Biology is not as simple as one might think trust me i am a biologist….

[Karensalright]

Is it the case that those supporting gender ideology have developed a new tactic? Coming on here pretending to be a scientist stating their profession, and then proffering their expert knowledge via a link to wiki?

Surely if they were telling the truth they would link us to a peer review paper from a scientific website.

Is it a new trend or have I just cottoned on to it. In an attempt to influence new comers.

Replies and discussion gratefully appreciated, as long as you don't point out that i can be a bit thick..

@SerendipityJane

That is pretty much what I meant by my next paragraph

Making the world as bit less shit for girls/women would do more good than telling girls they can be boys instead.
You just said it better 😁

Been applying for lots of jobs that insist on decent communication skills 😀

Putting aside late male transitioners, I fully accept that a significant majority of those with gender dysphoria have/will be something to do with feeling different, autistic thinking, and exposure to social contagion.

My thoughts were in relation to some older research finding some chromosomal differences (including unresolved karyotype) linked to neurodevelopmental differences along with querying why do some, but not all, young people experience gender dysphoria. To be clear, I’m not claiming anything other than ‘wondering’ and this is in relation to young people.

However, as I say, whilst it might be one explanation for gender dysphoria, along with many others, but what matters more is how that individual is helped to accept themselves as they are rather than misleading them.

You may choose to believe me or not…as you wish. I am 68 with a BSc Hons in a biological science and a qualified secondary science teacher.

God, what a nest of vipers this place is.

Well then you sadden me with your broadscale acceptance of cod science.

Quacks aren't ducks. Same way Transwomen aren't women.

I did consider reporting this thread and getting it deleted (on grounds of a personal attack)

…but I believe in free speech. Let people show just how nasty they are.

Weaponising qualifications and lack of same is classic internet argument though, not in any way confined to feminist or gender issues. It sometimes takes an effort at self control not to join in.

If you actually are qualified in a particular area, it's always very obvious who is spoofing (and how cringe-inducing some of their pompous assertions are). It's also seems clear that the people who respect the expertise of others, and who understand how research works, are usually pretty good at stuff themselves, with or without paper qualifications.

It’s like when you’re teaching basic GCSE Biology monohybrid inheritance, using the good old “brown eye gene dominant, blue eye gene recessive” example, and some bright spark always pipes up up “But miss, I’ve got green eyes”...

…and you have to say “yes, biology is actually more complicated than that…”

I didn't see the other thread.

I would hope any teacher would not be satisfied with a student making the argument that "Someone on the internet said they were a biologist and said biology has varying levels of complexity, therefore there is a third sex/ therefore women aren't female."

No one disagrees that it is more complex than the simpler summary of XX/XY that most people use to describe the two biological sexes in mammals.

But, more complicated does not mean untrue. There are two sexes in humans as with all mammals. If you disagree, perhaps you could explain why?

Surely the entire and only point of sex in animals and plants is sexual reproduction. What else could sex possibly be besides an organism's potential reproductive role?

No, I'm not a biologist but it must be the case that sex and sexual reproduction go hand in hand.

We know that there are DSDs and chromosomal abnormalities.
We know that it's not absolutely cut and dried that their is never any deviation from biological norms but what we don't know is what the mythic third sex/third gamete is (for sex to be non binary their must be at least three of them).
We know there are males who wish they were female and females who wish they were male but who we don't know is how one changes from one sex to the other given that it's impossible to change the gametes a body produces. Or the mechanism by which some men can be judged to be women really. We don't know how we tell the 'genuine trans' from the dodgy opportunists. So please explain the ways in which we can tell the XY people that are really female from the XY people that are really male. It might be complex but some of us are really rather jolly smart so if you explain it at least some of us are bound to get it.

If anyone cares to read what I actually wrote, it is helpfully quoted on the first page of this thread. There seem to have been a great many unwarranted assumptions about my beliefs and opinions.

The most controversial thing I stated was an entirely personal opinion, that I am happy to see trans women as women, rather than as men wearing women’s clothes and make up. That is not the same as saying that they are women.

I might have bothered giving you a sensible response if you hadn’t gone all sarky at the end.

Ahh yet again someone with the answers to the unanswerable questions but they aren't going to tell because I didn't ask nicely enough. Funny how no-one ever answered when I asked nicely either.

A biological science. Tenner it's Botany, I expect if it was relevant to the argument from authority, like Anatomy Physiology Pharmacology Neuroscience Zoology Anthropology, you would have mentioned it.

Just because I’m curious, which Biological science?

Darn it, I was too slow typing my question

I don't understand what all the angst was about regarding the science, if it actually boils down to your personal belief that you as an individual can "see" transwomen as women despite knowing their sex is male.

I don’t understand the angst either.

Some people “see” dogs as furbabies. I see dogs. Go figure.

Since you are here and suggested we read your post, can you please explain this bit.

“I’m happy to accept that they are females, who have suffered a genetic/hormonal accident in their early development. And accept them with sympathy as women.”

What ‘accident’ are you talking about? A DSD condition? Or do you believe that somehow some male people are impacted by the estrogen in the womb and this has made them think they are ‘women’? And if that is the case, does the same apply to female people. That it was ‘testosterone’ exposure in the womb? Or was is something else?

I meant your angst, and the vitriol with which you criticised people's apparent lack of understanding of science which you knew better about.

Your analogy is poor imo. I don't care if people see their pets as furbabies. I would begin to object if they claimed that everyone sees dogs as furbabies and that dogs should be treated as babies in all respects, legally, on pain of criminal charges and/or social ostracising.

What does happy to see transwomen as women while knowing they are male MEAN?

If I dress my dog in a spider hallowe'en costume I might be happy to see him as a giant hairy spider even while knowing he was canine. It wouldn't give him the right to spin a web from the roof beams.

I had an 18 year old cat that I often referred to as my best boy. I didn't apply for him to be added to the electoral register.

I don’t know, nor did I claim to. My degree was Agricultural Science, so I’m not unfamiliar with mammal reproduction. Look up “freemartin” if you’re interested.