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!

@OldCrone

They are referencing this paper:

They are actually referencing their own experience.

gids.nhs.uk/parents-and-carers#im-worried-that-my-child-may-harm-themselves

There have been FOIs which showed that the number of children referred to GIDS who have attempted suicide is extremely small.

And clinicians have also confirmed this independently.

Certainly mental health is a huge issue.

I am rather literal and logical.

The arguments around this are circular, illogical, contradictory etc. Makes me twitch. Before the stuff about prisons etc is even near.

A while ago someone said that when people say TWAW it's not generally that they think they are literally of the female sex. It's that they've changed the definition of women in their head. That made sense to me.

We seem to be losing female as well. As predicted a few years back.

Give an inch etc.

Trans women aren't males though.

That's all you need to know.

That's the gender argument, the gender ideology, the logic, the reality denial.

Right there. That's it.

"recognised medical condition with a range of biological markers,"
What are the biological markers for being trans?
I thought it wasn't a medical condition?
So confusing.

Saying it's a medical condition is generally seen as transphobic.

So that's interesting.

Of course many people have different views but I think that saying transwomen are not male is a fairly strong stance so I'm surprised to see the medical condition comment.

@Datun

Trans women aren't males though.

That's all you need to know.

That's the gender argument, the gender ideology, the logic, the reality denial.

Right there. That's it.

Exactly. Why would any woman trust information from a source that denies reality itself? It would be like trusting Qanon.

Maleness is what distinguishes transwomen from every woman on earth, and is the characteristic shared with men. It is not possible to be a transwomen without being male.

'What are the biological markers for being trans?'

Presumably a niche study of a small part of the brain or something which is ??? or similar. Maybe something to do with clownfish.

The really fucking obvious biological markers that I'm sure humans have recognised since the first few evolved, and I'm pretty sure all mammals understand are of course trivial

Cock, balls, semen

Vs

Vagina, breasts to feed young milk, pregnancy and birth

These differences are not important, biologically essentialist, possibly fetishistic and have no effect of the lives of human beings at all and never have.

Simple.

Above post shows your understanding of the issue only comes through the "GC" lens.

So tell us why transwomen are not male then please. You said it was biological so interested to hear.

While you're back can you comment on the people with vaginas submitted to systematic rape approach to news etc please.

So tell us the "biological markers" from the not gc point of view?
Gender critical is critical of gender.
Which is not biological, gender is a social construct.
If there is a biological point I'm missing please enlighten me rather than making snarky non points.
What are the biological markers that can diagnose a trans identity?
If there is one maybe you should inform the tavi?

And why should they supercede physical sex?

Single sex stuff is because of our bodies.

What is the reason for switching it to be about internal feelings?

Personally I am happy to accept that some have this internal feeling. Even though I don't.

What I don't understand is why internal identity supercedes bodies when that is why things are single sex.

And another question.

People with penises attack, bully etc other people with penises a lot.

Why is there no push to get people with penises to stop being so awful to other people with penises, in general?

Why is that not an aim? It would help way more people.

Above post shows your understanding of the issue only comes through the "GC" lens.

Do enlighten us with the science, Hibari.

And why should they supercede physical sex?

Single sex stuff is because of our bodies.

What is the reason for switching it to be about internal feelings?

Personally I am happy to accept that some have this internal feeling. Even though I don't.

What I don't understand is why internal identity supercedes bodies when that is why things are single sex.

Me neither. What is the rationale for this, please?

I'm still trying to figure out how much of the clash between women's and trans rights is real and how much manufactured and don't want to fall into the trap of 'punching down' at another vulnerable group.

I can understand you feel conflicted. Most people want to accommodate the assimilation of trans people into every aspect of normal life.

The reason this board can seem quite hostile is because their is no nuanced discussion about this with government or lobby groups.

It seems you give an inch and it becomes justification to take a mile.
So as my mother always used to say 'the short answer is no'.

Its also not my right to facilitate the removal of other women's rights and say 'I think they should be allowed access to women's toilets'.

When the gov and lobby groups wish to reasonably discuss the long answer then I am sure the resolution will be gender neutral spaces. Women who are ok with it can use them and those that arent dont have to. Thats it really - its not 'othering'. Its quite a convenient space to have for all people for an endless array of reasons.

How can a transwoman not be male? A transwoman is someone who was literally born male. If a transwoman stops taking cross-sex hormones, the original male hormones will begin to reassert themselves.

What do the words 'male' and 'female' mean when they are no longer biological descriptors?

Since the word woman has lost all meaning, the most informative mantra would be “transwomen are not people with vaginas”. Would this be acceptable, do you think? Do you think this would go down well on Twitter as a reply to TWAW? It should, since it’s not supposed to be reductive or offensive at all.

*Cock, balls, semen

Vs

Vagina, breasts to feed young milk, pregnancy and birth*

Lolol at the above being 'through the gc lense' do you know any people? Do you know any animals? Are you aware of farming? Are you aware of childbirth?
If me (a woman) and a transwoman have sex, who is at risk of pregnancy? Who would ejaculate semen?
Who is male and who is female...?
The answer does not require any lense of any type to see it

I'm still trying to figure out how much of the clash between women's and trans rights is real and how much manufactured and don't want to fall into the trap of 'punching down' at another vulnerable group.

Women need the right to language to define sex based oppression. Women had to go to court to protect this right just this month.

Because of their sex, women are and have been excluded from the right to work, the right to education, the right to healthcare, the right to be recognised as a human being with rights... the list goes on.

There is no need to create specific anti-woman laws to oppress women. All you need to do is organise society around a default male and fail to acknowledge women's sex specific needs.

I'm not sure how the concept of 'punching down' even works in this context. Women need sex specific rights across all groups, regardless of their identity.

Do women need single sex spaces? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Single sex spaces are sometimes used to protect (The only truly reliable form of contraception), and sometimes used to control (The only truly reliable form of contraception). However, it's impossible to talk about the difference if you don't have language to talk about women.

Compared to this, on a website full of pictures of the visible consequences of sex, we are asked to consider that something that might be on a brain scan is a signifier of gender, that gender is fluid and you can switch between 'girl mode' and 'boy mode' and that somehow this thing more relevant than sex.

I know I sound like a stuck record, but the sexism is truly breathtaking. (Although perhaps not completely surprising if you remember the days when this board was more likely to be frequented by MRAs).

Are you aware of farming? Are you aware of childbirth?

Lol.

What do the words 'male' and 'female' mean when they are no longer biological descriptors?

The amount of bollocks is quite tiresome isn't it. Decent stable decisions let you do deep analysis, and find deep truths.

This childish bullshit has only one aim - stopping you from actually thinking. If we knew what male/female meant as definitions, then we could get on and find out what conclusions you can draw about what it is to be male/female.

Some of us are simple souls and like simple definitions, which then let us get on with the real thinking. So I just use the same definition of "male" and "female" for every 2-sexed organism on the planet.

Saves a lot of hassle.

For those who haven't seen it, here's Emma Hilton's (originally Twitter) exhaustive list of "how to recognise the female".

Blogpost form

Maleness is what distinguishes transwomen from every woman on earth, and is the characteristic shared with men. It is not possible to be a transwomen without being male.

Yes, of course. Surely nobody is denying this?

Decent stable decisions

Decent stable definitions.

Fuck I'm typing bollocks today.

I mean, the fact is right there in the word itself. You are only 'trans' because you are saying you wish to dissociate yourself from your sex. That is the meaning, isn't it?

I think the phrase TWAW is such a weird one - it's an inherent contradiction. The aim I suppose is to somehow make the 'trans' disappear into the 'woman'. But it's not possible linguistically, biologically, philosophically. That wee word won't go away, it's where this ideology butts up hard against reality. The only way to accept it is by a kind of mental transsubtantiation. One has to accept the impossible as truth.

The phrase TWAW, to my mind, is simply an enforcing tactic of activists. I don't think trans people ever thought to take that literally - at least until a decade ago. A few years on and people have been banned from thinking on the subject, perhaps some people are taking it literally. Many people will go along with stuff for a quiet life.

Add the "no debate" and it is revealed as sloganeering. In effect it says "I don't care what you say, what you think, or to hear your experience. TWAW, get over it!"

The "get over it...." is also quite a recent communications tactic. There is a really nasty bullying undertone to it, rather ironically.

If you believe that 'woman' is an identity and that your value as a person depends on having that identity affirmed by others, then 'TWAW' is a statement about value.

Unfortunately it completely undermines all the language that women need to protect their human rights. You need quite a lot of privilege to believe that affirmation of self is more important than the basic human rights of others. It might be possible to spot a pattern...

Excellent resources there NecessaryScene

I’d not see those before. I’ve now etched “she makes large gametes” on my brain.

I did like many of the other descriptors of females too...depending on the species : “winning at life”, “big” “decorated with males”. This also goes to disprove the existence of gender having a biological basis I think.