TRA Nebulous dog whistle claim

[WaterThyme]

An old friend who used to be and still thinks she is a feminist but went full on TRA a while ago said she was following someone called ChristopherE recently:

https://bsky.app/profile/christopher664023.bsky.social/post/3lahwh7u6rk2t?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR18A7QAUOWtlANQDoSCJitvhGgiOYxXJQOmVvd_sesJkFDWfwXm4Yu_l2s_aem_SvvDS6GJvogIJL_Tw2_nPg

His argument runs that scientists established how chromosomes determine how sex develops and works in the human body. Then they found it wasn’t as simple as XX and XY.

But instead of discussing endocrinology or other factors he outlines several DSD conditions to claim that science is continually finding more complications so what we believe to define bio sex is constantly developing.

ChristoperE’s clincher is that he’s found a paper claiming to show MtFs have a female profile in a particular brain structure. His implication is that it’s just one more of those refinements of how sex manifests that hadn’t been found yet and guess what, it supports a physical differentiation of MtFs.

Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

https://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/male%20to%20female.pdf

Apart from the fact that I think the paper is pretty dubious, which I’ll turn to below, ChristopherE’s post raises some questions.

How does this argument relate to TRA claims of the gendered soul if they’re now pursuing some kind of physical reality?

If TRA’s are changing tack and saying sex is biological, presumably they’re saying that makes trans Real. So scientists could theoretically find more physical tests like this and determine who is trans. That wouldn’t go down well with the performative wing.

Does this type of argument mean that TRAs are rattled and trying to make space for new validation of their arguments? The paper is now 25 years old. If it’s so earth-shattering, how come it’s only just come to light?

The Kruijver paper (ChristopherE couldn’t even spell the first author’s name correctly) looks pretty iffy to me, but I am not a neurologist, just another scientist. It involved the brains of 42 people who had died from a range of causes. Not a large sample.

The reference subjects were: 9 presumed heterosexual males; 9 homosexual males; all but one of whom died from AIDS; 10 presumed heterosexual females; 6 male-to-female transsexuals (implicitly receiving treatment); 1 untreated male with cross-gender identity feelings; 1 female-to-male transsexual; 3 males with sex hormone disorders; 3 females with sex hormone disorders.

One can only speculate what “presumed” might mean.

Overall:

• the numbers are small,
• it was hard to get samples at all
• The results could just as well reflect natural or constructed hormone levels.
• The overlaps are significant.

Not convincing - so why are TRAs wheeling it out? They think we won’t look?

ChristoperE’s clincher is that he’s found a paper claiming to show MtFs have a female profile in a particular brain structure. His implication is that it’s just one more of those refinements of how sex manifests that hadn’t been found yet and guess what, it supports a physical differentiation of MtFs.

I always find these claims, erm, interesting

• attaching so much importance to this one 'marker' that it disproves/undermines the binary. There are so many markers and many of them are rather more relevant to the question - like gamete production;
• Brain plasticity - it's well accepted that our brains are plastic, so testing adults' brains means that determining whether a difference was present at birth or developed later is pretty much impossible given we do not routinely scan babies' brains; and
• Should the brain differences be found to be present at birth does this really prove such people are the opposite sex, or could it be that the brain difference is the reason they believe themselves to be?

a paper claiming to show MtFs have a female profile in a particular brain structure

If it's found in males, it's a male profile. Even if it's a less common one.

I guess if your friend thinks brain scans are the way forward then it seems that prior to hormones and/or surgeries they would be very useful in identifying the ‘true trans’ as opposed to those who aren’t. Sure that would go down a treat. I recall a certain transperson recently coming up with a similar biological claim which was quickly shut down by other trans people.

As for the NB’s what would their brain scans show?

It’s been this way for years. They claim both that the internal sense of identity is what makes someone a woman.

Then they claim there's brain scans to back this up.

But they never explain why a feeling or brain scans overrides physical sex (penis or vagina/ability to impregnate or give birth).

And they never suggest using brain scans as screening tests - it's always self id.

It's how conmen work, whatever point you question them on the answer is just out of reach.

then there's London taxi driver gender brains. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/the-bigger-brains-of-london-taxi-drivers

Gametes. Not brain scans.

It's all nonsense. As PPs have said, they have been making these claims for years, despite the fact that the "biological" idea contradicts the idea that they have a gendered soul, or that gender is an "identity". And how on earth do non-binary identities fit into all of this?

As Justme says, if they really believe that trans people have brains that look different from that typical of their biological sex, then we can start using brain scans to differentiate between the real trans and the fake trans. Imagine how well that can go down.

But perhaps refer your friend to this article by Richard Dawkins, which explains in some detail that there are only two sexes, and why.

richarddawkins.substack.com/p/is-the-male-female-divide-a-social

So is it fair to surmise that the transwomen who behave precisely like entitled men are the ones without this special brain difference? No need for costly scans, women will be able to tell after 5 minutes in their company or on their social media.

But that makes no logical sense.

If a pattern is found in male and female brains, even if it's found more often in female brains, that just makes it a pattern (that's in the brains of both sexes).

Unless they're positing that this pattern is the sole determinator of male/female-ness - which would be rather impractical, since it apparently doesn't match up with the sex of the person, so we'd have to re-write what male/female means, and remove all reference to gametes for all animals and plant life.

You can't have it both ways - either sex is related to reproductive potential (assuming all has gone as it should during development) or it's this one area of the brain (allegedly). You can't say it's generally reproductive potential, except in some circumstances when it's the area of the brain, because that's not a cohesive group, that's not a definition at that point, it's a dream.

How odd to claim that a brain scan indicates your sex, but your genitals & potential reproductive development doesn’t!