Do you support transitioning at all?

[UnlockedXCX]

I somewhat do, I will admit. I think it's okay if an adult wants to take hormones, dress as they'd like to, be treated as M or F, or even change their name. I'll respect it all. However I don't agree with them being allowed into single sex spaces or conversations (a gay trans person is functionally a straight person, despite what they say, and a gay FtM shouldn't try to date gay guys for example).

I question if this is a common view or is it niche in these more gender critical spaces.

I respect the right to bodily autonomy, wear what you like (so long as it’s respectable). I’ll even respect a chosen name, in a world where people name their child after pieces of fruit, or give them a letter as a name, then it’s something I’ll do out of politeness.

In relation to cross sex hormones, I’m a bit more dubious about, mainly due the medical implications rather than trying to restrict a persons bodily autonomy (bone density implications in women taking testosterone, or increased risk of vascular side effects in men on oestrogen). This isn’t as widely publicised, and the first principle of medicine should always be "first, do no harm".

In relation to chosen pronouns, no, I don’t accept them, an individual has a right to refer to themselves as they wish, but has no right to compel the speech of others.

Four single sex spaces, again no. I support the introduction of third spaces (in addition to, but not in lieu of single sex spaces). But one cannot have single sex spaces whilst permitting select members of the opposite sex to enter, as their inclusion means the space ceases to be single sex. There are circumstances where single sex spaces are required for privacy, safety and dignity, and these spaces need to remain single sex. The same goes for services.

@Grumpsy (bone density implications in women taking testosterone, or increased risk of vascular side effects in men on oestrogen).

This is actually the reverse:
TIF: testosterone => vascular side effects
TIM: oestrogen => bone density implications

And actually illustrates the problem of gender medicine: it's very difficult to keep things straight, even for doctors and specialists.

It is female people who take puberty blockers and then testosterone that have the greatest bone density issues. Maybe this will help.

Bone density issues caused by GnRH

Bone Health in the Transgender Population
Published online 2019 Jul 2.

Micol S. Rothman and Sean J. Iwamoto

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709704/

This

Also unknown are the long-term effects of puberty blockade, the effect of changes in body composition and the optimal type, timing, dosage, and route of administration of GAHT for bone outcomes.

Conclusion
The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.

And

GnRH analogues are frequently employed to provide puberty blockade in adolescents with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria. From their use in other medical conditions such as prostate cancer, their deleterious effects on the bone are well known, although these have the potential to be reversible if treatments are stopped or add back therapies can be given

And

However, Z-scores in the trans boys also showed an expected drop during GnRHa treatment. Similarly, they did not fully make up their bone loss as Z-scores at age 22 were still lower than baseline

Meaning, the authors acknowledge little is known about the lasting effects of puberty blockers. In this study, they propose some positive effect from cross sex hormones for females but ths results show that it doesn’t really make up the loss from puberty blockers.

@GallantKumquat I always get those the wrong was around 😬. Thanks.

But it is both sexes the have bone density issues according to Michael Biggs.

segm.org/the_effect_of_puberty_blockers_on_the_accrual_of_bone_mass

Biden’s EO was the equivalent of removing provisions prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of SEX from the Equality Act. Trump’s put it back.

just as exposure to certain hormonesplays a role in fetal sex differentiation

Hormones not only play a role in sex differentiation, they are differentiated due to sex. Foetal development is set at conception to follow either the male or female path and foetal production of different quantities hormones is part of the path set at conception.

@Helleofabore I haven’t even started on the long term implications of puberty blockers (testicular atrophy being one of the major consequences).

Thanks, taking questions in three:

Firstly R.e. Christian beliefs. I wouldn't say I act as if I have Christians beliefs in the sense I think you mean. I would not, for example recite the Apostles Creed in a church service "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and Earth..." because that would simply be lying. All those I am close to know I don't believe that.

However I am quite happy to have theological and emotional discussions with Christians. In the example I was thinking of someone was upset because of a relationship breakup and was saying things like "maybe God doesn't want me to have a family". I can't remember exactly what I said but let's suppose I said "Maybe He has someone else in mind for you".

I don't think that statement, in that context, was stating my personal belief in the existence of God any more than talking about Harry Potter presupposes his existence "I.e. "Harry Potter was a wizard". All my family know I don't believe in God.

Second. I'm not sure what you mean about a group of people changing the use of the English language to suit their philosophical beliefs? An example might be helpful.

Third. I was just referring to the very hypothetical scenario that humans are born with an innate belief as to what sex/gender/your preferred term they are is, that could differ from actual sex. I would still support same sex spaces based on actual sex.

See my above post third - that it is possible that for example a "transgender" woman could be born with some sort of innate belief as to their sex that could differ from their actual sex.

My understanding was gender critics don't hold that view and believe gender dysphoria stems from societal expectations / developed mental illness or other?

I find the above unlikely but it is possible.

How is pushing out "Commander Emily Schilling, a Navy fighter pilot", who is transgender male to female, preventing harmful stereotypes?

Ignoring the US case and armed forces for the moment, do you support revoking the UK EA2010 protections against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment?

”Ignoring the US case and armed forces for the moment, do you support revoking the UK EA2010 protections against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment?”

But you can’t ignore the armed forces because that was what you used as the only example. And in the military there will be always a need to consider active service and deployment.

Not really - because there is no womanliness in a man - the concept is fake, not all venues have the funds or space to build unisex facilities alongside their current single sex facilities - gents / ladies - there are only two sexes, that should be enough…

Any option which asks society to accept that TWAW in any format however small / gentle and practiced individually is possible - is asking society to live a lie…

the threats and aggression were a mistake which triggered a more robust reaction, but there will never be any format of TWAW which will be acceptable simply because it never has been and never will be true…

TWAMID (transwomen are men in dresses) sure
TWAMWWHPTBW (transwomen are men who would have preferred to be women) also fine (though not very snappy!)

but TWAW will always be no because it can’t be true because men can not be women

How is pushing out "Commander Emily Schilling, a Navy fighter pilot", who is transgender male to female, preventing harmful stereotypes?

In what way did Commander Schillimg and others believe himself to be female? It certainly isn’t due to his sex so it can only be based on him identifying with what his fantasy of what women are apart from their sex - in other words harmful sex stereotypes.

@akkakk I don't quite understand what bit of my post you are replying "no" to given that what I wrote is pretty much in line with what you wrote in your 2nd-5th paragraphs.

You and I and many other mumsnetters certainly believe in the binary and immutable nature of sex. However, I would rather live in a society where we find a way to coexist in peace (and with no reduction in women's rights, privacy and dignity) with those who believe in the existence of gendered souls that can occupy a body of the opposite sex, rather than a society where such beliefs are suppressed/banned.

I'm happy with ^TWAMID (transwomen are men in dresses) and
TWAMWWHPTBW (transwomen are men who would have preferred to be women)^ and would add TWAMPWBTAWBHTRARTOISUTNEHTBT
(Transwomen are Male people who believe they are women but have the respect and responsibility to operate in society understanding that nobody else has to believe that) which is even less snappy. I was never advocating for TWAW, just advocating that I don't want to stop other people believing TWAW if they can have the respect not to impose that belief on others. I was responding to @MarieDeGournay post from 19:52 on 29 Jun If trans people don't believe they have actually changed biological sex, that's great because then they'll have no problem using the facilities designated for their biological sex, and trans activists can stop obsessing about toilets and throwing urine around the place and pissing on statues and that kind of thing. Super! to explain that there are some trans people in these categories, and finding ways to accommodate other people's beliefs in a way that doesn't squash anyone else's rights (eg by schools making an exception to their "no knives" rule to enable practicing sikhs to wear their Kirpan, or by using building regs to increase the expectation that buildings will be designed with both single sex and unisex facilities where this is reasonable and practical)

My point about language is that a small group of people have demanded that language, including pronouns, now have different meanings. Even using ‘their’ when you know the sex of the person is a change of usage. All to support someone’s philosophical belief. One that isn’t based in material reality.

So, why should society allow this collectively?

How is it going to be proven if someone has an innate belief about having a ‘gender’ that doesn’t align with their sex? How does that work? Strip away the emotion, how does the logic play out. Each person has a sexed body. What are they basing their ‘innate identity’ on? Their personal concept of what they believe they are. Not on any materially experienced concept.

Can you name something similar that would indicate how this works?

I can’t. Because it is only ever someone identifying with the built up profile of what that label they have claimed. So, in their mind, that label has characteristics that the person perceives or attributes to the label. This is likely to not really be accurate at all. A male person who identifies as a woman may well simply be identifying as another type of male that they reject as being male.

So, it is not a measurable attribute. Despite all the philosophical theorising, it simply is impossible to assess, measure or authenticate. I would ask you to explain more but I see you were just exploring.

In my opinion, it is impossible that any male person can have an innate female identity. I would suggest that if someone believes this, they might also believe in souls that will transfer between bodies when one body dies.

ooops you're correct.😳 It was my own search on the issue that got confused. 😭

Often it is hard to work out what sex the people are that they refer to. It would be so much easier if researcher just used male and female. But also reading Michael Biggs, he doesn’t point to one sex over another. It is confusing.

I only remember this study because a male poster once posted it as some kind of gotcha without reading it. But I did and kept the link. He stopped posting links because they tended to backfire on him.

It was a fairly steady thing for a while - posting links and claiming they said one thing when a cursory glance showed the opposite. Often the links were a trans activists commentary on the paper instead of the paper itself to try and hide the real results.

Thank you - helpful clarification and I think we are probably 98% in agreement - I just find it hard to accept any situation where people believe that there can be a claim of TWAW and that will be okay - the more the truth comes out the more we realise that driving that claim has been misogynistic men with an ulterior motive…

I accept that there are some who have genuine body dysmorphia, but we need to reframe that back to what it is to allow it to be treated as it should be rather than the currently encouraged mutilations and damaging changes to bodies for a mental health issue…

so, hear what you are saying but would just draw the boundary the other side- where we all accept that TWANT (transwomen are not women!) as that restarts the discussion from a place of more honesty… compromise can be good, but compromising to accept an approach based on a lie is not going to help, so we need to be cautious

Because that bloke counts as an actual female in the numbers thanks to the great Biden. Because if that bloke was deployed he’d get to sleep in the female quarters. How do you think that will make his female colleagues feel? They don’t get single sex sleeping arrangements or showers cos some man “feels like a woman”. How does that help unit cohesion? Or do their feelings not matter?

They don’t count women when they tot up benefits and harms.

They did have that habit.

Now they will resort to saying ‘google it ‘. And usually we are the ones who post links.

I wonder how female military personnel feel about Levine being celebrated as the highest ranking female officer.

There are so many aspects of the military executive orders that simply get dismissed when people use it as the example of discrimination by the Trump administration.

Thanks that's interesting. R.e. pronouns

What's your view on a new entirely gender neutral singular pronoun like "ze"? Not specifically for transgender or non binary, someone anyone can use. Coincidentally, though not a lawyer, I was in once in a legal drafting seminar and the whole he or she or using he as both is a nuisance - that's where I've heard "ze".

(Lawyers are always defining English terms how it is convenient for drafting purposes btw! Always check what a term means in a contract...)

R.e. gender, yes I was mainly theorising. However there is plenty evidence of humans are born with innate beliefs, or however described, to help them navigate their environment - I.e. gravity, object permanence. Brains are influenced by sex hormones so it is possible we may have an innate belief as to our sex and so possible to get a false belief. More plausible than souls.

But I suspect it's more environmental. Society is far far too gender stereotyped and increasingly so. But I am a pragmatist. I'm not sure once someone gets to a point where they strongly feel like the wrong gender, perhaps because of millions of sexist social interactions, it is possible to change that belief or resulting distress.

So I reluctantly accept using an adults social transitioning as pragmatic - even them adopting a belief that might not be literally true, if it is effective. I don't agree with i.e. the American right or the Trump decree that this is lying. They are just a bit too literal imho - the same way American creationism and denying evolution is imho an overly literal interpretation of the Bible which isn't as widespread in the UK.

I get this doesn't exactly apply to those TRAs who deny biological sex whatsoever.