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)

Jesus Christ. Why are we getting sidetracked again? And why is sexuality being brought into this debate yet again?

Someone's sexuality has absolutely no bearing on anyone else's lives other than the people directly and personally involved. So whether or not it is innate, internal, measurable or any other term is completely irrelevant. It doesn't affect anyone else.
To be frank, no one with a functioning brain actually cares because it has no affect on anyone else.

Gender identity and it's associated ideology absolutely DOES affect other people. In very real, concerning ways.

Stop dragging sexuality into this debate. It's lazy and actually very offensive.

“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!”

Fuck this is grim.

You have now brought a childhood ‘fancying’ of an 8 year old into it. And you don’t see any problem with that at all.

So far, nothing has been raised that shows Gender identity as anything other than a belief. An internal feeling is a belief, that is what a belief is - a feeling that something is true.

YY. It's unfalsifiable, subjective and perception based.

...
When someone says they knew they were gay when they were a child do you believe them or do you imply that they're a pervert?

Blame the person who said sexuality is measureable.

I'm a bit simple with these things so please forgive my simple musings .

But for me If an inner feeling you have means -

laws must be made/changed,

language must be compelled

Women and young people should be
exposed to a risk not open to any other group,

Sporting opportunity taken away from women and girls,

Young people are cheer-leaded onto a medical pathway which will affect their bone density on layer life and mean they will never experience an orgasm,

You have to be able to physically prove and measure the that feeling. Have to. There is too much at stake and risks for others affected by your feelings are too big an ask.

Blame the person who said sexuality is measureable.

//

One persons sexuality has no bearing on another person at all. None whatsoever

Please forgive my typos I've on the gin already folks. Has been a rough week

The point is, it doesn't matter if sexuality measurable or not.
It is not relevant to this debate in any way.
We may as well whether you can measure who prefers a Chinese or a pizza on a Friday night. NO ONE CARES. Crack on. Have a fabulous time. No one else is affected and everyone is happy.

People with a functioning brain and clarity of thought DO care about gender ideology. For many, very important reasons.

I'm going to take all of the responses saying that it doesn't matter if sexuality is measureable or not as an indication that I've won the argument, because nobody can give a good argument that sexuality is measureable but don't want to admit I'm right, so the only response is "it doesn't matter".

What? 😂😂😂

Good grief.

It doesn't matter BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELEVANT.

Sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with transgender issues.

Not sure which argument you think you've won 😂

I don’t think that it is a false comparator has sunk in. It doesn’t matter how many times it is said or how many ways it is said, that poster is wedded to their ‘gotcha’.

I don’t believe anyone said ‘sexuality’ is measurable though. I could be wrong. I think some posters have conflated the very broad term of ‘sexuality’ as being the exact same thing as ‘sexual orientation’. Paraphilias , for example, are an example of sexuality and sexual orientation is is not a paraphilia.

the mind blowing whataboutery on this thread continues, doesn’t it tellme?

Yeah, just another transparent attempt to associate transgenderism with sexuality.
No one cares whether sexuality is measurable or not because it has zero impact on other people's lives. This insistence to arrive at a consensus as to whether it is is measurable is very strange. Who cares if it is or isn't? Does this poster?

It is offensive. I am offended. Please stop it. LGB people do not affect anyone else's existence in any way whatsoever. Stop it.

Transgenderism DOES affect many other people not directly involved. And this is what this thread is about.

Blame the person who said sexuality is measureable.

Uh, that was kinda me?
To be fair the actual thread was/is about science.

Previous poster said "well you can't measure sexuality, and that's not a belief!" so I pointed out that researchers can.

Then I got distracted by this paper when I was looking up examples: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34297214/
(Full text available free)

They used genital arousal and pupil dilation to measure sexual attraction.

They also attempted to quantify gender identity , which was what got me reading it in depth... they got women to pick how 'feminine' they felt, and got observers to rate their femininity from a video. I feel like this might be more than a little culturally variable - they even detail how they had to change the questions from the US version!
Really what they measured was conformity to gender stereotypes, they even flip between using 'gender identity' and 'gender non-conformity'.

They ultimately didn't find what they were looking for, which was a relationship between finger ratio in females and sexuality, which also interested me because I've read about that before... but actually it seems pretty tenuous.

Sorry, I'm not the best at philosophical debate but I don't like being told what scientists can and can't do ta very much, we're an inventive bunch (*only with full REC approval obviously)

Adherence to gender stereotypes is not an innate thing which means that we then have to try and conform to those stereotypes and THEN call it our sex.

Gender and sex are two different concepts.

So why the fuck are people trying to conflate them and then talk about scientifically measuring anything.

You could say that you could measure your willingness to conform to bible scripture, this does not then turn you into an actual frikkin' angel if you are at the more holy end of the scale!

You could say that you could measure your willingness to follow the law, this does not then automatically turn you into a judge if you like rules more!

What short memories people seem to have!

I was under the impression the FWR might be populated by a more than a few women who lived through the 70s and 80s when many people absolutely did feel that other people's sexuality had a bearing on their own lives and their children's lives.

It was exactly the same 'we must protect the children' argument then that is made now.

Gay men and lesbians could not live their lives freely; they had to be very careful if they wished to hold positions as teachers, social workers, gps etc...people believed that homosexuality was a very real threat to their children.

suggestionsplease1

Those people were wrong. If you disagree, can you tell me what were the demands made by gay men and lesbian women on others?

Genderism does affect everyone because of the demands made on everybody, especially women, starting with the enforced use of "preferred pronouns", all the way to rapists in women's prisons. All because of a subjective belief about themselves that a tiny number of people claim to have.
And genderism is homophobic to its core, so it's pretty rich that you make the comparison.

I was under the impression the FWR might be populated by a more than a few women who lived through the 70s and 80s

What I remember from that time was women fighting to be allowed to do things which were previously only for men - things like being allowed to do any jobs that they were able to do. We were fighting against stereotypes which said that women should stay home and not be allowed to do certain jobs.

I remember fighting my school to be allowed to wear trousers to school (I lost that one), and being told by my physics teacher that I shouldn't do physics because it wasn't a girls' subject. Stereotypes again.

Now we're being told to accept that people have a gender identity which is based on stereotypes. No thank you.

Yes and those people were wrong. I was not one of them.

Your point?

Gay men wanted to be able to get changed in the mens changing rooms rather than being hounded out, or being told that it might be more appropriate if they used a toilet cubicle or get changed back at home. Lesbians had the same experience

Plenty of people were absolutely adamant that their sexuality meant they should not be in those spaces.

They wanted the right to not be perceived as an automatic threat to others.

Which is pretty much what is happening now at times, no?

@Helleofabore "sexual orientation relates to the arousal factor that someone feels while having sex with someone of a particular sexed body"

The first sentence in the study DecayedStrumpet posted is "In general, women show physiological sexual arousal to both sexes." We're all bisexual then I guess.

@DecayedStrumpet in any study like this they'll be testing different factors and then seeing if they correlate with what the person claims their own sexuality to be. If they then found a person exhibited things that SHOULD mean they're a particular sexuality, but the person disagreed then it would be a sign the model is wrong, not that the person's identified sexuality is wrong. There's nothing you could find in a study that would overrule what a person claimed about their own feelings.

Which is pretty much what is happening now at times, no?

No, if it was the same as now, gay men would have been insisting on using the women's changing rooms and told they couldn't, and lesbians would have been wanting to use the men's and told they couldn't.