How do people think you can change sex?

[CuriousBogInTheNight]

I've obviy not followed closely enough but genuinely how has it become controversial to say you cannot change sex?! Sex is encoded from the moment of conception... Are people thick or have they tried to change the meaning of the word sex?

@Thulian

I’ll stand up as a GC feminist and say I do think gender has its place and in some cases arises out of biological differences. Gender to me is a range of behaviours, tastes, likes and dislikes, expressions of who we are, interests. The problem arises when the sexed are limited by society as to what they can do by gender stereotyping. But that doesn’t make it any less true that men are on average bigger and stronger than women and I can understand a man associating his strength with his masculinity. There’s a link and crossover with biological sex at various points. When a woman gives birth and then feeds and cares for her tiny baby, the birthing is biology, the breastfeeding is biology, is the caring biology? I think women do have a more powerful urge to care for children than men do, on average, and that then feeds into the women = carers and have to pick up men’s pants gender stereotypes.

I also think we use gender stereotypes to signal our sex, and while people should be able to opt out of that, it’s also fine to opt in IMO. Signalling and emphasising our sex to each other - and using/subverting gender to signal other things, like gayness, artistic statements, personality etc - is part of being human.

So I don’t agree with abolishing gender - just gender stereotypes, limitations and prejudice. Our limitations should only be the biological ones (eg who can give birth, who is stronger, etc which is why we need single sex spaces).

Completely agree.

I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything by the post about SRS surgery, just stating that it's not "I'm getting a new penis" or a "new vagina" and that's the end of the story, boom, you're a man/woman.
It's not relatable to breast enlargement or nose reshaping etc, because those are body parts which are ALREADY present on that body. SRS attempts to create something which was never on that body, which is non functional and has overwhelming long term problems for a huge percentage of the subjects, easily found in the literature.

I feel that I have far less bias here than most.

Of course you feel that way. Doesn't make it true, though.

@RVN123

I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything by the post about SRS surgery, just stating that it's not "I'm getting a new penis" or a "new vagina" and that's the end of the story, boom, you're a man/woman. It's not relatable to breast enlargement or nose reshaping etc, because those are body parts which are ALREADY present on that body. SRS attempts to create something which was never on that body, which is non functional and has overwhelming long term problems for a huge percentage of the subjects, easily found in the literature.

I prefer the terms "pseudo penis" and "pseudo vagina" because that's what they are - they're not "new". They are simulacra of the real thing.

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur,

'I feel that I have far less bias here than most.

Of course you feel that way. Doesn't make it true, though.'

Which is why I used the modal verb 'to feel' to express possibility...

Perhaps it is tautology to say "simulacra of the real thing" but you get the idea.

RVN I think your post was important and as many people as possible should understand the reality of it. I agree with the key difference you’re pointing out - SRS is trying to add something that was never there and isn’t native to the body, so it’s different from other amendments or prostheses. It’s more akin to very niche body modification surgery where people try to add horns, tails etc.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@AlfonsoTheDinosaur,

'I feel that I have far less bias here than most.

Of course you feel that way. Doesn't make it true, though.'

Which is why I used the modal verb 'to feel' to express possibility...[/quote]
Yes and lots of things are possible. Doesn't make them true.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]**@AlfonsoTheDinosaur* and @ErrolTheDragon*..

I think that the reverse is true of this board; anyone who suggests (with evidence) that elements of gendered behaviour are innate is roundly pooh-poohed and the evidence is not even properly evaluated.

I find neonate studies the most compelling as it is hard to assert that there is a societal bias in a baby who is a few days old (although people have tried).

I said, very carefully, above, that this is still an ongoing area of research, and the science is still open. I feel that I have far less bias here than most.

See two interesting studies below (yes, the first is on macaques, but it is far easier to control variables ethically with non-human subjects, and there is little reason to suppose that humans would be dramatically different in this area).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726418/

www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf[/quote]
The second paper has been discussed on here before in these threads and possibly others.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3598288-women-can-read-maps-they-just-need-lego

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3282723-gender-stereotypes-from-birth-or-before-studies

This is what I wrote on those earlier threads.

If you took the results of tests from one baby at random, you would not be able to tell from its preferences whether it was a boy or a girl.

For example, in this study, the results of one test (whether a child had a preference for looking at a face or a mobile), the results for boys were 25.0% face, 43.2% mobile and 31.8% no preference. For girls 36.2% face, 17.2% mobile and 46.6% no preference.

So if a baby preferred looking at a mobile, it is more likely to be a boy than a girl, but a fair number of girls also had this preference. If a baby preferred to look at a face or had no preference, it is more likely to be a girl, but you could not be anywhere near certain of this.

This was also a very small study, with results from only 102 babies (44 boys, 58 girls).

Which is why I used the modal verb 'to feel' to express possibility...

Since when is 'to feel' a modal verb?

@OldCrone,

'If you took the results of tests from one baby at random, you would not be able to tell from its preferences whether it was a boy or a girl.

For example, in this study, the results of one test (whether a child had a preference for looking at a face or a mobile), the results for boys were 25.0% face, 43.2% mobile and 31.8% no preference. For girls 36.2% face, 17.2% mobile and 46.6% no preference.

So if a baby preferred looking at a mobile, it is more likely to be a boy than a girl, but a fair number of girls also had this preference. If a baby preferred to look at a face or had no preference, it is more likely to be a girl, but you could not be anywhere near certain of this.

This was also a very small study, with results from only 102 babies (44 boys, 58 girls).'

This study was not designed to be a new way of sexing babies. (If it were, I agree, it would be a dismal failure, with the tried and tested method of looking at external genitalia proving far more effective!).

It was designed to see if there was an overall preference difference in population level between male and female babies' preferences, and it found that there was.

Yes, it was a relatively small sample. However a chi squared test was done and the result was found to be significant:

'Table 1 shows the number of babies that fell into each of the 3 categories. A x2 test demonstrated that there was a significant association between sex and stimulus preference
( x2 5 8.3, df. 5 2, p 5 0.016). An analysis of adjusted residuals demonstrated that the significant result is due to more of the male babies, and fewer of the female babies, having a preference for the mobile than would be predicted. In other words, male babies tend to
prefer the mobile, whereas female babies either have no preference or prefer the real face'

It also backs up the macaque study.

Taken together, I feel that this is evidence (not proof) that some gendered behaviour is biological.

But she could do that and just keep quiet on this issue, as so many other prominent people have done. She's gone way beyond that and made liberal use of the block feature on Twitter

She's deliberately trolled and stirred people up before, then flounced from Twitter claiming she was "bullied" by people challenging her statements.

This study was not designed to be a new way of sexing babies.

I didn't suggest that it was.

It was designed to see if there was an overall preference difference in population level between male and female babies' preferences, and it found that there was.

Just as there is a difference at population level in height between male and female people. What conclusions can you draw from the fact that there may be a difference at population level in those preferences? Girls who show the preference which is more common in boys are still girls and vice versa. Just as short men are men and tall women are women.

Taken together, I feel that this is evidence (not proof) that some gendered behaviour is biological.

With a huge overlap between the sexes.

female babies either have no preference or prefer the real face

But over 50% of male babies also had no preference or prefer the real face.

@OldCrone,

I have never suggested that there are any uniquely female or male behaviours, merely that, as you say correctly, there may be, at population level, innate drivers of behaviour dependent upon sex.

When people say ‘gender does not exist’ and claim that this is ‘science’, I think that this is not well evidenced and certainly not proven.

Of course, this depends on a definition of gender, which does not seem terribly well defined, with different dictionaries giving different definitions, and some conflating it with biological sex.

I read a paper by an endocrinologist who says it is not possible for trans women to actually acquire a female hormone profile.

Oestrogen and progesterone don't work on a male body in exactly the same way they do on women. And yes as you say they don't have the female profile of hormones like FSH and LH, in tune with the rise and fall of oestrogen and progesterone which is responsible for female fertility and governs the menstrual cycle.

When people say ‘gender does not exist’ and claim that this is ‘science’, I think that this is not well evidenced and certainly not proven.Of course, this depends on a definition of gender, which does not seem terribly well defined, with different dictionaries giving different definitions, and some conflating it with biological sex

If a non physical thing can't even be defined, how can we know it exists?

@lazylinguist

There is more nuance here than you want to allow for.

Whether or not any of the various aspects of traditional gender roles are partly influenced biological sex or anything scientific, they still don't apply to anything like all women or all men. So they absolutely cannot be what makes a person a man or a woman. So I don't see how they can in any way forward the TWAW argument.

Feminists have been fighting for generations to dismantle the sexist stereotypes surrounding womanhood. To suggest that performing traditional gender roles is even a part of what makes a woman is frankly regressive, sexist and offensive.

I understand where you are coming from here, and of course it's true that even where things like behaviours or tastes are actually related to biological sex in a direct way, having those tastes doesn't make you are particular sex.

That being said, I;m inclined to think that attempts to totally shut down discussions of biological influence on things like personality has contributed in some way to gender ideology. Maybe it's just because the idea that "gendered" associations about things like personality aren't so different by culture at all that is the problem. There are patterns that are widespread, even if they are somewhat weak, and they are largely cross-cultural. People see this, but they are told this isn't biological, so they invent in their minds a kind of gendered identity. Or maybe it just makes them skeptical of the whole thing.

In any case, the patterns I've seen among progressives is that those who get sucked into gender ideology often are also very much into the idea that there see no sex based behaviours and personality elements.

I don't think you actually need to have the argument about nature-vs-nurture for "gender" (in the sense of sexed behaviour) anyway.

I think you can skip that and go straight to the point that trans-people do not exhibit cross-sex behaviour. They clearly act (statistically) far more like their actual sex than their claimed identity.

So their self-claimed "gender identity" is not the same thing as "gender" (sexed behaviour) anyway.

The only thing I can see that clearly matches the concept of "gender identity" as described by gender ideology - a clearly sexed behaviour that can rarely manifest in the opposite sex from usual - is sexuality. Homosexuality could be modelled as an opposite-sex identity. And homosexuality does clearly correlate with certain other behaviour differences. But they (and we) don't treat it like that, despite it actually in some way resembling the bad "brain in the wrong body" metaphor.

But this other "gender identity" that somehow makes a straight man into a "trans lesbian"? Those individuals in no way behave like females. Whatever it is they have, it's not a female trait. It's a far less convincing "brain in the wrong body" than homosexuality is.

334bu: I think you are right, she desperately wants to believe that trans people literally change sex so this is the argument she’s come up with to justify this.

Yes, I've heard the same rationale from TRAs as well. It's nonsense. Sex is decided at conception. Disorders of sex development develop in the womb. Males who develop breast tissue due to excess oestrogen from diet, medical reasons etc are males who have developed breast tissue. Not women. No one can change sex.

@OldCrone

This study was not designed to be a new way of sexing babies.

I didn't suggest that it was.

It was designed to see if there was an overall preference difference in population level between male and female babies' preferences, and it found that there was.

Just as there is a difference at population level in height between male and female people. What conclusions can you draw from the fact that there may be a difference at population level in those preferences? Girls who show the preference which is more common in boys are still girls and vice versa. Just as short men are men and tall women are women.

Taken together, I feel that this is evidence (not proof) that some gendered behaviour is biological.

With a huge overlap between the sexes.

female babies either have no preference or prefer the real face

But over 50% of male babies also had no preference or prefer the real face.

Why would you think the point was to say that girls who like trucks or whatever aren't girls?

It's to learn something about what makes human beings tick. The things that influence us, why we are ourselves. And it's interesting.

The tendency to want to avoid looking at certain things because they don't support the ideology we want to be true is really dangerous.

I think semantics and the interpretation of words and their different ‘perceived meanings’ are what cause the issues.

My understanding of the historical aspect, is that Sex and Gender were separate entities. It was like an inclusive way of understanding that despite being biologically male, an individual would like to be seen as the opposite sex and on a form, they have the option to chose a different gender. In other words because their sex is male, it doesn’t mean that’s what they identify with.

Most people would align the sex and gender as the same, but as stated, it was a way of being inclusive to those that didn’t identify with their biological sex.

I always thought that was an inclusive way of accepting differences within society and the vast majority of people were under the same impression.

It’s since taken a significant turn and now the above descriptions aren’t enough and it’s no longer inclusive to just have a separate gender box to show diversity and acceptance. Some people want the sex element to suit what they identify as and of course this causes many a conflict.

Hence this thread.

If a non physical thing can't even be defined, how can we know it exists?

What some people call 'gender identity' is imo just an aspect of personality. Personality is subjective, influenced by culture, hard to define, and it can change. As such, it's not a reasonable way of categorising people (in law, for example).

Why would you think the point was to say that girls who like trucks or whatever aren't girls?

I didn't think that. Was someone else claiming that? I was just making the point that there was a huge overlap between the male and female populations, just as there is for some other traits like height.

It's to learn something about what makes human beings tick. The things that influence us, why we are ourselves. And it's interesting.

I agree, but I didn't find that particular study particularly convincing in this respect for a number of reasons. I think all sorts of conclusions could be drawn depending on your personal bias. I may have said something about that on the other threads (I can't remember, but I did read the whole paper at the time).

The tendency to want to avoid looking at certain things because they don't support the ideology we want to be true is really dangerous.

I agree with this. Personal bias is a real issue in all areas of science.