"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.

Science and modern psychology has proven that it is not caused by nurture; no one becomes transgender, gender identity is congenital, solidifying before we even exit the womb.

And they have "proven" this...how, exactly?

It also appears to sometimes be hereditary; transgender parents have a higher likelihood of having transgender children, and many times they realize this in reverse.

Filing this one under, "No shit, Sherlock."

also, Australia is very pro trans.

study should be replicated in areas where the bias towards affirming is much more balanced.

Ohh has someone been interviewing foetuses? Can't wait to read that report in full!

That's not what I said at all on any front.

I'm here to have a productive exchange about the complexities of sex development and what that means for being trans and/ or having a DSD.

Anyone who is interested in that I'm happy to have a respectful exchange with.

You need to read beyond sentence 2:

*To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1).

But you keep complaining that we wont agree with you so how is that a productive exchange?

It is noticeable that you are very quick to say "no it's not that" and ridicule posters for what they say but very shy of saying what you think about sex and gender.

It's a clear pattern with Genderists. Never explain, only attack. Even Tandora, for all her words, is not saying what sex or gender is, only what it is not.

Anyone would think you are scared to put it clearly out there for everyone to see because you know it doesn't stand up.

But please, prove me wrong.

What is this difference between men amd women that is simultaneously so meaningful that we need to give these groups of humans different names and at times different rights, that leads to such population level differences in life outcomes, in physical and sexual aggression, in political and cultural representation and power? So mysterious snd elusive that it can never be observed only the self reported, and yet so much more meaningful then simple physical sex not just to the individual but also to those they interact with that this undefinable unperceivable quality overrides whatever actual sex they may observe such that a woman no longer experiences a man's hands on her as a man's but as a woman's, a man's sight on her not as a man's gaze but a woman's glance, a man speaking for her not as male dominance but female solidarity?

Yes the suggestion of a "trans" brain is silly. As is the suggestion of a "male" and "female" brain. Obviously human brains are more complex than that. As are human bodies in general.

How so exactly?

Were you not just telling us that being trans is a hitherto undiscovered DSD found in the brain?

@Tandora
You may have missed this. I think your answer here would help clarify some details. Would appreciate it.

First of all, this isn't true. I've clarified my opinion on single sex spaces multiple times.

However, I'm not obliged to debate with you on any subject you please.

I've repeatedly stated that my interest in engaging in conversations about sex/ gender/ transness is not because I want to have a debate about who gets to use what toilet. I couldn't be less interested in that, and I don't think it's helpful.

As I have explained repeatedly, it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about policy when we can't even agree on the basics. In a context where there is so much misunderstanding about what being trans is, and so much prejudice towards trans people, that conversation is never going to reasonable.

So that is why I engage in these conversations. To try to challenge misunderstandings, prejudices related to understanding what 'sex' is, what 'gender' is, how they are related, and what it means to be trans or to have a DSD.

That is what I'm here to discuss. Not toilet arrangements, or security in prisons.

@Fidgetbreak sorry I did miss this.

How would we determine whether someone is male or female? Well firstly it would depend on the context - in which context were you thinking?

A GP deciding what contraception a patient should use.

A fertility clinic recruiting donors

A care provider selecting a carer for a disabled person who has asked for same sex care.

Choosing a surrogate

Accessing spaces wgere women are vulnerable (prisons/hospitals/changing rooms) or disadvantaged (sports) is what this boils down to.

and without clear delineation of what yhd male and female sexes are is what is needed

You can wax lyrical about how people ‘feel’ inside their heads and opine that theres a biological basis for those feelings all you want, but even if they do have a biological basis it doesn’t change the fact that people are objectively either male or female based on their sex - not their feelings, not how they’d prefer to present etc etc, but on actial reality.

I've repeatedly stated that my interest in engaging in conversations about sex/ gender/ transness is not because I want to have a debate about who gets to use what toilet. I couldn't be less interested in that and I don't think it's helpful.

I think your account must have been hacked then, because this username spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to claim that the SC ruling would still allow trans women into women's spaces. You seemed extremely interested in the topic then. Pages and pages of it IIRC.

Or is this part of your recent Damascene conversion from Protector of the Trans to Champion of the DSD and "Researcher" in "The Field"?

I was thinking generally. To pick something more specific, perhaps, in the context of seeing a doctor? Maybe you could mention some contexts where it could differ as well?

Exactly in the way that: why would you keep engaging, over multiple days, all day, all evening, despite it making you feel sick, if you are still merely TRYING to have a productive exchange and educate us into your way of thinking? If you're still TRYING to convince us, surely we're a lost cause? I think its clear that apart from one or 2 other posters, we aren't being convinced. So why keep going?

Ok, to summarise, @Tandora and @suggestionsplease1 :

• You feel that probably most or all (not sure which) trans people have a medical reason for being trans. Is this right?

• You believe there is extensive research to support this view, but have yet to cite it or provide links. Is this right? Have I missed the links?

• Is BeLemonNow's summary of your thinking on this point correct (page 27)?

• You believe that the tiny percentage of people currently diagnosed with DSD fall within this group (see above) of trans people (or do you think they are a separate group?)

Please correct my understanding if incorrect.

Now here's the thing:

• why does any of the above mean that this small percentage of trans women (men at birth) have a right to be in a space for women if women don't want them there?

Yes I believe the Supreme Court judgement has been widely wildly misinterpreted , and that misinterpretation needs urgently to be challenged as a matter of law.

I'm not interested in a broader conversation about who should have the right to use what toilet based on my opinion on that versus yours. It's not an interesting conversation, nor is it useful/ productive when there is still so much misunderstanding and prejudice directed at trans people.

It made me feel quite ill the thought that there are individuals determined to persistently and insistently impose the label "male" on women's with CAIS, yes. That attitude needs to be challenged - so challenge it I did.

There are many individual users who I don't bother reading posts from or replying to. There are some posters - a few - who engage in more interesting and productive ways - although tbf often that doesn't last.

I still think it's worth having the conversation, and when people ask me questions I think I can usefully reply to, I am driven to do so. For the sake of trans people, people living with DSDs and all humans in general.

@Tandora please, tell me why should I care whether a man 'thinks' he is a woman or whether a man has a 'medical' anomaly?

Why does either reason mean I should welcome him into my safe spaces?

This is the crux of the matter.

Why do you think you understand the law better than the country's finest legal experts?

Earlier you were claiming that your expertise in some mysterious and unspecified yet relevant area of scientific research means that you are more qualified to talk about biological sex than the rest of us.

Well...I'm a lawyer.

What would happen to individuals with CAIS if the medical profession decided that they were indeed female and couldn’t possibly be having a pile of testosterone running around their body that is useless to them, and thus there was no medical basis for them to receive necessary treatment - which would effectively leave them without sufficient sex hormones of any kind?

Whether someone is male or female isn't dependent on any context. The answer is the same in literally every context.