I was wrong

[Lezbehonest]

I have name changed for this because it feels major for me and I'm honestly a bit scared of being identified.

I'm a 27 year old lesbian who is starting to realise I am gender critical. This feels like a major step to even type as the friendship groups I have and the online world I inhabit is very very pro-trans. I have always blindly accepted the doctrine, TWAW, protect trans kids, all genders are valid blah blah.

It's only since I started reading more here than I started questioning it a bit more. I became uncomfortable with the resolute lack of debate. I started eye rolling when yet another celebrity came out as non binary, I started having conversations with my wife about it (she's largely in agreement.) Ive stopped prefixing every conversation with 'I know I sound terfy but...' i realised that my academic side who has always sought evidence and argument wasn't compatible with these conversations. I started wondering where all the butch women I know and love have gone. I started fearing for the trans people I know (many of whom transitioned long before it was a 'thing') whose validity in society is being undermined by this shitshow. I had a conversation with the cleverest woman I know in an Uber (felt like a clandestine meet) where we acknowledged without saying the words that we're both uncomfortable with the way the wind in blowing.

Where the fuck do I start? What can I read? How do I uncondition my brain and can I keep those of my friends who will hate me for even having these thoughts? I'm already exhausted.

Any advice on where to start much appreciated. I'm very prepared to put in the time to read, understand and absorb opinion.

Christ, I think it's just a "younger person in the gay community" thing

That is interesting. I have noticed it along with the use of 'folks' (in various spellings).

Hi, OP.

Keep asking questions, keep an open mind, keep looking for evidence, and answers.

Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests to me that gender ideology is not only based on very shaky foundations but actively harmful, I remain open to the possibility that I am wrong.

You may lose friends over this issue, I won't lie. You may also attract opprobrium. But in the end, 'I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar'. (Magdalen Berns).

Also, the Endocrine Society released a statement on the fact that humans are a dimorphic species, earlier this year, I believe partly to put to bed some of the raging nonsense of 'sex is a spectrum' and partly perhaps to address the long standing inequalities in the treatment of male and female people - see Caroline Criado Perez and the field of 'sex specific medecine'.

Anyway, Endocrine Society statement below, my bolding. My understanding is 'dichotomous' is the more accurate term than 'binary'.:

'Sex is an important biological variable that must be considered in the design and analysis of human and animal research. The terms sex and gender should not be used interchangeably. Sex is dichotomous, with sex determination in the fertilized zygote stemming from unequal expression of sex chromosomal genes. By contrast, gender includes perception of the individual as male, female, or other, both by the individual and by society; both humans and animals have sex, but only humans have gender. '

academic.oup.com/edrv/article/42/3/219/6159361

@NecessaryScene I bet at least one of them is thinking the same thing about you.

This is very likely true. I'm very circumspect about my GC feelings around the majority of my friends as I know for a fact that some people are quite TRA and I'm honestly just not ready to lose friends to this. And even more so, lose the spaces that I honestly need to be happy. However, I do carefully mention things and have in the past had experiences with people where it's become clear we have similar feelings. At the moment, I feel like I'm doing this dance with a friend who I really, really don't want to lose. Who I had previously assumed would be full on TRA but recently this person has mentioned a few things recently that make me feel they are at least starting to question the dogma. I don't come straight out with how I feel, in part because I'm not brave and in part because I know that this was a whole process for me too.

I know we talk about 'peaking' and for me that was London Pride 2018 and the Get the L Out Protest. But there were lots and lots of little bits along the way that had made me uncomfortable and question the dogma. Even still, I thought my DB, who had peaked long before me, might be homophobic when he voiced his feelings. So whether it's cowardice or pragmatism, I'm choosing to tread carefully and listen more than talk and agreeing with what I do agree with.

The other thing is. I'm always questioning what I believe in now. I did a pretty full 180 on a lot of what I thought I knew. (And not only on this issue.) So it means that I know my feelings can change when presented with new information. So I'm quite carefully to genuinely listen and keep my mind open to new information. If someone presents a new angle to me that I've never thought of before, I'm going to consider it even if it's uncomfortable. And that's what I try to do for others. I can't tell anyone what conclusion they should draw but I try to help people have access to a full range of information.

@Coreblimy

I have American friends who use y'all, and I have no idea as to their views on the subject. It is an American slang so a bit of a leap to presume gayzedandconfused is a TRA. Also, in her defence, her friend did get called condescending, stupid and/or ignorant, so that probably smarts a bit.

One poster said gayzed's friend was condescending. Nobody called her stupid or ignorant.

well in thats how u should think big lady ily

It’s important to remember that in scientific terms, something can be not a simple binary, without it therefore being a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuous variation. There may be some different chromosomal combinations that make up DSDs, but these are discrete variations of the original binary - they don’t represent a spectrum but several possible outlying positions. They certainly don’t mean that sex can be located at any point between those positions.

Hormones are related to the production of sex characteristics, not sex itself.

There is a lot of complexity about, for example, the intersection between DSDs and the hormones that then allow sex characteristics to be produced or not in people with DSDs (for example, in androgen insensitivity syndrome). That doesn’t mean either that sex itself is “fuzzy” or on a spectrum.

The problem here seems to lie in the translation between scientific and lay vocabulary. To your friend, “fuzzy” may well be a synonym for “complex”, but a layperson hears it as “vague” or “indeterminate”. It might be that she really does believe in the ideology (many lab scientists are detail people, and not actually very astute at thinking about the big picture, especially around ideas that belong more to the realms of ideology or social science).

There is though widespread confusion between sex characteristics (which are variable along a spectrum if you want to think of it like that); and sex in terms of gamete dimorphism and chromosomal sex (which is discrete, even if not a simple binary). But as it’s also always pointed out on here, the existence of DSDs does not have anything to do with trans or non-binary people.

Also, calm down, y’all is a common American dialectical second person plural form, used particularly in the South; and long predates gender ideology.

Some dialects have an informal second person plural - standard formal English doesn’t; it uses “you” interchangeably with both singular or plural referents - but informal dialects often distinguish a plural form used to mean “multiple yous” - compare the use of “Youse” in Scouse which is the same thing.

Nothing to do with TRAs even if it does sound like the folksy usage of “folks/folx”.

It’s important to remember that in scientific terms, something can be not a simple binary, without it therefore being a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuous variation.

I’ve posted this before but my understanding of sex being binary in humans was that meant it requires two gametes for sexual reproduction - the large gamete is the egg and the small gamete is the sperm.

Unless and until a third gamete is discovered, this will remain the case, regardless of the presence of DSDs or gender identity.

A spectrum is a continuous variation.

And it needs to be a variation of something. There needs to be something on the x-axis. For light, it's wavelength.

No-one can tell you what the x-axis of a "sex spectrum" is.

It may be that there's no directly measurable thing, but this purported scale represents a proportion, eg "30% male, 70% female". But that wouldn't be a spectrum. It would be a mixture of two binary sexes.

And DSDs are not well modelled as a "mixture of male and female" any more than other congenital defects are well modelled as "mixture of human and some other species".

Welcome OP. It has been immensely heartening to see loads of names I don't recognise as regular posters on this board (and sometimes on the other boards) who are saying 'I want to be kind but none of this makes sense. I am being told stuff that I know not to be true and that I'm a bigot if I don't truly believe'.

That's why TRA's hate this board so much. Statements must be backed up with evidence. The evidence will be critically analysed and errors pointed out. Ploppers are reduced to posting a mantra or a generic 'you're all transphobic bitches!!!' because they cannot back up their views.

The posters on this board have asked, pleaded even, for a half decent discussion. For evidence that sex is not immutable to be linked. We've never had it.

It's very telling.

I found this site interesting - gcritical.org/introduction/

It's UK focused and has discussions on a lot of the claims or arguments that I've seen and heard, many of which I at one time found reasonable. Radical/Marxist feminist perspective generally, but good at linking to outside sources with data and varying viewpoints.

Delurking to pmk because of the amount of useful resources quoted.
Thanks all, and Good reading OP.

I haven't rtft but i recommend:

TT Exulansic. A desisted woman with a background in linguistics and pathology.
youtube.com/channel/UCuWbt6ZGY8wIJs_RlnuO0zA

Benjamin Boyce has interviewed virtually everyone on this side of the gender wars
youtube.com/channel/UCuWbt6ZGY8wIJs_RlnuO0zA

This is a great podcast
[Savage Minds Podcast] Helen Joyce #savageMindsPodcast
podcastaddict.com/episode/126412137 via @PodcastAddict

This channel produced a documentary which is a great primer
youtube.com/c/TheStateMedia

Helen Joyce's book is also an excellent primer and I love her. Loads of interviews on youtube.

Essential reading on the whole 'gender spectrum' thing
aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

Jonathan Haidt is great, lots of lectures on youtube and his books are excellent in helping understand recent cultural shifts. Righteous Minds and Coddling are both excellent.
www.hive.co.uk/Search/Keyword?keyword=Jonathan%20Haidt&productType=0

..... So, there is a spectrum of sexual characteristics which prove the existence of trans people, is there? And this is what? In the DNA? In the hormones? In the brain waves?

Well, actually that is BRILLIANT because what I would really love is a robust definition of what 'trans' is. And if this has a physical marker it can easily be ascertained through a test, can't it? A DNA test, a brain scan?

And then there would be no need for self ID!! easy! Just have a test which will show if you are, or are not, transgender!! We could all have this test at birth, couldn't we, and start our transition straight away.....

Bit of bad luck if you are a perfectly happy lady and have the test and actually you are a man and have to transition. Or if you are trans but actually when you have the test your scan, you DNA or whatever, actually aligns with your birth sex and you have to go back....

But something tells me that there is no such marker; whoever discovered it would be Nobel prize worthy. And v rich.

Thanks everyone this is such a comprehensive mine of information!

I have downloaded Helen's book to my kindle and will start there...

@GayzedAndConfused thank you for explaining. Really interesting discussion.

As a side note to a couple of posters, I think quite a few Americans actually live in the UK!

Welcome, Lezbe.

It's lovely round these parts.

Just to mention too that a PhD doesn’t necessarily mean someone has a wide knowledge of the subject. My husband has a PhD in geology but dreads being asked about volcanoes because he just doesn’t know. He hasn’t kept up with the latest research and in all honesty his father, a Geography teacher, knows far more.

GayzedAndConfused I think your friend is using Univariate Fallacy by suggesting that we can't divide humans into male & female because they can't be split by looking at a single factor?
This is a good explanation mobile.twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1124406797916409856

Lezbehonest you've got loads of excellent suggestions so I'm just going to send 🥃

@2319inprogress

GayzedAndConfused I think your friend is using Univariate Fallacy by suggesting that we can't divide humans into male & female because they can't be split by looking at a single factor? This is a good explanation mobile.twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1124406797916409856

Lezbehonest you've got loads of excellent suggestions so I'm just going to send 🥃

Thank you, 2319 - I often want to use this little animation in explanations, but can never remember what its called, or find a link to it.

If you’re looking for balance and debate, you won’t find it here.

Why not? We frequently debate things here. Anyone else is free to post for "balance".

I'd love to see a positive suggestion of a place where this is debated better. Please offer one, BoredZelda.

As for lack of balance, the anti-feminists are free to improve their arguments at any time. We're not stopping them. :)

@BoredZelda

If you’re looking for balance and debate, you won’t find it here.

Because the other side of the debate is always “clownfish! Kindness! Most oppressed! Etc” which doesn’t really stand up to much.

I mean, I doubt you’d get much debate on a NASA forum if someone posted that the moon was actually a dragon’s egg because Doctor Who but it would hardly be an echo chamber because of that.

If you’re looking for balance and debate, you won’t find it here.

Really?

That’s debatable, I’d say.