teenage girls and middle-aged men

[onlytherain]

I have read a few times here and elsewhere that the two groups with the highest rates of being trans or highest increase in transitioning are teenage girls and middle-aged men. I can only find data for teenage girls. Could someone please point me to data supporting the claim that middle-aged men are a group with high transitioning rates?

It is honestly like living in an alternative reality, there is something disconnected about the points raised and reality.

You don't need to damage your body with harmful medication or surgery in order to 'express femininity or masculinity'.

Cosmetic body modifications are unnecessary.

I think women born in the 50s/60s/70s are frequently more forthright than younger women. And often less easily manipulated and likely to fall for other people’s self-absorbed sob stories.

Post the evidence then, if this is true. I assume you have found some more since the past week.

Post the links and explain how the findings fit the point you are making.
Otherwise, expect no one to believe you.

I'm just guessing your sex from the amount of misogyny dripping from your posts.

I'm not sure why you view it as such a negative thing that my parents weren't sexist arseholes. I think I was lucky.

Indeed.

I think you’ll find that there are plenty of ‘cultural norms’ that were against male cross dressers in that time frame as well so that doesn’t work as a theory either.

But were those particular cultural norms as binding? Apples & oranges.

"None of this explains the lack of older women NOW discovering their trans identity in proportionate numbers."

According to the graphs in the study older women are similar to men.

"Social contagion is a known issue especially among young girls and, oh look at the group expanding disproportionately - young girls. Social media sites were forced to take down content promoting anorexia, then the contagion moved to self harming so that gad to be shut down. Now gender ideology is being heavily promoted at many schools as well as social media and we can see the results among young girls."

Lisa Littman's research on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria was widely discredited given she used parental opinions from anti trans forums. And that 's not how you do data. There's no credible evidence of contagion when it comes to trans people at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy

"As the Tavistock found, the number of girls is disproportionately increased compared to the boys. They also found that the relevant factors for the girls were largely autism, internalised homophobia, mental health issues, misogyny and abuse."

Science 101 correlation is not causation. People with autism are also known to be highly sensitive strong willed in temperament which could easily account for their being more attuned to & confident in their dispositions. That trans people suffer mental illness could also be a function of not fitting in, familial & societal rejection & being estranged from their bodies.

"It is no coincidence that in areas with a high number of activist teachers and organisations, there is a disproportionate number of young girls adopting a trans identity. In other areas (like mine) the numbers are far lower."

Supportive environments aren't smoking guns. You act like humans have no agency.

Strawman. I never said it was negative rather it limited your understanding of other women's experiences.

"Misogyny" = historical facts offends me

According to the graphs in the study older women are similar to men.

The graphs don't show this. They show that over 80% of over 50s who transition are male.

Whilst I enjoy hows being shown up
as an utter clown 🤡 again!

I do think he gets off on the humiliation which is not a pleasant thought...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3149680/

I don’t believe you have understood the part of the definition I think you are relying on though.

Are you relying on this part?

“the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females”

This is supports the first definition which was :

“either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures”

Because no artificially formed body part has the overall function of the original. A male person with a cavity inserted in his groin doesn’t have a vagina. A female person with a tube of skin and some tissue sewn onto her groin doesn’t make that tube a penis.

So the only way for that second definition to fit the first definition is through false descriptions.

that distinguish being the operative words. IE they don't have to be exactly the same just sex distinguishable.

Nope.

Don’t just plonk a link down. You need to explain how it fits your point by pulling out the most relevant parts and discussing them.

I don’t know what other forums you post on, but there is an expectation on FWR that you can defend your link yourself.

Otherwise, we just consider it is quick google job and that you can’t defend it.

Self evident. The paper talks about average differences. IE both sexes share same traits but there are average differences in behaviours.

That is your personal interpretation of that definition.

Because that isn’t what it says at all in my opinion.

How does a fake body part ‘distinguish’ the body it is on to be the opposite sex?

It can only do this through postmodernism theory being applied. Where declaring that a fake vagina is a vagina.

But a ‘neo-vagina’ is not a vagina.

A male person has a ‘neo-vagina’ which in reality then distinguishes that person as still being a ‘male’ person. Therefore, your point is not an accurate representation of that entry in the dictionary.

The difference in behaviours that I'm concerned about is that women don't rape people with their penises.

Right, so point it out. What traits did this paper describe as being ‘female’

As I and others have pointed out to you before, if you post on these threads there is an expectation that you engage with the discussion.

You plopping down links is not engaging, it can be described as broadcasting.

And I see this is exact same paper you have posted before.

Again, the parts in question don't have to be identical to be distinguishable & if they did the definition would specify that.

And that bears out in reality because those parts whether 'real' or not are socially associated with a particular sex. Let's not forget social usage is king when it comes to meaning.

A new mountain is growing.

🥱
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

There's a definite Basil Fawlty aspect to this...

A neo-vagina is distinguishable from a vagina through. It is not even close to being not distinguishable.

So your point does not hold up at all.

And no, you cannot argue ‘social usage’ is king. Because the entire point is, that body part has no resemblance to a vagina. Even if it was called a ‘vagina’ socially, it doesn’t follow the point you are trying to make your definition fit/

If it was about social usage it would warrant a separate entry such as being number 4. It forms part of number 1.

All we can see here is you plopping down irrelevant links that don’t say quite what you want them to say and that you cannot defend your position.

Please do keep going. Because there are new eyes on this thread and they are getting a great demonstration of how your points cannot be supported with logic or evidence.

And all because you want male people to have access to female single sex provisions.

Because there are new eyes on this thread and they are getting a great demonstration of how your points cannot be supported with logic or evidence.

Like 'stereotypes are baaaad 'cause women & men are the same' but 'show me the proof men & women share personality traits'? 🤪