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.

😵@ that graphic!

"The science says", does it?

Its a screenshot from the Cass Report.

And this is text from the Cass Report

Differences in gender role behaviours are
apparent in pre-school, when children start to
show gender stereotyped behaviour in their
play. Around this time, they seek to play with
same-sex peers.

Toy choice has been extensively studied.
Researchers classify toys into those that are
typically preferred by boys (for example, cars
and trucks) and those that are typically preferred
by girls (for example, dolls). A systematic review
(Davis & Hines, 2020) demonstrated that these
differences in toy choice are very large.

Like biological characteristics such as
height, there is a large overlap in gender role
behaviours. This variability in gender role
expression exists from an early age (some
girls exhibit behaviours that are traditionally
perceived as more masculine, and some boys
exhibit behaviours that are perceived as more
feminine).

A common assumption is that toy choice
and other gender role behaviours are solely
a result of social influences; for example, that
boys will only be given trucks and girls will
only be given dolls to play with. Although this
is partially true, there is evidence for prenatal
and postnatal hormonal influence on these
behaviours.

Sex differences in the brain emerge in
the second half of pregnancy. There is strong
evidence from animal studies that these
changes are driven by the presence or absence
of testosterone and have a long-term effect on
sex-typed development (Bakker, 2014).

All three of the human characteristics
that show particularly large sex differences
(childhood sex-typed play, sexual orientation
and gender identity) have been found to relate
to early testosterone exposure.

Sex-typed play has been studied more
extensively than any other human behaviour
in this context, and at least 10 independent
research groups have reported a link to prenatal
testosterone exposure (Hines, 2015)

I think the more common consensus would be that we don’t really know how much is nature and how much is nurture, but that there is no need to sort people by personality traits.

But why is that graphic lumping together biological characteristics, social characteristics and sexuality?

Well, quite.

The only situations where society really needs to distinguish between male and female people are single sex spaces, and sports.

In sport, the only one of the characteristics in that graphic which may be even slightly relevant is height.

When it comes to things like toilets or prisons, none of them are relevant, surely.

I think its by way of comparision

My original point was that if we accepted the science that (on average) males and females have innately different personalities then we can understand where others have got the idea of inbuilt Gender Identity from.

Yes, and oddly Owen Jones and other critics of the Cass report were very offended by that, even though it would seem to support the argument that gendered differences are innate. I admit my gut reaction is that they are more due to nurture, mainly because I am so aware of the difference in opportunities I have compared to my grandmother. But that doesn’t mean the study is wrong.

Even then I would argue that it’s like height. More men than women are 6 foot, but a height of 6 foot is also normal in women.

The only situations where society really needs to distinguish between male and female people are single sex spaces, and sports.

Tell that to three/four/five year olds that intuitively start to separate themselves by sex

Even those graphs show that interest in gendered toys is like height, as the distributions are similar. And those quotes don't make a claim for solely innate differences, but an unknown combination of some hormone related differences and socialisation.

OK.

So if we say that plotting adult height and adult sexuality is going to show a broadly bimodal distribution for males and females with some overlapping in the middle, what does that mean?

For height it means that most males will be taller than most females, with some overlapping in the middle where some males are shorter and some females are taller. OK. Makes sense.

For sexuality it means that most males are sexually attracted to females and most females are sexually attracted to males, with some overlapping in the middle representing people who are same sex attracted. Fine.

As I understand it, a person's true height or true sexuality isn't known to be influenced by environmental factors. Someone might grow less tall than their natural potential due to malnutrition, or grow unnaturally tall due to use of puberty blockers, for example, but by and large our adult height is determined by our DNA. And for sexuality, some people who are same sex attracted might not be "out", or might even be in denial themselves about it, so their official sexual orientation is influenced by environmental factors, but as far as we know if people grew up in an environment where there was no moral value attached to being either gay or straight, their natural sexual orientation would not be influenced by environmental factors.

But things like playing with different types of toys, or preferring different types of clothes are HUGELY influenced by environmental factors.

We can predict that a child who is male is likely to fall in the taller height range as an adult and be sexually attracted to biological females. We have absolutely no way of predicting what toys that male child would play with or what clothes he would choose to wear if he were raised in an environment free from gender stereotypes.

We have no way of knowing whether any correlation between gender presentation and height or sexuality is innate, i.e. little boys have an innate passion for toy cars, or whether it is socialised, i.e. little boys who will most likely grow up to be tall and attracted to women are given toy cars to play with from birth.

But the problem with accepting that oversimplification is that it’s too easy to lose the essential detail of “on the whole” or any nuance about distribution curves, and retain and perpetuate the idea that, for example, women are nurturing, therefore people who are not nurturing are not women. And it’s so harmful to us.

They might want to, but they don't need to.

Which is why we let three/four/five year olds attend mixed sex nurseries and schools.

I show a lot of typically male traits, such as anger in response to stress, analytical skills, and hyper-focus on problems. Yet I was sexually assaulted at primary school based on my female body.

I find seriously offensive and genuinely harmful the notion that I don't have a female brain or have a male (or indeed any) gender identity. My autism was missed when I was at school because I was born female and socialised as a girl, causing heavy masking of my autistic traits. This missed diagnosis has caused me life-long harm. I don't have a male brain nor a male personality, I have a female autistic brain and personality.

The "science" claiming that male and female brains are inherently different also claimed for decades that autism is a male-only condition.

A person's personality will be influenced by their upbringing and experiences, many of which will be gendered. It will not be shaped directly by their biological sex.

Haven't RTFF, but the conversation I sometimes envisage would go something like...

Your friendly unthinking politician: "A woman is someone who defines themselves as a woman..." etc. etc. etc.

GC feminist: "I'm so glad you agree it's important that we recognise & advocate for oppressed groups - trans women, trans men, disabled people, the neurodiverse, gay men etc. But can I ask you something about one of the most oppressed groups globally? Would would you call the... er... how should I say this, er... post-pubertal females in Afghanistan? You know, the ones who are effectively modern slaves, unable to leave their home with permission from a... er... sorry, er, what would you call the group they need permission from, again?"

Politician: "Waffle, waffle waffle... women... men."

GC feminist: "Oh. Right! Wow. So... Let me work this out. Are you saying there are trans women who are treated similarly in Afghanistan? I mean, that's really quite significant if so, right - most people don't realise! Shouldn't we make that clear? And are you suggesting some trans men contribute to the oppression of -"

Politician: (Rapidly interrupting) "Waffle, waffle waffle... women... er..."

GC feminist: "Oh. Er, right. So... Huh. Let me try to work this out. Er, if I understand you correctly, only the adult females who identify - in your words 'live as' - women are oppressed in that way? But, er... ALL the adult females over there ARE perceived in that way. So, er, wow - I mean, are you saying - are you actually saying - that all of them 'identify with' that role, in 'living as women'? You surely can't mean that that's who and what they believe they fundamentally are, can you?"

Politician: "Waffle, waffle waffle... er... BYEEEE!"

(Politician disappears at pace, in preference to imploding with the impossibility of trying to justify removing from an entire oppressed demographic the ONLY word they have to define themselves and name their oppression).

I don't really understand that graphic, @Thingybob .

Height is measurable; I see how that's plotted. Sure, overlapping Gaussian distributions.

But 'interest in male sexual partners'? How on earth is that measured? Surely it's going to be 'yes' or 'no' (even for bisexuals) rather than a continuous distribution? Maybe one's level of interest is variable; a sliding scale? OK, let's go with it.

'Interest in boys' toys'. OK, I suppose we can specify in advance, count choices, smooth the graph.

But, then, 'identification with male gender'? Huh? How on earth has that been measured? And, well, look: no overlap. No female's degree of this variable is as great as the least male's, however measured. This particular graph seems to be an example of the trans deologues greatest nightmare: it denies the very existence of trans people: if, for instance a trans woman is, by definition, a female with as much of a male gender identity as some man, there just aren't any of those, according to this graph.

What's going on? I suspect Cass, in trying to be even-handed, gave too much to the trans lobby, here and elsewhere.

In fact, there is no such thing as gender identity as trans ideologues would have there be. At best, it's a genre of ungrounded metaphysical belief. But no-one thinks we can measure, say, the piety of one's immortal soul or the pellucidity of one's paranormal aura; we must expect the same difficulties to attend attempts to measure the strength of gender identities and so make them amenable to scientific study. In short, you better not try to do science with 'gender identity'.

Nice try. No cigar.

[This is not to say Melissa Hines, from whose paper the graphic was adapted, hasn't done good work. But, well, caveat emptor applies in empirical psychology as well as Sainsburys.]

This is the original source of those graphs, if it helps:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691233/

This may have come up in other threads, but Afghanistan's on my mind today after that article in The Guardian exploring why the plight of Afghan women isn't front and centre. One claim the author made was that Western feminists were too preoccupied with "identity politics". It made me seethe.

1. Yes, "local" concerns that directly affect us and on which we (like to think we) can make an impact, such as UK women's diminishing access to equality of opportunity & safe (in the old-fashioned, literal sense) single-sex spaces is going to be a valid concern for us, wouldn't you say?

2. How can we advocate for Afghan women if we can't name them as a group?

3. How dare you contribute to the damage done to women globally, including both groups, 1) and 2) above, local and Afghan, by perpetuating the idea that arguing for their right simply to name themselves is just an insignificant "culture war".

4. And how dare you add, in your own small yet significant way, to the very same forces that are wrenching our time and attention away from addressing the devastating issues you so hypocritically claim to be highlighting (in our own, unforgivable absence) in your article.

Still seething.

Edited to say: sorry for blithely interrupting probably far more interesting discussions with my ranting reply to the OP. An element of catharsis in posting, after these issues also arose at work today in a way that put me in an impossible situation I wholeheartedly resent. Grr.

Doesn't everyone on this side agree that a woman is someone born female?

I'd also argue that its not sensible to reject a theory if its true. If it's harmful, although I don't think it is, then we should find a way of mitigating that.

I think you'll need to go to the original research to answer most of your questions but I'll respond to.....

What's going on? I suspect Cass, in trying to be even-handed, gave too much to the trans lobby, here and elsewhere

by saying perhaps feminists haven't got the full picture? We expect the trans lobby to look at the evidence that supports our side, shouldn't we do the same?

I really think this tweet from famous ‘TERF’ Owen Jones is relevant here:

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1778184206696521809

Cass presents the research currently available as fairly as possible.

However what this excerpt doesn’t do is provide evidence of any conclusive understanding of gender.

Some traits are observed in this study to be more common in males than females. It does not therefore follow that those traits are an indicator of being male or female.

Yes, and there Hines refers to two more of her studies to back up the graph of 'sex difference in gender identity', https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15216426/and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710824/.

But none of these makes any attempt to suggest how the variable 'Identification with male gender' is measured (for which there's a reasonable explanation I'll leave you to discern). Nor is the question of no overlap mentioned, much less its implication explained.

(In fact, both these latter studies deal exclusively with sufferers from congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Let's not get into that.)

Measurement of 'gender identity' remains mysterious. Indeed, Hines begs the question of its very existence. (As does Cass, possibly for the reason I suggested earlier).

So my remarks stand: I remain puzzled about what @Thingybob thought this graphic showed.

No. Not "by saying perhaps feminists haven't got the full picture": rather by begging the question of the existence of gender identity in the sense intended by trans ideologues.

We've looked for evidence for this. Of course we have. There isn't any; if there were we would certainly have seen it by now.

Things really are that bad for trans ideology. The part of it relying on the existence of gender identity fails to make any sense right from the start. And the post-modernist wing ... well, does Cass touch at all on that?