Can we have a 'back-to-basics' thread about trans issue please?

[Aspiringmatriarch]

I hope it's ok to start a thread potentially covering a lot of well-trodden ground on FWR which is probably therefore a bit tedious, but I lurk and read a huge amount on here (and more widely) and I've struggled to come to firm conclusions. My sympathies are more on the 'GC' side which seems pretty common sense to me, but then I step outside this forum and obviously there is a whole different perspective and in fact contradictory information being presented. So I'm left wondering who has what agenda, how reliable all the research and polls and statistics etc actually are, and what to make of it all really.

An example - I've seen posts on here that the widely cited statistics about suicide attempts in young people who are trans or have gender dysphoria, are basically false and scaremongering parents into a medical pathway. Could anyone point me towards information about this?

I see the word ideology bandied about a lot online - 'trans ideology' obviously but also another 'T' ideology I won't post on here (hopefully that's clear!) So essentially there are two competing claims that the other side are antiscience, dogmatic, advancing a quasi-religious belief rather than material reality. As a non-scientist I feel at a disadvantage wading through all the literature as I can't really know if what I'm reading has much good science behind it.

An example - the pink brain/blue brain stuff. I don't feel I have a 'lady brain' and would certainly reject the terminology, but I believe it's the case that there are certain structural differences between male and female brains. Has this been debunked or is it irrelevant to the trans issue? And what's the evidence for the role of hormones in utero? It sounds potentially credible to me but I know gets short shrift on here because it sounds dangerously close to saying women can't do x y z or are 'naturally better' at doing all the low status boring stuff. Which I disagree with obviously but there is some evidence for certain strengths/ areas of interest on average isn't there? Possibly I'm dragging in a whole separate issue but it comes up in the trans discussion as the argument is presumably that trans people are just gnc and have bought into the idea that they're in the wrong body somehow. So the idea of having a gender identity is just sexism. I kind of get that but I'm not sure if explains the dysphoria aspect and things like brain scans showing similar activity in mtf trans and female subjects. I know the concept of being trans has moved away from dysphoria anyway, which leaves me even more perplexed.

I actually have far too many questions for an already overly long post, and a lot more on the political side of things (GRA reform, Keira Bell case etc) but if anyone feels inclined to respond I'd really appreciate it!

Yes indeed. If, as Hiberi thinks, the word woman doesn't relate to biology, the the categories will be 'people with a vagina' for what we call women and 'people with a penis' or people with a neovagina' for transwomen.

It will.

@EdgeOfACoin I just want to record my thanks for that video link.

You're welcome, HopeClearwater. It is an excellent and sobering documentary. I recommend watching all four parts.

This is important, it was linked on an another thread and I've just read it. A thorough investigation by a trans person into the trans murder figures, which are often touted as indicative of an epidemic of transphobic violence and used to justify silencing and dismissing women's concerns:

www.queermajority.com/currents/tdor-trans-death-and-trans-life

Why aren't they asking why? Why are there so many children with gender dysphoria? What's causing it? If the doctors are the end point, and are just reacting to demand, who, exactly, is telling these youngsters that accessing irreversible medical treatment is the answer to their dreams?

Very much this ^^ Especially in our own circumstances.

But I think this issue needs to be approached from 2 sides - the teenagers suffering from gender dysphoria, their belief that medical and surgical intervention is the cure; the adults (mostly mtf as far as I can see) who transition and do not embrace surgical intervention or even cross sex hormones in some cases.

For me, those 2 groups are possibly motivated by very different issues. Or maybe 10 or 20 years ago, in a different time, those adults would also have been reaching for puberty blockers and elective surgeries? Who knows.

The impact on women's rights though is the same, we need our words and spaces.

Definitely agree that phrases like 'people with a vagina' are dehumanising and just sound ridiculous. I don't see them used in a huge number of instances (actually, only ever when it's been pointed out in the media) but it's troubling and offensive. However - isn't this meant to make the language inclusive to trans men? If we as feminists want to include all female people then is there an argument for using this language in certain specific contexts?

For me, 3rd spaces makes sense as a way to ensure the safety of everyone but the problem is they won't be properly funded and provided, will they? And obviously anyone using them would run the risk of being outed as trans which has implications for their safety (and again this would include trans men). So I'm not sure it's a panacea, if indeed there is such a solution to be found. Maybe in future there will be a move towards individual, secure gender-neutral cubicle (ie with proper walls and doors) but that doesn't help with the here and now.

To a certain extent that may just be my personality as I tend to see all sides of things and find it hard to come down on a side.

I feel the same, and have come to realise that a key tactic of the TRAs is to send out the message that there are only 2 options in this debate- you are either pro trans rights (which means agreeing that TWAW for all purposes and based on self ID) or transphobic.

The resources etc on here have been really helpful to me in unpicking this. It is perfectly possible to be support both trans rights and women's rights- but to do so you first need to acknowledge that they are not the same.

I have several Transwomen friends and am still totally puzzled by it all. All of them were 'men' for a large part of their lives, and now seem to view their own 'womanhood' in terms of equality and being 'feminine'. Most of the time this doesn't really bother me, but I am left puzzled.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an exclusively 'female' brain. No-one has been able to explain to me exactly how such a thing could be defined. I certainly don't think it's to do with nurturing or liking pink! Indeed, I share many of the so-called 'male' characteristics e.g. spatial and technical skills, etc., but I still consider myself as a woman, because that's how society has treated me. I'm old enough to remember actual legal discrimination on the basis that I have different body parts. .

My real worry is that this polarisation is setting equality backward, as the focus moves further towards differentiation on the basis of perceived differences. Surely, the key to equality is treating everyone as uniquely themselves, without discriminating on the basis of different body parts or feelings? The only exception being where physically weaker humans (mostly natal women) are at physical risk from larger and angrier males.

'However - isn't this meant to make the language inclusive to trans men? If we as feminists want to include all female people then is there an argument for using this language in certain specific contexts?'

You cannot assume the gender of anyone.

So if it's eg people with vaginas who are being subject to a thing, you can't say women (as that includes transwomen) and you can't say women and trans men for the same reason. Cis women, trans men and non binary people who are female (actually I don't think you could say that last bit) would be no good as you can't assume all the females who aren't trans men or non binary are cis.

So in any situation where you are referring to cunty people (usage started years ago as a tongue in cheek point) you would need to use people with vaginas (which is ironically not that far from calling us cunty people).

Hibari answered the question clearly.

The use of people with vaginas sometimes and women (but meaning people with vaginas) other times by the same orgs makes me really angry.

Where is the clarity and consistency? People are expected to assume what sort of women are being referred to by the context which means different people will take different meanings from the same text.

So no people with vaginas and yes we need words to replace female woman girl if they now include people with penises which they seem to.

I can also recommend the "Gender : A Wider Lens" podcast with Stella O'Malley and Sasha Ayad.

It's a really interesting discussion on the whole issue from a psychological point of view, with some interesting interviews as well.

@muckyhoover

To a certain extent that may just be my personality as I tend to see all sides of things and find it hard to come down on a side.

I feel the same, and have come to realise that a key tactic of the TRAs is to send out the message that there are only 2 options in this debate- you are either pro trans rights (which means agreeing that TWAW for all purposes and based on self ID) or transphobic.

The resources etc on here have been really helpful to me in unpicking this. It is perfectly possible to be support both trans rights and women's rights- but to do so you first need to acknowledge that they are not the same.

muckyhoover wrt trans and women's rights that puts into words my thinking thus far. And you're right that it's not helpful to shut down discussion by calling everything short of total agreement transphobic.

The resources etc on here have been really helpful to me in unpicking this. It is perfectly possible to be support both trans rights and women's rights- but to do so you first need to acknowledge that they are not the same.

That style of 'all or nothing' posting comes across with some posters. I think it comes from a very loose definition of transphobia. If acknowledging that there is a conflict where rights impact is deemed phobic, it is very easy to paint anyone who is asking for discussion and compromise as being hateful. Therefore, posters can easily discredit anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree. There is no room for nuance.

Many posters on this board want to uphold the rights of women and children against these negative impacts. They don't come at it from the aspect of hate, which is the activist narrative.

Unfortunately for those posters who believe it is 'all or nothing', lurkers on this board are probably already understanding that there is a great deal of nuance and that 'all or nothing', sniping posts that don't add points to make others think or offer clarity, really don't have the influence they expect.

Quite the opposite.

OP, on a recent thread I was genuinely told I was part of a 'science-denying cult' for pointing out that transgirls are biologically male.

The post was deleted, just as it would have been if I had told a trans rights activist that they were part of a science-denying cult (note: I have never made such an accusation) but it still happened. There are probably sufficient posts around it to attest to the context.

Anyway, this is where we are - describing a person with xy chromosomes, penis and testes as biologically 'male' is now held up as an example of denying science.

And yet the science on which trans ideology is based is...well...patchy at best.

So if gender identity does not = a female or male brain, as there isn't a recognisably different male or female brain, then it's obviously something different. And this is where I get completely lost because clearly for some people there is a really strong sense of internal gender identity and there is simultaneously this idea that actually it's nothing to do with stereotypically masculine or feminine attributes/ likes.
So it's not:

• A physical difference in the brain if the human brain can't be said to be sexually dimorphic.
• identifying with things society sees as being for the other sex/ gender

But it still exists for some people to the extent that they feel it throughout their lives, and seems to occur in different cultures (and in history, although to what extent is hard to gauge given there could be practical reasons for needing to pass as the opposite sex). So it must be something. My default position isn't to say that it's all bollocks but I feel a bit like I used to in maths lessons - like there's something (that I don't have) that makes it make sense to some people. I realise that example is a very stereotypically gendered one!

I realise that example is a very stereotypically gendered one!

I think you're thinking about this too logically, Aspiringmatriarch.

I think that means you've got a male gender identity.

Proper ladybrains would go "ooh, poor people with the wrong brain in the right body" (or right brain in the wrong body?) and wear something rainbowy in support.

If you can get someone to explain what a gender identity is without reference to gendered behaviour and in more specific terms than' it's innate and subjective', I'll be really impressed.

NiceGerbil thank you for the explanation.
Where is the clarity and consistency? People are expected to assume what sort of women are being referred to by the context which means different people will take different meanings from the same text.
I would say this is quite normal - to use different words depending on context.
E.g. expectant mothers, pregnant women. Both mean the same and would be easily understood. However, neither sounds weird which 'people with vaginas' does to me - as if you're carrying it around like a handbag or something. Or maybe you keep it as a pet. Apart from being reduced to genitals, it doesn't even sound like it's really part of you.

A gender identity is apparently a feeling. An inner sense.

I don't have one. I can accept others feel they have one.

I don't accept we can legislate or base policy on this indefinable, unquantifiable inner sense.

I think OP, it is also important to try to get your head around the fact that there is a significant issue where someone feels that they are NOT the sex there body is, but the only alternative is the opposite sex. So, there is going to be those who are pressured into identifying as the opposite sex because of limited options.

Those who then talk about gender identity also seem to miss that there seems to be lots of other gender options, but seem to focus on either woman or man.

It is hard in my mind to reconcile this. If identify as having a gender identity, why as something that is biologically based and that you will clearly not be able to become, just simulate via drugs and surgery when there are other options. That is part of the dissonance I feel.

why as something that is biologically based and that you will clearly not be able to become, just simulate via drugs and surgery when there are other options. That is part of the dissonance I feel.

Do you mean why medically transition? Isn't that part of the issue that people can then identify into something without going through anything we'd recognise as a transition? If you mean, why not just accept that we may have different gender identities and that's valid but when it comes to legal or medical issues it goes back to your basic biology - that makes sense to me. But obviously wouldn't alleviate dysphoria and may cause other problems.

I always find it interesting that misgendering someone is 'literal violence' and in some countries, a hate crime.

But denying women the correct definition of the word 'woman' and insisting they're all cis (especially when so many of us do not have a gender identity) is not only acceptable but necessary.

The power of words only works in one direction, it seems.

'. expectant mothers, pregnant women'

Yes I get that.

In this case though women sometimes means people with vaginas (which is the common use in society) and sometimes means people with vaginas and people with penises. Which are totally different and most readers do not ever read the second when they read women.

@Aspiringmatriarch

I hope it's ok to start a thread potentially covering a lot of well-trodden ground on FWR which is probably therefore a bit tedious, but I lurk and read a huge amount on here (and more widely) and I've struggled to come to firm conclusions. My sympathies are more on the 'GC' side which seems pretty common sense to me, but then I step outside this forum and obviously there is a whole different perspective and in fact contradictory information being presented. So I'm left wondering who has what agenda, how reliable all the research and polls and statistics etc actually are, and what to make of it all really.

An example - I've seen posts on here that the widely cited statistics about suicide attempts in young people who are trans or have gender dysphoria, are basically false and scaremongering parents into a medical pathway. Could anyone point me towards information about this?

I see the word ideology bandied about a lot online - 'trans ideology' obviously but also another 'T' ideology I won't post on here (hopefully that's clear!) So essentially there are two competing claims that the other side are antiscience, dogmatic, advancing a quasi-religious belief rather than material reality. As a non-scientist I feel at a disadvantage wading through all the literature as I can't really know if what I'm reading has much good science behind it.

An example - the pink brain/blue brain stuff. I don't feel I have a 'lady brain' and would certainly reject the terminology, but I believe it's the case that there are certain structural differences between male and female brains. Has this been debunked or is it irrelevant to the trans issue? And what's the evidence for the role of hormones in utero? It sounds potentially credible to me but I know gets short shrift on here because it sounds dangerously close to saying women can't do x y z or are 'naturally better' at doing all the low status boring stuff. Which I disagree with obviously but there is some evidence for certain strengths/ areas of interest on average isn't there? Possibly I'm dragging in a whole separate issue but it comes up in the trans discussion as the argument is presumably that trans people are just gnc and have bought into the idea that they're in the wrong body somehow. So the idea of having a gender identity is just sexism. I kind of get that but I'm not sure if explains the dysphoria aspect and things like brain scans showing similar activity in mtf trans and female subjects. I know the concept of being trans has moved away from dysphoria anyway, which leaves me even more perplexed.

I actually have far too many questions for an already overly long post, and a lot more on the political side of things (GRA reform, Keira Bell case etc) but if anyone feels inclined to respond I'd really appreciate it!

This covers it from a medical perspective: www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin/article/sex-gender-and-gender-identity-a-reevaluation-of-the-evidence/76A3DC54F3BD91E8D631B93397698B1A

I don't think anyone's mentioned one of the seminal presentations on the subject:

That's looking at the philosophical end, which I think is necessary as the discussion has come unmoored from the actual medical reality - mental health issues, diagnosies of dysphoria, how to treat that - and is now in the metaphysical realm of "gender identity" (or "lady brain"). And it no longer makes sense as a result.

Or maybe 10 or 20 years ago, in a different time, those adults would also have been reaching for puberty blockers and elective surgeries

They’d have linked their inner unease to another cause and requested Prozac.