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)

Whether or not something "needs" to be proven doesn't affect whether or not it CAN be proven! If it was possible to prove the existence of gender identity you could still argue that gender identity shouldn't determine what spaces a person is allowed into.

Ahhh but he's probably not "experting" in the right way

That they have a particular internal feeling.

What related behaviours are there for 'male gender' and 'female gender'?

If a 'female sex' person behaves in a certain way, should they have their breasts removed and a fake penis made out of their arm skin to match that behaviour?

A particular internal feeling which is irrelevant to everyone else. Good. We can ignore it then.

Well, yes, @Saltpepperpaprika I would say it has no effect on single sex spaces, BUT some sort of proof or evidence would be enormously useful for those thinking transitioning children is a reasonable idea. It doesn't exist, or they'd be singing it from the rooftops.

And actually, I think that's bollocks. Am I right in thinking sexuality is fairly visible in brain scans when tested against images and thoughts? Whereas gender identity is not, except where it correlates with sexuality, which proves nothing?

You're assuming WAY more layers to what I'm arguing than what I am. All I said about gender identity is that it's an internal feeling, which I don't think anyone is particularly contesting? And I'm saying that sexuality is also an internal feeling, which was the point of my argument and nobody has contested that either, really.

How could you prove sexuality with a brain scan? If you did that kind of test on someone and told them "this brain scan says you're straight" to which they responded "actually I'm gay" would you believe them or the scan??

You are really missing the point that the act of a person who is having sex with one sex or both sexes is an observable fact. Gender is not comparable. However much you wish to destabilise the original definition of sexual orientation. It was always based on the sex categories of people, which is definable and observable.

Gender identity is only based on a philosophical fact and it cannot be defined.

By all means though, keep sparpling away.

I can't see how anyone can define "gender" if they can't define "woman" or "man".

Someone having sex with people of a particular sex is not the same as sexuality though is it. They're just very strongly linked. A person's actual sexual orientation is in their head.

Are we allowed to eat cake gender people?

(Asking for a friend)

A gender identity is only, and can only, ever be an identity based on the concept that one person has of how anyone of the 'gender' they identify as. It is not based on material reality but based on philosophical belief of their own interpretation.

No matter how hard you seek to destabilise sexual orientation based on sexed bodied, it involves materially definable sex categories. That is not something that is analogous to gender identity. Because a gender identity is only ever a self conceptualised replicating of the life experiences of what living as that 'gender'. ie. Yes. They have a gender identity. Sure. But they are NOT living their life as a person with the opposite sexed body. They are only ever living as their concept as that but with the sexed body that they were born with.

Therefore, it is not definable and it is not analogous in the way you seek to make it.

How about you show your workings here. Because frankly you are not logical.

In fact, don't bother. It is pure whataboutery.

I don't need to show my workings on that, it's fact. Your sexuality is not defined by who you have sex with, do you think it is? How can it be anything OTHER than an internal feeling? Gender identity is also an internal feeling. People choose to live their lives based on those internal feelings but you can't PROVE what those internal feelings are, you just listen to what the person says about themselves, or hopefully you do.

Your sexuality is not defined by who you have sex with, do you think it is? How can it be anything OTHER than an internal feeling?

It is not wholly defined by who you have sex with. It's defined by who you have erotic feelings for, which correlates strongly with who you have sex with, given the choice.

How can it be anything OTHER than an internal feeling?

It's an embodied feeling. If you're only attracted to images of men and the instant the actual men who are the physical embodiment of those images walk into the room you're turned off, then your internal feeling isn't much of a sexuality at all.

you can't PROVE what those internal feelings are, you just listen to what the person says about themselves, or hopefully you do.

I will listen up to a point but if you say you're a lesbian but you only have sex with men even when you have a more or less free choice of partners, I'll think you're kidding someone (possibly yourself). And I'd advise any female friend who fancies you to steer clear because even if you do manage to have sex with her neither of you are likely to enjoy it much.

Your sexuality is not defined by who you have sex with, do you think it is? How can it be anything OTHER than an internal feeling? Gender identity is also an internal feeling.

That sounds like someone who talks about sex a lot more than they have sex. All theory.

I don't really disagree with any of that but if one argument against the existence of gender identity is that there is no scientific test for it and you can't prove it about a person, then the same absolutely applies to sexuality. None of the stuff you said indicates that you can observe or measure a person's sexual orientation contrary to what they tell you it is. I mean my sister exclusively dated and had sex with boys when she was a teenager and continued to do so for a couple of years even after she told us she was a lesbian. Life is complicated.

I have been quite clear. That sexual orientation relates to the arousal factor that someone feels while having sex with someone of a particular sexed body. You have tried to bring 'sexuality' into it. If you are not aroused by a group of people who have a particular sexed body, that is a material fact.

Someone can reliably work out what sexed bodies they have an arousal response to. It may be just one typed of sexed body or it can be both. Sexuality is a much huger topic than merely 'sexed bodies'. Sexuality would also by definition cover paraphilias. Sexual orientation is not a paraphilia, or are you really trying to say that sexual orientation is a paraphilia?

What part of a gender identity can never be based on material reality of being that 'gender' which is also undefined with a stable and reliable definition are you missing? Your continued doubling down and whataboutery doesn't change the facts and your logic in attempting to force a comparison being flawed.

Gender identity is also an internal feeling. People choose to live their lives based on those internal feelings but you can't PROVE what those internal feelings are, you just listen to what the person says about themselves, or hopefully you do.

And then what? What's the point of listening to someone talking about their internal feelings of having a particular gender? If it's a friend or family member talking about it, I might listen, just as I'd listen to them talking about anything else, but why would I want to know this about people I don't know? Surely it's only relevant to them and those who are close to them. Nobody else needs to know, and probably doesn't want to know because they're not interested in other people's internal feelings.

I have been quite clear. Lmao alright Liz Truss

What part of a gender identity can never be based on material reality of being that 'gender' which is also undefined with a stable and reliable definition are you missing?
That is one hell of a mangled sentence.

I don't really understand much of the rest either because I'm using sexuality and sexual orientation interchangeably, is there a difference in this context?

But yeah, what "sexed bodies" you have an arousal response to is a big part of sexuality but it isn't the only relevant factor there. I was straight and fancied boys when I was 8 but I didn't have a sexual arousal response at the time. It can't be entirely reduced to that!

You don't have to? You don't have to listen to people talking about their sexuality either if you don't want to? What point are you making?

Gender identity is also an internal feeling.

How is it different from "knowing what your sex is"?

It was a reply to this, which I quoted:

People choose to live their lives based on those internal feelings but you can't PROVE what those internal feelings are, you just listen to what the person says about themselves, or hopefully you do.

I thought it was obvious that I was replying to the bit I had quoted. You said 'hopefully you do', as though you thought that people should listen to what people said about their internal feelings. I was disputing that I should listen to whatever some random person says about their internal feelings, because it's not that interesting to me.

I don't care what internal feelings people have about their gender identity, unless they're men who think that having internal feelings of womanliness entitles them to access to women-only spaces, women's sports etc.