"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Discuss

[dunBle]

To save further derailment of the Sandie Peggie tribunal threads with people debating Tandora's statements on the above theme, I've started this thread to point them to instead.

"Insisting that trans people are not who they know/say they are, despite zero insight into the lived experiences of trans people or transness as a biopsychological, neurodevelopmental experience."

Should women and girls accept the word of any male in this respect?

If no - how can they tell which are truthfully women and which are not?

If yes - is this the only thing that someone can say which must be unquestionably believed? Can you see issues with telling women and girls to just trust men?

What has brain/beliefs/thoughts/identity got to do with sex?

I haven't read the rest of the thread so I'm just responding to the title:

"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components"

How many dimensions and what are they?

How many components and what are they?

How can this model be applied across all sexually reproducing species? Not just humans.

Let's see some detail.

Actually Rosa, I have Abitur in Biology (and chemistry), a Masters, a PhD, two postdocs, a career in research, a publication record, do occasional peer reviews and I absolutely love a a game of education top trumps, so lets play.

How can this model be applied across all sexually reproducing species? Not just humans.
This probably annoys me more than anything. For all this to make even the tiniest bit of sense you need to remove humans from the entire rest of the living world.

@tandoraWhat kind of research are you doing, and in what field? For example, are you a social scientist, a marketer, a philosopher, a biologist, a sports scientist, a medical doctor, or something else?

@Tandora: "Insisting that trans people are not who they know/say they are, despite zero insight into the lived experiences of trans people or transness as a biopsychological, neurodevelopmental experience."

People are who they know/say they are? Really? Always? ...

'There's a guy works down the chipshop swears he's Elvis.' -- If I have zero insight into the lived experience of work in a chippy, or of Elvisness as a biopsychological, neurodevelopmental experience, can I not nevertheless insist this guy certainly isn't Elvis and never lived in Graceland?

And a fortiori, can I not insist that someone claiming to have done the impossible - even claiming to know he or she has - hasn't in fact done so?

(And ... changing sex is impossible for a human. So ...)

Hmm?

I am delighted with the Supreme Court judgment, which has brought the legal clarity we all needed.

What I am not happy about is the attitude of those who intend not to comply with the law.

Medicating for personality?

especially personalities that don’t conform.

Yes, where is all the research into the brains of gender distressed teenage girls? Compared to the ones who eventually grow out of it, and compared to those who go on to perform man gender by getting pregnant? And where are all the middle aged women suddenly identifying as men?

But apparently, Ig, your opinion should be just as dismissed as the rest of us High School level science students.

Ah the old 'The mere existence of trans women is misogynistic' chestnut.

The logic very much can be different from that and you continually asserting your opinion as fact does not make it so.

Insisting that trans people are not who they know/say they are, despite zero insight into the lived experiences of trans people or transness as a biopsychological, neurodevelopmental experience.

So this is a lived experience of a trans person. I insist that the author is who they say they are?

I imagine you are going to disagree Tandora.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22005209/#:~:text=Autogynephilia%20is%20defined%20as%20a,%2Dfemale%20(MtF)%20transsexualism.

Abstract
Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women's clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence. Some theorists and clinicians reject the transsexual typology and theory of motivation derived from autogynephilia; their objections suggest a need for additional research. The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called 'erotic target identity inversions', in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.

Can you explain how a male person redefining the words 'female' and 'woman' and 'girl' to include male people is not an act of misogyny please?

The title alone reeks of trolling and a juvenile attempt to sound scientifically informed.

I'd be totally ok with a proper reasoned argument, properly referenced, something that is coherent and consistent with the observations of the living world around us, but that is not what is happening.
I've just come out of a 1.5 days meeting with about 30 fellow biologists, none of who thinks sex is anything but binary which was quite clear from their presentations and the discussions, about animals not humans tbf but we are not separate from the rest of the biological world.

But are you speaking of people with DSDs (between .02% and 1.7% of the population) or trans people? Trans people do not have different karyotypes etc, they are e.g. men or women who feel they are the opposite sex. What you feel is not something verifiable.

"a proper reasoned argument, properly referenced, something that is coherent and consistent with the observations of the living world around us"

Indeed. I think many people on this board would agree wholeheartedly.

None of that means @Igneococcus knows anything about sex/ gender diversity unless that is her specialism.

Right so you don't even work on human biology?

And yet, you wish us to take you as being an expert....

And you express doubts about Ig's qualifications, while you have insisted that even mentioning your field of study and the stream will 'out' you....

Do you see the hypocrisy that we keep pointing out?

I don’t think she claimed any expertise in the field. Another poster was trying to say no one here had any scientific training beyond gcse. This is far from the truth. Many of us may not be experts in relevant fields but are highly scientifically educated/literate.
Asking for a bit more detail on the field and credentials of someone explicitly claiming expertise seems to me to be very obviously reasonable.

You don't have to be a vet to know what a dog is.

Do you? Have you told is by now what you actually work on?
For what its worth, this meeting was with a business unit that is mainly involved with animals (live stock mostly) but in September I'll spend an entire week talking about humans.

Tandora is Sally Hines, isn't she?