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)

@DadJoke Does the 'current scientific consensus' have a non circular definition of gender identity, and any single way which doesn't involve appearance / feelings to verify its existence or how to measure it? Because what I think you're saying is that the scientific community say there is such a thing? How do they know? What studies prove its existence? How do we measure for it?

You say ROGD has been THOROUGHLY debunked? In what scientific study that doesn't involve the opinion of selected people with trans identities and a vested interest in saying so? Can you point us to the evidence please? Does it apply to other well documented social contagions, or just the one you want it to?

Scientists think gender identity is the former.

Who? Which ones?

Where's my gender identity? Am I deficient?

Yes I know what innate means, I corrected myself to say inner.

It's like playing chess with a pigeon. Operation 'let them speak' is going swimmingly here.

@DadJoke

you don't believe in the validity gender identity,

What do you understand by the word 'valid' and the word 'gender'?

Your beliefs lead you to bad science and bad allies.

Ooh, the bad company argument. Are you going to invoke Godwins law too?

Some of you would even prefer that transgender should be reduced in number

What on earth are you on about?

Joyce isn't a scientist.

She has a PhD in maths and has done post doc research. What would meet your criteria for being a scientist?

You are literally proving the OP correct by your unevidenced railing.

Do these scientists think all genders are innate, like cake gender and peach gender, or just the man and woman genders?

Can you post some links where they explain what gender identity is and confirm what you are saying about them?

@HydraDominatus from what I can see, the TRA community generally don’t want it to be a medical/heath issue, they want it be treated as a social justice issue, for example they campaigned for the medical diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder to be replaced with the vague ‘Gender Dysphoria’.

So the ‘thing that needs fixing’, to them, is not an unwell person, but a society which unfairly insists on the truth of physical realities such as human sexual dimorphism and sexual attraction and orientation based on a person’s physical sex characteristics, which conflicts with a desire to be perceived as being the opposite sex and the desire to have sexual relationships with people who are not attracted to people of their actual sex.

The unwillingness of others to deny the physical reality of sex, is seen as a form of unfair prejudice and discrimination, like racism.

Talking about health from the standpoint of physical reality jars against this worldview. The only discussion of health and medicine which are allowed are basically ones which support a fantasy of magic potions, rituals and ordeals to bring about magical transformations.

I'll quote Nature:
"Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms."

It really depends on the X. If X is climate change or gender identity, for example, it's on you.

The scientific consensus is that gender identity exists. Pick a reputable national or international medical or scientific body and look for yourself. You think it doesn't. It's up to you to prove otherwise. They talk about it as if it's real because they think it's real - it's not an ideology.

I absolutely do not have to prove something which is an accepted definition in the scientific consensus, and there is no onus on me to debate with you on established scientific principles.

The OP was talking about confirmation bias. If you don't believe in a fundamental tenet of an entire realm of science, it's up to you to show evidence that it's not true, and this mistaken view will colour your view of the evidence. If you don't believe in climate change, you'll find every excuse to dismiss the evidence. If you want to look at the evidence through a more neutral lens, accept the reality of gender idenity and transgender people.

We can look at the evidence for the best approach to gender dysphoria, or transgender rights, but if you think it's a mere belief which can be transmitted to people, we are back with those people who thought the same thing about sexuality.

Something that's "shaped by social and cultural circumstances" isn't innate.

Do these scientists think all genders are innate, like cake gender and peach gender,

Or like non-binary gender, or eunuch gender?

Something that's "shaped by social and cultural circumstances" isn't innate.

Well, quite.

@DadJoke 5th fail a in a row, this is a habit now

Come on? yes or no?

"would you accept rigorous research that showed a finding that does not align with transgender or transgender ally beliefs?"

Proprioception and sexuality are innate senses.

Yes, and there is evidence for them.

Gender identity isn't even definable, let alone demonstrable or measurable.

You know it’s weird, I can find definitions of biological sex so easily on the internet, yet I can never find definitions of the man gender and the woman gender, despite it apparently being scientific fact. It’s a puzzle, because TRAs argue that sex is a spectrum, that the biological definitions aren’t robust enough because a man could be born without a penis or other variations, which is why gender is better, but being such sticklers for definitions needing to fit 100%, they seem reluctant to provide their own better versions. All very odd…

Once again. This is a position that holds "being a man" and "being a woman" as utterly, life-changingly central, and yet cannot distinguish between them.

That's not entirely true, actually - there have been posters on here that have said that some characteristics are inherent to men and some to women, like being "more irrational" (yes, I'm aware this isn't a trait on its own, as by definition it's relative to some benchmark). At least this person was attempting to actually set out what they thought, despite it being borne of sexist attitudes.

The notion of 'gender identity' is contested, and even among those who accept the idea of individuals having a 'gender identity' there are multiple theories about how that that identity is recognised, formed, expressed etc. You write as though there is a single definition of 'gender identity'. There isn't.

I felt the need to say it because some people seemed to be confused about what "innate" means.

I thought Dadjoke had finally written something sensible... then I noticed it was your comment (quoting him).

I stand corrected! 😀

@DadJoke : is "woman" as a gender matched to "male" sex or "female" sex, in the context of your earlier claim that "The vast majority of people transition because their gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth"?

If you don't know, and are therefore unsure as to what "transgender" means, do ignore this question.

@DadJoke i think you are trying to squat up the wrong tree - just go back to pissing up it instead

Agree, @HydraDominatus

What makes the position of American Academy of Pediatrics (which has finally committed to a systematic review of the evidence of gender care in minors, after several years of insistence from some members) more scientifically sound than the position of Finland, or the UK, which have conducted these systematic review and found the evidence uncertain?

And yet there are definitions of it on the website of pretty much every single medical and psychological body. There are multiple theories about how sexuality is recognised, formed and expressed, but no one sensible disputes it. Of course it's contested. The existence of it is not disputed, except by gender critical people.

gender is defined and clearly so - by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary - generally considered a reputable international publication):

• c1390 - gender, n.Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather…
• a1382 - gender, v.¹intransitive. To copulate. Frequently with with. Obsolete.
• 1825 - gender, v.²transitive. To assign or attribute a gender to; to divide, classify, or differentiate on the basis of gender.

Nowhere does that claim that gender is an absolute or 'thing' to be expressed innately or otherwise - the best way to understand the first definition is that when you hold up a mirror to society at any one point in time then society will have certain understanding around how men and women portray and this is considered gender... but in that very definition comes the fact that it is a glimpse in time / a momentary or fleeting understanding of consensus then - to change the next moment. As such it is impossible to define and write down what it means to 'be' something that is only a reflection not a being...

perhaps some people only read the first part of the definition - The state of being male or female without reading the clause as expressed by...

The second definition is of course more fun - To copulate - hmm, not sure how that ties into the trans-gender movement - anyone care to elaborate (pre-9pm watershed language please!) Of course it is now obsolete however it does give us the intransitive ' to engender' which means to give birth to something... so it is still a part of our conversation even now...

the third doesn't bring much to the party being simply the verb...

So, gender is understood - but at no point is it understood as something innate to the person - there is no definition stating that it is the essence of being male or female as expressed by the internal voice or anything similar - it is clear that it is an external reflection...

the deep deep irony of the trans-gender argument is that the official definition of the word gender being a reflection of society means that the more a man 'tries to live as a woman - i.e. trans-gender' the more they simply alter the understanding within society of what it means to be a man and therefore expand the understanding of the male gender - so rather than 'leaving male' to become 'female' they take with and expand 'male'