.

I haven't finished looking at the last lot yet (it's been a nice afternoon here and I've been out in the garden). I'm perfectly capable of doing my own searches for specific areas I'm interested in, but I don't understand why you're just posting links but not wishing to discuss them. What did you find particularly interesting or relevant to the present discussion in the papers you linked to?

I'm literally just posting everything I have on the topics people seem interested in.

Which is not making an argument in good faith.

I think the problem with any information you post will be that, in the context of the wider debate about rights and self ID, it is of no practical use because the concept of ‘acceptance without exception’ is not scientifically quantifiable.

With regards the long post of links, I clicked on the first one that wasn't about DSDs, and the summary at the top of the article concluded:
However, no genetic loci or specific neuroanatomic regions have been consistently identified as the single explanation for transgender identity. Although environment may play a role in gender expression, there are no data to suggest an exogenous explanation for the development of gender identity.

That's pretty much 'we have no data either way' so I'm not convinced the poster has read them either if this is the evidence for it.

I'm not here to answer this question for you. Nor am I making arguments for or against it. Or any part of this to be perfectly honest, I'm literally just posting everything I have on the topics people seem interested in.

I think we'd rather discuss the science and why individual studies provide a robust evidence base than just get directed to a lot of links. It's quite patronising "educate yourself" rhetoric. What exactly do you think this adds to a discussion between a group of intelligent people?

@NiceGerbil

'I know that a lot of studies have tried to pinpoint the cause of homosexuality, but nothing conclusive has ever been proven yet'

This goes back to my earlier point about groups being studied.

Yes scientists are inquisitive. But there has always seemed to be a disproportionate interest in looking at why people are are perceived to be lesser or aberrant are the subjects. I mean it's couched in different terms now but comes down to the same thing.

If they found a gene for homosexuality. Or proof that women's brains were naturally dominated by emotion and worse at logic. What would be done with that information?

Well the first would mean some regimes testing for the gene somehow and eliminating those babies. Whether through social pressure or more overt means.

The second would be used to explain why it's natural that women are paid less, expected to do the caring, etc etc

The current push is to prove that men can be women 'inside'. Where will that lead us?

Other point is the brain is plastic and it's hard to impossible to separate nature/ nurture.

And I suspect most trans people wouldn't want there to be a definitive test to show if you are trans or not.

I find this quest to find differences between male and female brains worrying for women for the reasons you mention, and self-defeating for people who believe in 'female brains in male bodies.'

The reason it is self-defeating is this. If there is a trait which scientists believe is present only in female brains and not in male brains, but then discover that it can also be found in men's brains, it doesn't mean that those men have female brains, it means that the theory that the trait was only found in female brains was incorrect, and that it can also be found in male brains.

In other words, if you find what appears to be a 'female' brain in a male body, it is not a female brain, so your ideas about what makes a brain female need to be adjusted.

I understand that it is impossible to tell with 100% certaintly whether a brain comes from a male or female body, because there is enough overlap between the traits of male and female brains to make it only 'more likely' that it is one sex or the other. There is nothing in the brain which is as definitive as the reproductive system for splitting people into male and female categories.

This all reminds me of a book from the 90s, 'The Bell Curve'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

There was some controversy about it because the authors appeared to suggest that there were differences in the brains of different ethnic groups. The racist implications are obvious, and I don't understand why looking for differences between male and female brains isn't viewed in a similar way.

For anyone interested in a book that actually discusses the science, I recommend Pink Brain Blue Brain by neuroscientist Lise Eliot which discusses the wide variety of research on the subject.
If you want a tldr, then it pretty much shows that underlying differences between male and female brains are pretty minute at birth and not at all relevant when variation between individuals are taken into account. Most differences seen in adults (also a massive variation in individuals) are due to children's brains being malleable and how they are socialised and brought up. There is no such thing as an innately female brain.

Skimming through the thread though, I noticed a lot of appeals to conspiracy and a visible degree of mistrust for the scientific community on display - with a couple of references to some rather dated theories.

This is pretty damning, and it's not what I've noticed on this thread. What examples have you seen of 'appeals to conspiracy' and 'mistrust for the scientific community'? And which theories do you consider to be 'dated'?

@merrymouse

I'm literally just posting everything I have on the topics people seem interested in.

Which is not making an argument in good faith.

I think the problem with any information you post will be that, in the context of the wider debate about rights and self ID, it is of no practical use because the concept of ‘acceptance without exception’ is not scientifically quantifiable.

I'm not making any arguements.

Skimming through the thread though, I noticed a lot of appeals to conspiracy and a visible degree of mistrust for the scientific community on display - with a couple of references to some rather dated theories.

Oh dear. I too would like to know what you consider outdated theories?

@OldCrone

Skimming through the thread though, I noticed a lot of appeals to conspiracy and a visible degree of mistrust for the scientific community on display - with a couple of references to some rather dated theories.

This is pretty damning, and it's not what I've noticed on this thread. What examples have you seen of 'appeals to conspiracy' and 'mistrust for the scientific community'? And which theories do you consider to be 'dated'?

Tenth post in the thread alleges that areas of study have been "captured." This is an attempt to discredit by way of appeal to conspiracy and is a pretty commonly used tactic amongst anti-vaxxers.

Second page of the thread, poster mentioned "AGP" which is a dated theory to say the least.
Honestly implying it had any validity at the time of penning gives Blanchard too much credit.

I'll freely admit, I'm a little biased on this one as I hate poorly done/biased research.

As to What point are you trying to make with those links?
None, like I said...I got told someone asked to read science about Trans stuff. So I shared a bunch of recent studies.
My only agenda is to share. Why are so many assuming that I'm here to fight?

The plasticity of the brain is pretty well accepted AFAIK.

The black bad drivers thing was the first thing that I heard about it.

It seems to me that we have gone from:

A lot of studies into male and female brains looking to confirm the result that men are innately better at xyz and women are innately better at ABC (always looking to support the existing assumptions, and with the background that supposed 'male traits' are more valuable/ desirable than female ones.

Now we have efforts to prove that some male brains are similar to/ the same as women's in certain ways, to prove that some males think/ feel like women. This also as a side effect implies that across the female sex there are certain traits/ modes of thought etc which can be classified as classified as female and males don't really have...

Which takes us back to square one doesn't it? Women and men have different brains (in areas which make a difference in measurable ways- ways of thinking, preferences etc etc) and as already pointed out this is not good for women or girls.

There have also been a lot of studies to show that where differences (in spatial awareness etc) seem to occur, there are arguments that point to them being nature rather than nurture.

We know so little of how the human brain works. We really still don't understand at all the differences in how different people perceive the world. Things like synatheasthia, aphantasia are not really understood. And it's hard to study them as the language to discuss them isn't there.

I think trying to understand that sort of thing will do way more for humans than this constant effort to prove things that are already concluded by society eg men are better at logic, women are more collaborative, men have more 'extreme' brains so there are more male geniuses than women, and of course that some physically fully functional healthy men are actually female because of something in their brain.

Especially when the being female stuff is fundamentally down to our bodies, and the oppression we face and the reason we have various protections is because of our bodies, not because of our brains.

AGP is when someone gets aroused at the idea of themselves as the opposite sex and sometimes manifests in dressing in the clothes (often underwear) of the opposite sex isn't it?

We all know there are men who like putting on frilly knickers and having a wank, surely? And I believe that something called study sissy porn as well which is about taking the 'woman's role' in sex presumably complete with lingerie etc.

Or have I missed something?

Hibari

Could you break down in your own words why you feel autogynephilia is discredited as a theory about gender identity? As pp said, the existence of males meeting the description is difficult to deny.

You are scientifically inaccurate. There are more than two biological sexes. Educate yourself

Translation-

I have no proof and cannot back my statements up with peer reviewed science. Therefore I am pretending there is and sending you away to look for it, chances are you won’t be bothered, or can’t find it because you are also not a scientist and the world of peer reviewed papers might as well be written in greek.

So therefore you will believe me as I am presenting as if I know what I’m talking about and you cannot prove me wrong (as the evidence doesn’t exist).

I like the pp hypothesis that trans will be shown to be a sociological disease rather than a biological one:
“ b) the belief/strong feeling you should have been the opposite sex is a result of crossed-wires in the socialisation process”

I'm not sure it is really related to gender identity tbh.

It is and has always been a fetish. That's what cross dressing means, I always understood.

Why stonewall put cross dressers under the umbrella is beyond me.

That's a good point, but as you say it's lumped into a gender identity category which is an issue in itself.

I really think that the whole crossover with the furry stuff, cross dressing fetishists, the defence of rubber wanky man at the nspcc is an odd way to go.

Gay men and lesbians fought a big fight to counter the view of much of society that they were 'perverts'. This all seems to set that back and I can't see how it's of any benefit to trans people who are just trying to get on with life. To be put in a category with cross dressers.

I don't get it at all. I mean I do (queer theory) - boundaries are bad and should be subverted. But why? I've never got the hang of that bit of the theory.