Asked my Lib Dem candidate what a woman is

[Botheredbabybrain]

Not sure who to vote for. Lib Dem man posted some sensible stuff about an issue on the local fb group then tried to request me as a friend, I thought I’d gauge his response on this issue. Would be funny if it weren’t so fucking tragic.

There is no innate difference between male and female brains, any patterns can be explained by socialisation and plasticity. You can’t pick and choose when you want to rely on science and when you prefer whatIreckonry.

No, just another intraparty squabble.

That response appears to be unauthorised wittering from their LGBTQ+ group rather than the official party line (which may be an increasingly reticent ferret but is probably still some way from a volte face).

https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/healthy-tips/battle-of-the-brain-men-vs-women-infographic#:~:text=Although%20the%20male%20brain%20is,to%20be%20larger%20in%20men.

i don’t agree with you. I think there is a fundamental difference. But I don’t think men can be born with a woman’s
brain or vice versa. I don’t see how that’s picking and choosing!

Until such time as these findings are reproduced in day-old babies, I will ascribe them to neuroplasticity. These taxi drivers weren't born with a higher volume of hippocampal tissue than their bus-driving counterparts, they developed it when acquiring and maintaining The Knowledge.

How you use your brain causes it to physically change.

i don’t agree with you. I think there is a fundamental difference. But I don’t think men can be born with a woman’s brain or vice versa. I don’t see how that’s picking and choosing!

You're right of course OP - this fits perfectly well within the argument that a 'woman brain' is any brain that is found inside a woman's body. It is the biology of the brain, within the broader physiological system, which makes a male brain or a female brain, and this is the case regardless of how different or similar male and female brains are.

It means the LGBT+ LDs are overreaching again. And probably holding the rest of the party hostage but many in the rest of the party realise it just makes them look like lunatics when they pride themselves on being the party for the 'professional class' and do everything based on evidence.

The LGBT+ LDs are NOT the LDs and they have form for acting with out authorisation from the main branch of the party.

They are nutcase extremists. No other way to adequately describe them. But many of the group (the group is one of the federal branches of the LDs) hold other key positions within other branches of the LDs.

They hold way more power than is representative of the population as a whole. It's reflective of the pattern of heterosexual biological woman of child bearing age being the most underrepresented group in British politics. Largely because of child care reasons.

The LGBT+ LD operate as a clique to actively shut out women with gender critical views from the party.

They were the instigators of the crap that Natalie Bird got.

I've seen what went on (someone close to me witnessed it first hand). I hope Natalie eventually gets justice and these bullies get found out.

I have zero respect for any of them. And it's got fuck all to do with their sexuality or gender identity. They just acted in an appalling fashion.

I hope it all comes out in the wash.

The Cass Report doesn't agree with you.

The evidence supporting brain sex isn't conclusive by any means. It's incredibly difficult to research because babies are treated differently based on sex from the moment of birth, with gendered terms used to describe behaviours by parents and other caregivers. There's no way of obtaining even one child of each sex who hasn't been subjected to gendered conditioning to examine their brains.

Gina Rippon and Cordelia Fine have both written incredibly well-researched books, with massive reference lists at the back, about how every aspect of so-called brain sex can be ascribed credibly to sociaiisation. That Cass has taken a different view is understandable because it's impossible to prove whether Rippon and Fine are right or wrong because gendered socialisation is ubiquitous. And it doesn't matter from a medical ethics perspective because Cass is talking about a failure to safeguard vulnerable children from misdiagnosis and other forms of medical malpractice, and brain sex or the lack of it isn't actually relevant to that. Cass isn't trying to argue that gender identity doesn't exist, she's arguing that autistic girls and other vulnerable patients are having their true diagnoses missed and put on an inappropriate and irreversible treatment pathway.

HaXXor

I wouldn't describe it as 'brain sex' but I believe there is enough evidence to convince the scientific community that there are average biological differences in the brains and behaviours of the sexes (with Rippon being an exception). It's a truth that is observable in almost every species so why are humans any different? However the Social Sciences refuse to accept the evidence presumably for ideological reasons.

i agree it probably doesn't matter with regards the treatment options for gender disturbed kids but I do think it matters for trying to define terms and bringing the two sides together.

I can see the logic and science in the Mermaids jelly babies in that the majority of girls innately land on the feminity side of the spectrum whilst the majority of boys are on the masculine side. I can understand where Stonewall got the idea that gender identity is apparent at 2-3 years old if they are defining GI as masculinity or feminity as yes the outliers, the 'sissy' boys and tomboy girls can become obvious at that age. I can also see the danger in the feminist idea that the differences are due to socialisation. That leads to the abusive ideas that the effeminate male was over protected by his mother, needs to be toughened up and have his Barbies removed whereas the butch girl needs to be forced into those pretty dresses.

I do think it's an important discussion to have so that all children can grow up to be their true authentic selves in their own unaltered biological bodies.

Her view is that rape is a natural (albeit unacceptable) behaviour that has evolved in a subset of men as a viable reproductive strategy. In support she points to the fact that the majority of rape victims are of optimum reproductive age and healthy and attractive. cf the conventional view that it's about hate/power.

This is not a new idea and not a particularly groundbreaking analysis. For me it's about male sexual entitlement and power. People trying to position it as either just about sex or just about power are wrong, IMO.

Apologies meant to quote @theilltemperedclavecinist

Also all of the caveats about explaining modern behaviour via evolutionary psychology apply.

@Thingybob you appear to have profound misunderstandings of feminism, child development and the meaning of 'innate'.

Feminism (and gender criticism) is absolutely the opposite of the idea that "the effeminate male was over protected by his mother, needs to be toughened up and have his Barbies removed whereas the butch girl needs to be forced into those pretty dresses'. Both are absolutely fine just as they are.

Children of 2 or 3 don't fully understand yet that they have a permanent species, never mind a fixed sex or gender role. And if slightly more boy toddlers tend to play with cars and slightly more girls with dolls, theres no evidence that's innate rather than sexist socialisation and reinforcement of external prejudice.

There is no science behind the Mermaids jelly babies. And children change as they grow - you absolutely can't spot 'outliers' [a horrible concept that only works if you believe in fixed, sexist boxes] at 3.

A young relative of mine at 3 or 4 was an absolute pink monster, inseperable from her dolls. A dozen years later she was a black-clad metalhead who wouldn't be seen dead in skirt, busy painting skulls on her bedroom wall and planning for a career in aeronautical engineering.

A timely post by Parietal on another thread included this:

Thanks for the reply No Bintrongs although I don't think I have a misunderstanding of what many feminists believe. Don't they believe that the primary factor in observed gendered differences is socialization hence the video clip you posted? You described it yourself as "sexist socialisation and reinforcement of external prejudice" If that is the case then surely socialization will sort out those gender non conforming kids? But as we both know it doesn't then doesn't that point towards gendered behaviour being innate, a sort of blue print that our brains are born with?

I agree that 3 year olds don't understand concepts like permanence, but as they learn their personalities develop and from comparison to others they gain some self awareness of who they are in the world. Their personality also becomes apparent to others. I was an outlier at 3 years old and have certainly spotted other outliers at that age. If you were to ask Nursery staff with a few years experience I'm sure the majority would say the same. Even a 3 years old grandchild of mine was able to identify a gender non conforming child at his nursery when he spoke about a girl who liked playing pirates with the boys as being like a 'girl-boy'

In terms of the scientific evidence to back this up I'll point you towards the citations in The Cass Report. If you agree The Cass Report is well evidenced and good science you have to accept all the findings not just pick out the bits you like.

Please add 'stereotype' to the list of things I think you've not understood.

Conservative answer was a vast improvement

Oh well I tried to explain to you

I'll have one without dodgy connective tissue as long as I don't swap for another disabled one.

Oh and while we are at it can I swap brain for a NT one please?

From what I've read, some research has shown that there can be differences in a trans person in the region of the brain that relates to self-perception. If that's faulty, it could explain why a trans person thinks they are the opposite sex.

The TRAs claim something different. They point to research showing that the brain of a transwoman (i.e. a man) is more similar in some respects to the brain of a woman than the brain of a man. Therefore, a transwoman has the brain of a woman.

However, this research has been critiqued by other scientists who point out that this study did not control for the fact that many transwomen (men) are actually gay men. It's already known that there are these parts of the brain in gay men that are more similar to those in women. In other words, the fact that some transwomen have brains more like women is not because they really are women but because they are gay men.

Apparently, if you control for that, the research shows that the brains of transwomen who aren't gay are not the same as women.

Also, if you run with the theory that female mammals have different brains because there is an evolutionary need for them to be around to care for young (not proposing this, just following the logic), how does that lead to an innate desire to wear high heels?

No, because people still have individual personalities. The argument is not that everybody would just be the same without gendered social influences.

There's also a third part of the brain debate which is the influence of hormones on both the development and the functioning of the brain.

That this happens is pretty clear from even a cursory reading of the Menopause boards, where many posters are pretty convinced that less oestrogen has helped them stop taking shit from men. And others. I also remember from a while back, seeing a paper which suggested that 'IQ', which is measured on a default male scale, decreases in girls at the onset of adolescence.

I also read recently an article about chess which suggested that even this needed to have sex categories because otherwise women would not get a look in. It didn't come to any fast conclusions, but suggested that men were more aggressive due to testosterone and possibly also because they fixated more.

Which isn't to say that just taking hormones will change your brain either, because high levels in that pesky adolescence when the brain is developing will also have a profound affect.

I think the key point is that anything concrete and evidence based - whether a psychological condition, hormones or brain difference can be analysed and critiqued and ultimately lead to an objective conclusion that somebody doesn’t have that condition.

That contrasts with the religious concept of being ‘born in the wrong body’.

Faith based medicine and policy isn’t usually proposed by main stream political parties in the U.K.

Agreed but many feminists believe that if you were to sort people who had all been socialised in the same manner by personality traits there would be no clear distinction between males and females. Whereas the science says that there would be a bimodal pattern centred around the qualities we consider to be masculine and feminine.