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..

🤣 I genuinely weep with laughter over that thread.

He then started the next post with 'well actually' 🤣

Is it in Classics?

Quoting myself from this morning, but this feels strangely prescient and relevant. I can't quite put my finger on why.

God, what a nest of vipers this place is.

Yes, it's kind of the Mumsnet brand.

I used ‘….educational’ deliberately but was thinking ’viperish!’

I rejoice in my newfound ability to take no shit. Politely. Courteously. But none.

Kucinghitam · Today 14:55

You realise that you are one of the self-appointed experts mentioned? Can you stop that, please. Just because you're an actual, real live expert, it doesn't mean that you're an expert.

Harrumph!

There's a market opportunity for an accessories range if only the right sort of fabric came available (and it didn't turn out to be Nessus' Shirt).

If the vipers of MN can't stand for children's safeguarding, recent history has demonstrated that very few professional bodies can be relied upon to fulfil this function.

@SinnerBoy Do I need to post my qualifications and job title ?

It’s here and rather bizarrely appears to be in ‘parenting’. PP posted it just now- I’d never have been able to find it.

I’ll report my post and check with MNHQ.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/parenting/2307274-I-am-everything-you-hate-about-people-on-the-internet-I-am-here-to-help

That's just a polite way of saying you're happy to lie though, isn't it?

You don't see them as women any more than the rest of us do, you're just going to pretend you do.

Nor does it mean that because some people are prepared to uphold a lie to be nice to one group of people that another group of people should lose their rights, safety, dignity, access to sport etc.

@FlemishHorse your words: ‘I am happy to see trans women as women, rather than as men wearing women’s clothes and make up.’

Are you happy for transwomen to use women’s toilets then?

You see I can fully believe you are a male teacher, possibly ending up SLT. Because some of the male teachers had not a clue about women (also no career break for kids or the bulk of caring duties to stop their career path). For instance, one year the male SLT group spent a fortune on nice upholstered chairs thinking it was a great upgrade from the plastic ones in the school assembly hall. They were covered in brown dried blood stains within a few years and costing a fortune to clean or chuck and replace. The women teachers and the cleaners (women) would have foreseen this and spent the money on far more useful things if they had had a say.

Male teachers and designers are responsible for school toilets being mixed sex, and fully enclosed. They are thinking we’ll get around the problem of boys peeking. They are not thinking about the non-visibility leading to sexual assaults or the hygiene problems or the dangers of an unseen medical emergency. Indeed schools are only now realising the dangers, when girls are self excluding from these toilets.

If you are a woman, then I am incredibly surprised you haven’t followed the argument through. As older women, we are always good in looking for the obvious dangers through the experiences we have had.

Agricultural Science should have given you a good understanding that mammals, birds and insects all are clued up about who’s who. And that food production is very dependent on the realities of sex. I can’t think of an industry where it is more important.

@FlemishHorse if it was suggested that i might be a biological male because of the style or nature of my post, especially as i used your post as a potential example of someone who might be less than honest, then the first i would do is declare m biological sex. Unless i have missed a post you have not done that.

It is okay to be Trans, it is okay to be a man, but if you come here to posit a view then honesty is required.

None of us are transphobic, we are sceptics some very long in the tooth, so why dont you just answer that. Then maybe you will be heard.

Although to be honest you will have to fly in the face of the Cass review.

My original post is quoted in full on the first page of this thread. Obviously neither you nor the poster above have had the courtesy to read it.

Still teaching at secondary school at 68? Really?

I believe it's this specific part people are taking issue with;
"...who have suffered a genetic/hormonal accident in their early development. "

Some humans are born without legs, it doesn't mean that there is a spectrum of leg numbers in humans.

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry.

I do have a question because of a 'gotcha' a TRA raised recently.

Are people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS or PAIS) biologically female or male?

According to the NHS:

Although people with AIS have XY (usual male pattern) chromosomes, the body does not respond to testosterone (the sex hormone) fully or at all. This prevents the sex development of a typical male.

A penis does not form or is underdeveloped. This means the child's genitals may develop as female, or are underdeveloped as male.

The child may have fully or partially undescended testicles. But there will be no womb or ovaries.

Children with PAIS will be brought up either as girls or boys, depending mostly on the extent to which their body responds to hormones (androgens), including testosterone.

Most children with CAIS are raised as girls.

So raised as girls, but biologically male? If they're happy being girls, what does that mean for gender identity theory?

@FlemishHorse I did read it in the other thread, which caused me to create this thread (OBVS). I would be mortified if someone questioned my truthfulness about myself here. And would rush to set the record straight.

You persist in being so very suspiciously circumspect i am still sceptical.

But hey ho i made my point about new tactics.

So gonna leave you alone now.

The mysterious stranger, arguing from the supposed expertise (often couched in vague terms because eg its a fuckin agri science degree), runs into actual experts on here, often turns out to totally be a man and often not much of an expert.

This ain't our first rodeo, mate.

BoiledBeetle would know how to create an AI image of a mysterious stranger etc. who rides into town, expecting the townsfolk to be a pushover…Only to discover The Magnificent Vipers…

@NotTerfNorCis
You mean eg the South African athlete, Caster Semenya I presume? A case of genuine intersex, I would say. My original post, that seems to have caused such vituperation, was merely pointing out that all the Y chromosome does is influence the level of “male” hormones that masculinise the basic embryo from about 8 weeks gestation (IIRC). I presume many posters on here would call her unequivocally a man, though.

Gosh. I’m flattered to have caused such interest. So eloquent, too.

ha, that diagram is funny. LIke Jennifer Aniston advertising l'oreal. Here's the science bit.