For those who believe in Gender Identity over sex: why do you still need to believe in Men and Women at all?

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

One thing I do not get about Genderism is that they reject the belief that it's the physical body that makes a human a man or a woman, yet still believe some humans are men and some humans are women.

But if we hadn't had the example of two physical sexes, why would we have come up with the idea of Man-people and Woman-people in the first place?

I find it very weird that they can't or won't tell us what definition they use for Man, Woman etc ("it's a gotcha" , "blah blah blah" etc) yet demand such very specific provisions for Men and Women. How can they be so certain "trans women must use women's spaces/compete in women's sports" when without a definition of woman it's impossible to even explain why women need women only spaces or women only sports?

”And since I know you're a lot of numpties who have trouble with simple sentences, let me make it clear, you are the privileged ones here...”

There is so much going on in this one statement. However, please could you be specific about how anonymous posters on a forum called ‘Mumsnet’ are “the privileged ones”?

Well I for one have learned something new tonight. Human beings can change sex. Wow. I'm off to read every published peer reviewed scientific paper on this.

I'm back.

No, I don't have a SRY gene. There are other known sex-linked genetic factors (loads of them) but let's not bother with those while dealing with this profound misapprehension regarding the sex-determining male gene, which lives on the Y chromosome in normal 46,XY males.

No, I'm not a geneticist and neither are you. Yes, my sex chromosomes have been tested. Apparently yours haven't!

That's a pretty convoluted argument you made there about John Money. He tried to force David Reimer to be a girl. He wasn't a girl, despite having 'sex change' surgery. Despite being butchered, pumped full of hormones and abusively 'trained' by the professor, he didn't become female. He eventually gave up trying.

I'm guessing you interpret this as evidence of gender identity - in David's case, of a 'cis' gender identity - and turn that backwards, to show gender identity persists. It's a very strange take. In any case, it goes absolutely nowhere near proving anything about trans people.

I'd say the experiment proves:
a] Hormones don't change the sex, even in a surgically altered child;
b] Presenting as female doesn't mean a male's changed sex;
c] Sustained childhood abuse leads to despair;
d] People will believe any old crap from narcissistic professors.

It doesn't say anything at all about whether David had a gender identity. The poor sod barely had an identity at all once he was out of Money's clutches.

I'm just writing this for other readers who might be misled into thinking you know what you're talking about, by the way. I mean, it'd be nice if you were at some point to review the dogma you have accepted as fact - and much better for your health - but I realise I'm throwing seeds on stony ground here.

“Transgender children do not get treated like cisgender children. Transgender children do not get male privilege.”

Well, this is partly correct. Female children do not get male privilege. How surprising though that a male person would believe that male children don’t have male privilege? It really goes to show how little male people understand how privilege works.

And how little male people understand about the female lives experience and our interactions with our bodies.

I am just so tickled by the idea that Eddie Izzard, Rachel Levine or Matilda Simon don't have male privilege.

There's so much wrong with this response I don't know where to start. Pleased that you recognised the description of yourself though. That's the start of self-understanding.

I always find it interesting how Money’s experiment is interpreted. However, I am waiting to find out what other experiments ancuruadh is referring to with this claim:

“Monsters like John Money have done absolutely horrific things trying to "change the mind" as you so glibly put it and the only result has been unimaginable suffering and incontrovertable proof that you cannot make trans people stop being trans.”

Because reading this, is ancuruadh saying there were experiments on trans people? Otherwise, how could the experiment that showed that a male child forceably medicalised to change his body using surgery and estrogen and told false misinformation about himself felt such dissonance with those forced changes be considered proof that “you cannot make trans people stop being trans?”

It's a good question, @Helleofabore, isn't it 🤔

I tickled that any male child hasn’t picked up male socialisation from birth. That a male child hasn’t grown up with all the societal cues being absorbed constantly about how male people are treated in the world knowing they have a male body and all that having that body means.

Nothing like knowing that you have a female body and constantly having to interpret what that means for your own needs and for how you are treated by society in general. Yet, here we are. Being told by a male person that we are the privileged ones.

Of course, it has to be first stated clearly (twice) for the nupties that all trans people knew they were trans as children and therefore somehow acquired no male privilege if they were male. It magically bypassed those children despite years of male socialisation of having a body that was male.

I don't know how anyone can stand to stand up for reality again and again. I salute you all. It just feels futile to me, it's exhausting.

There seems to be a lot of twisting the experiment to suit some people’s political and personal need going on.

The start seems to be that being trans is known from birth. And that all trans people knew they were trans people as children.

This goes against the current cohort of what a growing number of ‘trans children’ are telling us. That is, that they know they cannot change sex and that they choose to be trans. They tell us it is a choice with different motivations, but a choice they have made.

So, either we listen to ‘trans’ children when they tell us this OR we listen to an adult who may or may not have rewritten their personal history to match the result they want (deliberately or subconsciously).

I don’t believe that both can be true without one negating the veracity of the other. I think ‘some’ people may have gender dysphoria and they need treatment.

We also know that suffering from gender dysphoria does not mean a person is ‘trans’ though. We have heard from people with gender dysphoria who are not trans and have found other ways to cope. Some of us would have been diagnosed as children ourselves.

Yet we are being told bold and unfounded statements here tonight that seem to be blanket statements about children and women. It is remarkable to see such confidence. So much confidence that it comes with so much derision towards people who disagree with that person. The misogynistic accusation leveled at gail was pure projection from what I can work out.

We do it for those reading along. Always for those reading along.

Seeing live demonstrations such as this blows away some reader’s dissonance. They see what they have been led to believe is not quite the reality. They may have never seen the arguments being leveraged in real life before.

This helps.

For what it is worth, hormones do not change the cells coding. When a male takes estrogen their body still signals for production of testosterone. And unless the testes are removed or testosterone production artificially suppressed, that testosterone will be produced.

estrogen will effect breast development because breast tissue in male and female humans is sensitive to estrogen and will therefore develop to resemble female breasts. But without some important parts such as certain receptors. Because hormones cannot magically create body parts.

Just like a male taking artificial estrogen doesn’t start having periods, because artificial estrogen has not magically created the fundamental differentiator for categorising sex in the first place. A male taking estrogen cannot ever produce a female reproductive system.

Changing secondary sex characteristics, changing hormones through artificial means, that doesn’t change sex. And it is a cruel thing if someone has been told that they have changed sex because hormones and surgery. A male body born is a male body til it dies .

Human sex is differentiated by whether a body is formed around the production of large gametes or small gametes. Not one person in the world has produced both types. If your body is formed around the production of large gametes, ova, whether they are functional or not, your body is female. Taking hormones will not change this.

A male human body will have cells that unless they have removed or damaged the testes, will revert to attempting to produce full male levels of testosterone once artificial suppression stops. In fact, artificial suppression, bar surgical removal, is also unreliable as has been noted in cases in sports.

Many, if not most, male people suppressing their testosterone only suppress it to a low male level, needed to maintain the male human body. It is not recommended to reduce testosterone to female levels even taking artificial estrogen.

It doesn’t matter how labguage is twisted, or how confidentially a statement is repeated. No human on earth can change sex, unless that person has changed the categorisation of human sex to suit their political and/or personal needs.

It does not benefit society to change this categorisation to stop reflecting material reality.

That's the real problem, isn't it? You look at child abuse and think it's a good laugh. Anyone who can dehumanise people like is beyond saving really... 😞

“You sent a message to a person who experienced life changing sexual harassment before puberty telling them, quite literally, "actually you're the real perv" and you dare talk to me about rage? I expect you to be respectful and refrain from saying disgusting and inappropriate things but I should have known better, shouldn't I? Sexual harassment of women you deem insufficiently feminine is gendercritters stock in trade. Truly disgusting.”

I am sorry that you have experience sexual harassment. Any sexual harassment is unacceptable. However, please do not call male sexual harassment or sexual harassment of a prepubertal male trans person “sexual harassment of women”. It is not the same.

However, please post exactly what flirts said because if that was your interpretation, your remarks about flirts’ ‘comprehension’ really was just more projection. Just as that misogyny accusation was just projection from what any reader can see from your posts.

You have really become abusive on this thread.

Please address where you believe flirts has said “actually you're the real perv”.

By the way, part of the abuse you have dished out tonight has been your use of the term ‘gendercrits’. Not one feminist on this board uses language designed to dehumanise trans people. It is not allowed under the talk guidelines and most would not use such language in any case.

Your use of that term is dehumanising. It likely leads into why you feel you can be abusive to women on this thread who disagree with you. Please stop using the term. And stop with the abuse.

What is child abuse about the way people like Eddie Irvine grew up? They weren't always trans, they changed their feelings as they grew older. The whole 'consistent, insistent' criteria of being trans is very rare. The drive to change the outward appearance of your body is very rare. This is why self id laws contain the following things: no medical (or psychological) diagnosis of gender dysphoria, no medical transition required and the freedom to change your legal sex marker back again. In the German proposal once a year even.

This brings us back to the original question: why have services, facilities and sports segregated by sex when people of either sex can use them. Why use 'man' and 'woman' in laws when there is no definition and no set of criteria against them? Makes no sense.

The use of gendercritters is because 'critters' is slang for animals. Very telling. Says it all really. Women who 'gatekeep the definition of woman to biological sex' are worth no more than animals in the mind of some.

You are now needing to explain very clearly how Flirts post relates to child abuse.

Your attempts to portray all male individuals as abused children because they were trans children is going to remain unevidenced. Your attempts at forcing the issue that all trans people were trans children and therefore subject to trans oppression and abuse is going to require support by peer reviewed papers and studies.

I think many readers now see that many of your posts either have you leveraging in your male life experiences under the oppression experienced by all female people due to their female sexed bodies or claiming childhood trans experiences for all trans people or making false claims to attack other posters. None of what you have posted is convincing to those reading along who seek truth and answers.

Yep. Once you dehumanise people you perceive as your ‘opponents’, you can attack and abuse them all you like.

That should be all ‘male individuals who have trans identities’

🤣🤣🤣

Dear undecided lurkers, please (if you have several hours of time) read the extensive and detailed posts of the very helpful Poster On The Right Side Of History. And draw your own conclusions.

Of course bodies matter, that's why we want to change ours. You're not wrong about which physical characteristics are male and which are female, you simply didn't realise that they could be changed. And we don't need to identify sex separately from gender because we change our sex to match our gender. See? Once you understand biology it is actually quite simple. :)

Ok...but what about the fact that the vast majority of trans women who don't actually change their bodies at all? Isn't it something like 93% of trans women don't have their penises removed? Presumably you aren't counting them as trans women?