Does the Transgender community have a problem with well evidenced science? Does the community only ever accept favourable reports, AKA confirmation bias, or is it something deeper?

[HydraDominatus]

Every piece of science or news thats not entirely supportive is buried under accusations of transphobia or bias

Why is this a political debate rather than a mental and physical health issue?

Cancer care isn't bias and politicised, trans health care shouldn't be either. Surely it's all about properly designed and researched programmes, with the outcome not predetermined, that we should be entirely standing behind?

Would the community ever stand behind rigorous, transparent, and ethically conducted research into transgender health care that did not align with its previous, deeply held views? If not, isn't that a problem?

tl;dr Is the Transgender community bias to it's own detriment?

(inspired by recent UK changes which do seem to be well researched, evidenced and guided by true support for people with genuine issues, it just does not line up with existing trans community narrative)

I've talked before about how trans very much is of its time and of current culture.

And with that in mind it's also why I don't think in 100 years time it will be viewed as anything other than a medical scandal and political brain fart.

Are trans rights activists more like to believe and support research which confirms their beliefs? Of course.
Are gender critical people more like to believe and support research which confirms their beliefs? Of course.

The difference is that most gender critical people think that gender identity is a belief. Not a single person has provided any peer-reviewed evidence that this is true. Most scientists use the term to mean an innate sense. They research its causes. They don't question its existence, any more than you would question the existence of sexuality at this stage in history.

If gender critical people acknowledged that people have an innate sense of their gender, which usually aligns with birth sex, we can then discuss how we as a society can deal with that.

What I've found is what I expected - most gender critical people are Team Pope, not Team Science. As a result,. I am out.

@BackToLurk Yes, the APA includes the definition of a soul. They say “Because the existence of the soul has resisted empirical verification, science has generally ignored the concept, and those who adhere to materialism, positivism, or reductionism reject it absolutely”

I made the rookie error of using gender identity rather than “gender identity” as the search term, which narrows it down to 2550 papers. There are certainly better sources of research papers, but almost all them are behind paywall.

@HydraDominatus if you are going to be rude, at least let it be justified or, at a bare minimum, funny. I am not engaging with your badgering any more.

@catiette you refer to one article which came up in the search because I didn’t put inverted commas around the term, another which describes the development of the concept of gender identity working towards the current DSM-5 definition – really, just a history of improvements of our understanding of gender variation. The fact the science on isn’t settled (science very rarely is) doesn’t mean it’s not advancing, and does not imply gender identity is a “belief”- my main criticism of the philosophical position. The DSM-5 gender dysphoria criteria ensures that gender identity not matching sex at birth is a necessary prerequisite for a diagnosis.

@backtolurk the fact that all mainstream scientists use this term mean we have gone way beyond proving it exists. You aren’t going to see many scientific papers proving that sexuality exists. My position is that gender identity is not a belief. If anyone can provide a pubmed search with papers which demonstrate this, I’d be grateful.

@oldcrone you’ve pointed me at a letter, not a peer-reviewed research paper, but I’ll address it. It does not suggest that gender identity is a belief – the gender critical position, but instead says that previous definitions are better than the WPATH one.

“Are gender critical people more like to believe and support research which confirms their beliefs? Of course.”

No actually.

I think this is a misrepresentation made from your own prejudice.

If evidence was strongly conclusive and was shown that previous understanding was incorrect, it is my belief that feminists who are campaigning to prioritise sex over gender where it matters would take that evidence on board. Because that is what mature, critical thinkers do.

People who are seeking evidence to identify the material reality don’t ignore proven and strongly evidenced facts. Because that is counter to believing in material reality.

But someone who lacks critical thinking capacity of their own and who frames the world in their ideological principles would make that very basic misrepresentation.

I'd agree. Most GC people I know spend a lot of time testing their understanding of the issues, rather than taking everything at face value.

@DadJoke "If gender critical people acknowledged that people have an innate sense of their gender,". You seem to be ignoring the fact that many of us are people who do not have an innate sense of our gender. We know what sex we are, because we live in our female bodies, but we reject gender.

most gender critical people think that gender identity is a belief.

I’ll match that and raise you one. I don’t even believe there is such as thing as ‘trans’. Not trans-people/men/women/gender/sexuals/kids/whatever.

When the word ‘trans’ is used to describe people (rather than ‘transcontinental’ or ‘trans fats’, etc), I view it in the way I would if people were talking about ‘sprites’, earnestly claiming that some people are actually sprites - spritemen, spritewomen and spritekids and advocating for their ‘sprite rights’.

I believe that human beings can have compelling psychological and sexual disorders and, as a feminist, I am very aware of feeling at odds with a lot of cultural expectations of my sex, so I get why people don’t want to be wholly confined to them, but this doesn’t mean we require human recategorisation. We are what we are.

i haven’t really read any of @DadJoke’s posts so not really sure what i’m mistaken about, anything i’ve said is not a comment on their posts or views.

The theme of my posts has been;

• not all trans people are the same

• logic dictates trans people are a heterogenous group, and there are likely be different things going on with them

• some of those things could be medical (who knows, maybe there is a bit of the brain that malfunctions in some people), and some social

• <most> trans people deserve kindness and support, even more so from those of us who believe (as i do) that they are mentally unwell and mentally healthy people do not chop parts of themselves off

^^ i say most here because i accept i do not know all trans people. I am sure some are vile and not deserving of help. Some. Just like there are vile people in all walks of life.

• we should be kind and not ‘other’ people

I don’t think I’m mistaken on any of these things :-)

Very few of them have surgery.

Women have no greater obligation to "be kind" than trans people do.

Because they are humans and all humans deserve sympathy and kindness?

Yes, to an extent. Not necessarily at my expense, though.

Why on earth are we continuing to engage with this man?
He has never shown any inclination to debate in an intelligent and critical manner.
He is here to goad women.
IGNORE HIM

@catiette you refer to one article which came up in the search because I didn’t put inverted commas around the term, another which describes the development of the concept of gender identity working towards the current DSM-5 definition – really, just a history of improvements of our understanding of gender variation. The fact the science on isn’t settled (science very rarely is) doesn’t mean it’s not advancing, and does not imply gender identity is a “belief”- my main criticism of the philosophical position. The DSM-5 gender dysphoria criteria ensures that gender identity not matching sex at birth is a necessary prerequisite for a diagnosis.

@DadJoke, I feel a bit straw-manned as, once again, you summarise for me the focus of the article I've posted in a way that implies I've misunderstood it, as opposed to starting from the assumption that I'm well aware of what the article is about, and focussing your response instead on my interpretation of this. I do appreciate though you're dealing with a huge number and range of responses! For my part...

Firstly, I think I quoted maybe 5 articles (can't remember, haven't checked), of which this was one. In addition, the fact that this one is an overview that acknowledges the evolving science is precisely why I feel it supports my argument that "gender identity" is not a clearly defined scientific concept founded on a secure evidence base, as I'd understood you to be arguing. Lastly, relying on the word "belief" in your counter-argument to my interpretation of this article is a little misleading - I've not used this myself; I agree it doesn't suit this context.

What a weird argument.

Trans people are not a homogenous group, neither are women.

Because some trans people have been horrible to women, should all women get a blanket permission to be horrible to all trans people?

Each of us should take personal responsibility to engage with respect and kindness with others. The fact that some people or even groups of people don’t do this doesn’t excuse me of that responsibility.

Most scientists use the term to mean an innate sense.

They use the term 'internal sense', internal is not the same thing as innate.

I'm not the only person who has pointed this out to you.

Depends what you mean by sympathy and kindness. I feel sympathetic to people who delude themselves into thinking they can literally become the opposite sex from their biology. They open themselves up to hostility and generally speaking don't "pass" for long in person however stereotypically they present themselves. I certainly wouldn't be rude or unpleasant to them in the course of normal social interactions, any more than I would to any other person.

But transwomen are not women and don't belong in female-only spaces or positions because they are appropriating something that isn't theirs - membership of a biological sex class - that has real consequences for actual members of that sex class. I regard transwomen as the gender version of somebody like Rachel Dolezal.

Ok, well you do you, Zippy. I'll continue to maintain healthy boundaries around abusive people of both sexes. And I don't really take "be kind" lectures from anyone.

Ok I apologise because Dad Joke is the only person on this thread who could be considered to have been argued with wrt their beliefs on gender, so I assumed that's who you were referring to.

So I'm not sure why you think any of us disagree with anything that you've posted in your bullet points? There's nothing on this thread that suggests that we do.

The problem, as has been pointed out on here, is that it is the demands extreme trans activists that is shaping society at the moment. The ones who want rapists who identify as trans women's in women's prisons, the ones who want women to have no option for single sex rape crisis support, the ones who want males to compete in women's sport, the ones who turn a blind eye to the harms of 'trans health' care on vulnerable young people.

Being kind, and ignoring those harms because there are some nice trans people doesn't work for most women. This is not about being mean to individuals, it is about ensuring that women and children are not harmed in the process.

I don’t know if any body is following parliament this morning.

Private members Bills are being discussed. They haven’t got past the first bill yet, they’ve been talking since 09:30 it’s now 13:15.

Labour MPs are prolonging the first bill (animal welfare, which I totally support, however they are dragging it out on purpose). They keep trying to widen the debate.

A Conservative MP just raised this - that Labour are prolonging the first discussion so as not to get into Private Members Bill about single sex spaces - and was told to stop by the deputy speaker.

This is a disgrace. Live on Freeview 232 (or audio only).

Blimey they are fillibustering? I thought that was a US thing.

Bet they are so that nothing can get changed before Labour get in to reek havoc.

Thank you. I couldn’t remember the word. Yes that’s exactly what they are doing. I’ve never seen it before in the UK parliament. This shows how terrified Labour are of discussing women’s rights.

It happens a lot. It's normally Christopher Chope

On the use of belief, though...

Definition: "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof".

In the sense that many of us are arguing that "gender identity" is being interpreted as something every human experiences, yet the articles you posted appear to disagree on its essence, & focus largely on the clinical side of misaligned "gender identity" as opposed to exploring its wider applicability - yes, "belief" in this context feels apt.

Essentially, the debate is epistemological. We understand the science of biology, chemical imbalances in the brain, climate change etc. exist. In contrast, "adulthood", "depression" & "threat to human existence" are rather more nuanced. These are, in a sense, "beliefs", insofar as they're social constructs based on a collective understanding in part determined by social & cultural context. We're arguing that gender identity falls into the latter, rather than the former, category. I've not seen anything in the evidence provided, skimmed & shared to dispute this yet.

Even the article you post exploring the history of "gender identity" describes it as a "concept". I can't imagine that word - "concept" - being applied to "biology" or "chemical imbalance", at least in comparison to the degree it rather does suit "adulthood" or "depression".

Does it? This is the first time I’ve watched it for more than half an hour. I didn’t realise how pathetic they were. I should have known.

@oldcrone you’ve pointed me at a letter, not a peer-reviewed research paper, but I’ll address it. It does not suggest that gender identity is a belief – the gender critical position, but instead says that previous definitions are better than the WPATH one.

I was wondering if you'd notice that this was a letter.

You described your link as "a list of 3490 peer reviewed papers written by such scientists".

You are now aware that not all of them are peer reviewed papers, and not all of them are written by scientists (Alex Byrne is a philosopher). You would have to click on all of them to check whether they were peer reviewed papers, letters, non-peer reviewed articles, conference papers, books etc., and whether the authors were scientists or from other disciplines.

As has already been pointed out by others, these are just papers which contain your search terms, and were not necessarily anything to do with 'gender identity' as a concept, although Alex Byrne's letter was.

But it doesn't just say that "previous definitions are better than the WPATH one", it says that they were defining something quite different, using the same term.

I recommend reading this longer article (not peer reviewed either), which goes into more detail about gender identity.

https://medium.com/arc-digital/what-is-gender-identity-10ce0da71999