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!

www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/article/body-integrity-identity-disorder-clinical-features-and-ethical-dimensions/C5D03563635EBBA854B517CD8730FDF6

" Attention has turned in recent times to probing and examining neurological aspects of BIID. There is reported evidence of heightened skin conductance response to pinprick below the line of the desired amputation in two individuals who had a longstanding wish for amputation of a limb (Brang 2008). This finding was interpreted as arising from a congenital dysfunction of the right superior parietal lobule and its connections to the insula. Earlier Ramachandran & McGeoch (2007) had proposed that BIID was probably due to dysfunction of the right superior parietal lobule. This view was principally based on the reported preponderance of left-sided bias for the limb in question and the similarity between BIID and somatophrenia (a condition that occurs mainly after right hemisphere brain damage whereby patients deny ownership of their own limb/s, rejecting them as ‘alien’). Furthermore, magnetoencephalography scans revealed that tactile stimulation of regions above and below the desired amputation line produced statistically reduced activation in the right superior parietal lobule (McGeoch 2011)"

It's got a neurological basis

Trans people are not seeking disability or dysfunction - your average trans woman wants a completely normal, fully functioning healthy female body - they don't want genital "amputation", they want genital "reconfiguration".

This becomes a problem when people are told that this ‘reconfiguration’ and some artificial hormones makes them ‘the other sex’. And that because of this, that person should have access to the rights set aside specifically for females to address the millennia of sexist discrimination experienced because of having a body of the sex that gives birth (regardless of whether that person has, can or ever will give birth). Instead of their own specific rights that do not conflict others.

And a problem when children and young people are also being told this can happen and are influenced by adults to make medicalised changes to their bodies that leave them with life long dependency on drugs and maybe surgery (and then surgeries to fix surgical problems).

If there was no conflict, there would be very little need to discuss this. But here we are, because there are conflicts. Not one person pushing this agenda has been able to provide any substantial discussion or evidence that those conflicts don’t exist.

Nor are they willing to address them because to do this would be to admit there are already examples of the harm that is being done to women in the name of inclusivity.

(I also want to again point out the very male oriented focus this thread and others seems to take. There is so little discussion about the needs of female transitioners and the fact that there is significant health risks associated with transitioning that are unique to females, and particularly the majority of young transitioners who are female. This cannot be stated enough times on this board. )

I guess my point in noting the parallels between gender dysphoria and BIID (that psychologists have noted, it's not just me coming up with this), is that you can have an inner sense of your body not being right and this not be a delusion. I think getting into the trap of having someone say "you think that this is a delusion" is not helpful because 1) it is inflammatory and 2) there are lots of medical conditions where someone might have their experience differ to others and it not be a delusion eg. Phantom limb pain after an amputation is not a delusion, but it doesn't mean that you really have a leg there which is hurting.

The main point, which is bigger is that being trans has been separated from body dysphoria anyway, and not everyone who is trans wants to change their physical bodies. And so in this sense it is more like a religious belief, that is true for that individual, not true for others.

The trap of being forced to call it a delusion when it doesn't match your understanding of not being able to change biological sex:

We`ve been here before - your sex is registered at birth, not "assigned".

And so in this sense it is more like a religious belief, that is true for that individual, not true for others.

To the extent that any transwomen, even fully transitioned ones, who say they're men - or even male! - are then accused of not really being trans.

It's not the action, it's the belief, that now makes you "trans".

(This applies to a bunch of other things in certain circles. Your identity only counts if you conform to the correct views for that identity.)

I guess my point in noting the parallels between gender dysphoria and BIID (that psychologists have noted, it's not just me coming up with this), is that you can have an inner sense of your body not being right and this not be a delusion.

And some people have both conditions.

www.gendertrending.com/2012/02/01/national-geographic-taboo-fake-paraplegic-chloe-jennings-white/

'Most people can observe their gender identity'

Oops

How can you observe something that is an internal feeling?

Hello all, I thought I'd come back and share my thoughts as they are currently.

I've found this thread really informative. I think it's important that there's a place to discuss things in a more balanced way, rather than the 'no debate' approach which just seems bizarre given the scale of the changes to our language and understanding of quite fundamental things which is being proposed.

I do think a trans identity is 'valid' in the sense that some people do struggle with this aspect of their identity and feel much more comfortable inhabiting a different social category. This isn't a new phenomenon and I think for some of those people, medical transition may ultimately be the best path for them. To me it seems like a horribly invasive and physically damaging process, but I feel that way about breast augmentation and other cosmetic surgery and I accept other people can make those choices for themselves.

My issue with the current trans narrative is basically the following

• the misogyny that seems to be present in a lot of TRA rhetoric.
• medical transition, puberty blockers etc for under 18s. I believe this is deeply unethical.
• the obvious fetishes (e.g. cissification ) which are demeaning to women and seem to play a part in some trans women's sexuality and/or identity. Fair enough if it's kept in a private sphere I guess, but it's pretty fucked up imo and shouldn't be legitimised more widely.
• conflating sex with gender, e.g. the nonsense statement about being 'assigned' male or female at birth.
• it seems obvious to me that TW would have an advantage in sports which is unfair on female athletes
• as far as the law goes, and the whole GRA thing, I think it worked pretty much ok before and shouldn't be changed.

I could never affirm that TWAW or TMAM as I think the biological differences are so fundamental that it makes no sense to say this, and it sounds weirdly cultish as well. However, I'm comfortable with the idea of trans people as in a sense 'honorary' members of the opposite gender, assuming some form of actual transition is part of that. The concept of gender is controversial obviously but it's so much part of our society and upbringing that I guess it becomes a huge thing for some individuals, plus the physical dysphoria seems to be a really difficult aspect of that. Gender itself may be an entirely social construction, but for example I'm a fairly feminine woman and I'm attracted what I perceive as positive masculine qualities in men, not just their bodies or pheromones or whatever. I often find butch lesbians attractive too, actually which I guess is a somewhat similar dynamic. I guess what I'm saying is that as an individual I am quite 'gendered', although I couldn't really say I feel like a woman per se - I'm still just me, and I have a female body so I'm a woman. The other stuff is personality and upbringing, and maybe sexual orientation, but at this point it all feels baked in and I sympathise with someone feeling dysphoria and opting into, or out of, their gender because I recognise its influence on me as a person.

Not sure if I've explained any of that very well and obviously there is more to say, but that's about where I stand, I think.

@Aspiringmatriarch

Hello all, I thought I'd come back and share my thoughts as they are currently.

I've found this thread really informative. I think it's important that there's a place to discuss things in a more balanced way, rather than the 'no debate' approach which just seems bizarre given the scale of the changes to our language and understanding of quite fundamental things which is being proposed.

I do think a trans identity is 'valid' in the sense that some people do struggle with this aspect of their identity and feel much more comfortable inhabiting a different social category. This isn't a new phenomenon and I think for some of those people, medical transition may ultimately be the best path for them. To me it seems like a horribly invasive and physically damaging process, but I feel that way about breast augmentation and other cosmetic surgery and I accept other people can make those choices for themselves.

My issue with the current trans narrative is basically the following

• the misogyny that seems to be present in a lot of TRA rhetoric.
• medical transition, puberty blockers etc for under 18s. I believe this is deeply unethical.
• the obvious fetishes (e.g. cissification ) which are demeaning to women and seem to play a part in some trans women's sexuality and/or identity. Fair enough if it's kept in a private sphere I guess, but it's pretty fucked up imo and shouldn't be legitimised more widely.
• conflating sex with gender, e.g. the nonsense statement about being 'assigned' male or female at birth.
• it seems obvious to me that TW would have an advantage in sports which is unfair on female athletes
• as far as the law goes, and the whole GRA thing, I think it worked pretty much ok before and shouldn't be changed.

I could never affirm that TWAW or TMAM as I think the biological differences are so fundamental that it makes no sense to say this, and it sounds weirdly cultish as well. However, I'm comfortable with the idea of trans people as in a sense 'honorary' members of the opposite gender, assuming some form of actual transition is part of that. The concept of gender is controversial obviously but it's so much part of our society and upbringing that I guess it becomes a huge thing for some individuals, plus the physical dysphoria seems to be a really difficult aspect of that. Gender itself may be an entirely social construction, but for example I'm a fairly feminine woman and I'm attracted what I perceive as positive masculine qualities in men, not just their bodies or pheromones or whatever. I often find butch lesbians attractive too, actually which I guess is a somewhat similar dynamic. I guess what I'm saying is that as an individual I am quite 'gendered', although I couldn't really say I feel like a woman per se - I'm still just me, and I have a female body so I'm a woman. The other stuff is personality and upbringing, and maybe sexual orientation, but at this point it all feels baked in and I sympathise with someone feeling dysphoria and opting into, or out of, their gender because I recognise its influence on me as a person.

Not sure if I've explained any of that very well and obviously there is more to say, but that's about where I stand, I think.

You've explained it very well. It sounds sensible and rational.

My addition is that I disagree, on a profound level, with the platform that allows gender identity to flourish. Because it's sexist. It cements in gender boxes.

Gender is imposed from the outside. And it's particularly damaging to women. So any ideology that perpetuates it is not, to me, feminist, or positive.

That's not to say that I don't understand how it happens. Or how it can be distressing. We are all born into a patriarchal society and we are all subject to the sexism that underpins it.

Neither does it mean I disagree with a woman being feminine, or being attracted to a masculine man!

Very informative thread op.