Countering 'gender critical' misinformation for the umpteenth time

[BeeSourianteAgain]

The firehose of misinformation that comes from 'gender critical' world is quite insane, so posting the latest nonsense here and tackling from the source, so to speak.

The rant attached is typical, I've heard similar ?hundreds of times, particularly on the Nazi site.

Ignoring the unhinged hate that is quite normal for such people.

(1) Trans women "sprout tits" because there's a large increase (all humans have both estradiol and testosterone, but just differ in amount) in estradiol due to the bio-identical* - the same thing that happens in regular puberty. It's why it's called 2nd puberty for those who have already gone through one. "sex" isn't a magic construct, we are all human beings who have the genetic instructions for both male and female characteristics. Sex hormones are essentially 'sex-signalling' chemicals.

Sex hormones cause a change in genetic expression and the body responds (i.e.phenotypic expression) by building whatever sex structures that are being signalled and even attempts to modify what is already created (hence change in size and thankful loss of function in both trans men and women)

(2) Breasts or any other sex characteristics don't "disappear" - they can and do lose function and atrophy, but in order to change structures that have already been created, you'll need gender-affirming surgery (something which people are fine with cisgender people do it, but get all icky and lizard-brained when trans people do it) Similarly, post menopause, because the relative ratio of testosterone: estradiol is more balanced (cisgender) women can and do gain more male characteristic (e.g.. lowering of vocal pitch, pattern baldness), though it's nothing like what happens with transgender men as they have an extreme testosterone: estradiol ratio as cisgender men

(3) As stated previously, all humans have both testosterone and estradiol..and there's nothing "alien" about bioidentical hormones, if that were the case, all humans would have these "alien" chemicals running around them.

(4) There's nothing particularly remarkable about the amount of sex hormones that the vaaaast majority of trans people take (I know of a single binary trans person who isn't and that's only due to their specific health circumstances - I know hundreds of trans people). It's increased if estradiol / testosterone is still being endogenously produced, but as with what happens in 100% of cases, once that stops (even if you don't have surgeries, your body 'gets the message' after a time anyway), once that's not an issue, doses are in the same range as anyone else.

Even if trans people were smothering themselves in gel like GCs believe, it wouldn't matter anyway. Sex hormones are not paracetamol - to 'overdose' on them would pretty much mean drowning yourself in vat of hormone gel.

Just like with cisgender women, trans women often also reduce their dose later in life.

(5) Trans people don't take hormones to 'feminise' - they take them to deal with (body) gender dysphoria. It's utterly crazy the amount of anti-trans activists who, despite obsessing over us 24/7, don't know that body gender dysphoria is a thing. A few years back my jaw dropped when I had to explain that to a prominent member of the now defunct Women's Place. It's like people think we go through sex changes for fun smh

(6) The wishing of death on trans people by the GC in attached, is, sadly for her, incorrect. We do have worse health outcomes but for the same boring reasons that any other marginalised group does. Again, HRT relating to sex-change or menopause is in 99% of cases, bioidentical. There were issues relating to synthetic hormones which we should be having a conversation about in relation to younger cisgender women, but sadly fake feminists don't want that.

Trans women are at increased risk of things like breast cancer and reduced risk of prostate cancer, but the former isn't any different to cisgender women, as, unsurprisingly they're exactly the same things.

If anyone read that and still thinks that 'sex' is a binary, immutable thing, then you are truly lost.

*i.e. chemically identical - the only people who get horse-piss estradiol these days are younger cisgender women who are on birth control meds that contain estradiol as well as (synthetic) progresterone. Of course, this should actually be a concern but apparently shitting on trans people is what passes for 'women's rights activism' for some, particularly r/w, people. There's no good reason that I know of why BC should still be using synthetics.

+1

I've never read as much bollox as the OPs opening post in my entire life. Kind of ironic really.

Yes likely - do you think likely is definitive? And do you understand that it is equally likely to do the same in women?

https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj-2023-078784

I’ve presented a few studies and anyone can look up more, there clearly needs to be much more research into the health aspects of “transitioning”. The BHF says trans people of both sexes have a higher risk of CVD. This is due to multiple factors, they claim.

A man has treatment on every visible part of his body to attempt to feminine his appearance: He's a surgically altered man.
A man has no treatment but says he's a woman: He's a man with dysphoria.

No I don’t understand that and AFAIK it hasn’t been proven that oestrogen has exactly the same effects on a male body than a female one. We are talking about men, with male bodies.

It’s not plug and play. Women have different bodies to men.

Of course it doesn’t have the exact same effects, and nowhere have I said it does. It has multiple effects on the body. Here though we’re discussing the effect on the CVS. Oral oestrogen is associated with increased risk of CVD, thrombosis and ischaemic events in women, so it’s no surprise it would have the same effect on men. Transdermal oestrogen is associated with a reduced risk in women and I am curious whether that would also be the case for men.

HRT is being wildly over promoted for women and it astonishes me that anyone is still taking oral oestrogen given the known risks. For the third time that was my entree to this thread, and nothing more. I think I’ll avoid the ‘feminism’ board in future, it’s fucking toxic.

No shit.

Why would a trans woman, who believes it is incorrect and hateful to say that womanhood is related to being female, want to take female hormones?

I suspect the OP is trying to spread transphobic rhetoric.

I think posts like these are really dangerous. Men and women are very different and require different health care because of that. And that is not just because of hormones.
Trying to state that a man using female hormones is the same as a woman endangers both the man as well as the woman because medically they will show different symptoms and require different treatment for the same medical problem.

And no, Bee, I am not a man now I have been through menopause and I am not at risk of prostate cancer.

I'm GC. Please give an example of what I think and why it's hateful.

This gave me a great giggle 🤭 Thank you xx

my entire point was that it doesn’t have the exact same effects. Men are not women biologically, even when they take a hormone that their male reproductive system was never intended (and no, I’m not saying it was designed) to deal with in the large quantities that they take it in in order to overcome the reality of their male bodies.

You came in on a thread that was posted by a TRA to goad women here. Not your fault, but that’s why people are dismissive.

This.

Well written??!

Practically every sentence has some sort of typo or grammar error in it.

This!

I try not to engage Bee directly because I know that he's not interested in a debate and his posts have an element of trolling. But, to his credit his posts often capture the essence of the trans arguments on certain points, and in this case get to the heart of their fallacious reasoning.

The trans argument is that men (let's limit ourselves to transwomen here) who decide they're women and undertake certain medical interventions , are in no meaningful way different from biological women: physiologically or in their metaphysical essence.

This is a radical assertion. Not only does the burden of proof lie with TRAs to prove their case, but to do so would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to support - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

But we know in advance that kind of evidence can't exist. There hasn't been time for the childhood-to-grave longitudinal studies to have been conducted on the combined effects of puberty blockers; early, life long cross sex hormone substitution and surgery interventions. They would have to have been started in the 50s. But the modern, WPATH, treatment protocols involving children weren't started until relatively recently, have never been properly standardized and no high-qualtity studies have been started, with the possible exception of in the last year. (And let's not even get into the deliberate falsification of scientific research by TRA)

There is a huge amount about the functioning of human endocrine system which remains unknown. It's absurd to argue that physiological equivalence has been demonstrated. To give just one example, it's known that oestrogen is carcinogenic to humans. This is observed invitro and when levels are correlated with cancer in humans among same sex cohorts. Yet, women are less likely to die of cancer than men. Why? One possible explanation is that women have a heightened, baseline level of immune activation which combats the types of cancers oestrogen stimulates. This heightened baseline level of immune activation is useful during pregnancy where the body enters a state of immune suppression to prevent it from attacking the placenta enveloped foetus. To survive pregnancy women would have to have a higher baseline immune activation so that it would still protect them during pregnancy. But this heightened activation might also protect them from the types of cancers that oestrogen stimulates. As a note, a side effect of this heightened baseline immune activation can be seen in the fact that women are more prone to auto-immune disease.

in any case, this is all plausible, but far from being definitely proved or understood. If it is true, the question arises: from what is this heighten immune activation derived? One possible explanation is that it's derived from the fact that women have two X chromosomes. The X chromosome carries many alleles that express themselves in immune response, and heterozygous alleles often play a roll in enhancing immune response where genes that are recessive in one instance, can be dominant (and beneficial) in another, this can be seen in the ill effects of consanguinity which magnify infectious vulnerabilities beyond causing genetic diseases.

Since males lack the second X chromosome and practically all the X alleles are missing from the very small Y chromosome, they would be at a heightened risk to the cancerous risks of oestrogen in away that no medical intervention could mitigate.

Keep in mind that this is just one possible counter example to Bee's assertions, there are many more. To try and find all such counterexample and invalidate them would be a gargantuan task. With respect to the trans equivalence argument, it leads it to being an effective logical fallacy. The same reversal of the burden of proof can be seen in the assertion that transwomen are at no higher risk of sex offense than women, or that they have no advantage in sports. And it should be noted that even it were true, that's still not sufficient reason to deny women's rights to single sex prisons or sports.

BINGO

PLOP

If A), then B) is true. Therefore C) = T and T and T and T

CIS

NAZI

Sad Times.

Had to be bee.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40729094/

A recent study indicated that males who take hormones are over twice as likely to get kidney stones. It’s obvious that biological sex plays a role in this.

You think sex in humans isn’t binary and immutable. Try telling that to your chromosomes. Your DNA, present in every cell of your body, shows whether you are male or female.

If your body after death is well enough preserved it will still be possible for your sex to be determined from it thousands of years after you die. Archaeologists do this all the time.

But what the OP has written is total nonsense. I detest the use of 'cis' it is a slur.

All the information about the hormones is not true.

It makes me angry that otherwise intelligent people insult their own intelligence to use the word "hate" so freely when referring to the feelings of others, about whose emotions they actually know nothing.

Disagreeing with the idea that humans can really change sex is not the same thing as "hating" trans people. It is lazy, sloppy, illogical, biased thinking to say or assume that it is.

If sex isn’t binary what’s all this about going through a second puberty? Your logic would suggest that they go through either a male or female puberty what other types of puberty are there?

I thought the main health concerns with cross-sex hormones were for transmen taking testosterone?