Is there evidence for this?

[FlyPassed]

I enjoy the Triggernometry and Benjamin Boyce podcasts but have seen two this week that left me a bit

Triggernometry had Blaire White on who asserted that trans IDs are caused by in vitro hormone wash.

And BB had someone on with CAIS (Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), who said [paraphrase] we all start out female and that the inability of those with CAIS to use testosterone means sufferers are female.

As far as I'm aware hormone wash is an unproven theory, not a proven fact. CAIS is a DSD only found in genetic males. And no, we don't all start out female. While there is no visible* sex differentiation initially, sex is determined at conception and is a result of the sperm carrying a Y chromosome (or not).

The comments on both videos were largely gushing when I looked, and it makes me think about how this kind of thing impacts the discussion.

*this is not a value judgement

Though I suspect that will be hard to do as the gender dysphoria trans people help give legitimacy to the non-gender dysphoria trans people to access women’s spaces

@merrymouse

"GC" is just another label, it's not relevant to most people who are supportive of normal sex segregation in certain circumstances.

Agree. ‘Gender critical’ just means somebody who criticises gender. There aren’t clear ‘sides’, unless you want to view everything through the lens of a culture war.

As far as I can see there are two sides.

Side one - TRA - TWAW, full stop, no debate.

Side two - everyone else. I call these people GC.

@TooWicked

Oh look, a man on the thread telling us to be kind.

I said "I think people who are GC should..."

I was not telling anyone what to do. I was expressing my belief that I think that this is the best strategy.

In many ways I would love it if women as a whole came to the conclusion that TRAs deserve every bit of vile abuse they get - there are plenty of people on social media who really are asking for a mouthful of the most personal abuse going, and I'd quite happily be the one to do it. But I don't, out of respect for the GC cause and my belief that sinking to their level risks doing more harm than good.

In all seriousness though - if a load of you want to get together and nominate some "genderfuck" (their term) who abuses women and asserts their womanhood whilst looking like a typical builder who hit every branch of the ugly tree on the way, for me to abuse, then I'll probably do it.

Side two - everyone else. I call these people GC.

They aren’t though. Some people who argue for single sex spaces believe very strongly in gendered roles and many women who want single sex spaces don’t have an opinion on gender.

If you call everyone who isn’t a TRA ‘GC’ you undermine the meaning of the words.

I'm not TRA or GC. I'm pro-science and pro-existing legislation.

People can choose their pronouns, but not change their sex. Sex based spaces are vital.

If you're pro GRA you're a TRA...

Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is interesting though. If the presence of something is absent the usual effect of that thing, how relevant is it? The karyotype isn't female but to all intents and purposes the 'product' (phenotype) is. It's like the difference to the brain between silence and deafness. Different reasons, same endpoint.

Years ago it used to be commonly taught, including in psychology textbooks, that an XY foetus was masculinised by the hormones in utero, otherwise developed as a female. Which is sort of true but a bit fuzzy - it describes what seems to happen but not really the more accurate and precise details you'd need as an expert.

I'm not sure if that's because it just wasn't seen as important for most people to know the technical details, or there was a less sophisticated understanding even in medical circles, or what. But I imagine that is where this idea comes from and that's why it's still kicking around.

The real problem comes when you have people trying to draw conclusions from something that was perhaps never means to be a thorough explanation.

Just spotted this on my newsfeed and very confused. Someone here said that there is no maximum limit for women's natural testosterone. So does that men that this BBC article is lying by omission about the sex of the runners to create a story that isn't true?

It talks about two Namibian runners who have had to switch to different events because they have high T...

www.bbc.com/sport/africa/58029941

Someone here said that there is no maximum limit for women's natural testosterone.

I think the suggestion is that this competitor has a DSD. I agree that this isn’t clear from the article which is misleading.

@merrymouse

Someone here said that there is no maximum limit for women's natural testosterone.

I think the suggestion is that this competitor has a DSD. I agree that this isn’t clear from the article which is misleading.

Sorry, just for clarification, would that mean they have XY chromosomes but a female body presentation? If they are "insensitive" to T, how do they have the biological advantages of men? Am new to this and quite confused! Is the DSD inferred because the rules only apply to athletes with XY?

I was actually taught in biology class that all foetuses start off looking female

They start off looking like fish too.

Sorry, just for clarification, would that mean they have XY chromosomes but a female body presentation? f they are "insensitive" to T, how do they have the biological advantages of men?

They are sensitive to T.

For these athletes the "female body presentation" pretty much extends to "not having typical male genetalia".

The rest of the body is very much male, and this would have been obvious from puberty. The genetalia would likely also have become more obviously male then. The 5-ARD condition has been colloquially described as "little girls who turn into men".

XY athletes who are insensitive to T (so CAIS like Dalea in the video) are not subject to the rules.