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?

Oh, I’m sorry, you should have said that all you had left was vague and unsubstantiated theories, misrepresentation of your data, obfuscation, and <takes deep breath to clutch pearls> a Wikipedia link.

I’d have left it there several posts ago if I’d realised.

'stereotypes are baaaad 'cause women & men are the same'

Eh? Who said that on here?

We know men and women are different - that is literally our point. We are just saying that we shouldn’t be limited by stereotypes. Girls should be free to do stereotypically ‘boy’ stuff (and vice versa) but it doesn’t make them literally a boy. We knew that once.

It must be late in Australia.

Translation: It's gettin' hot in here.

Checkmate pal.

Nope you claim that traits can be used to ID a sex in humans.

So a penis in a human = male human

Please name a Personality Trait which only is almost always only a trait which male humans have but no is almost never ever a trait which female humans have

So the sexes share personality traits now?

Glad you got there eventually….

???

Now #BeKind rude trite posting is not going to win you any hearts or minds.

You are the one claiming or trying to claim personality traits can be used to classify sex in humans.

But fail to explain how this is ment to work in real life.

Can you explain any of it or will you be posting trite personal attacks in an attempt to divert a lack of substance ?

Please name a Personality Trait which only is almost always only a trait which male humans have but no is almost never ever a trait which female humans have

Readers note:

I don’t believe that any poster on this board believe that female and male people are the same. This is not based on stereotypes, it is based on having to interact with society with a body of different sex classes. Stereotypes based on the sex category of groups are harmful and are rejected by feminists.

Female and male people do share personality traits, many personality traits. Because each person is an individual and interacts with the world according to how they personally process the stimulus from the world around them. There is no cross over though, between how a female person navigating the world as someone with a female body and reacting to how society interacts with that person because of having that body, and a male person’s experience.

This is not controversial and it is not disputed in general on this board.

I don’t think so 😉

What are you even on about?

People do stuff - yes.

It might help the conversation if you defined ‘personality trait’.

And none of this highly enlightening discussion gets us any closer to locating the elusive group of older transitioning women.

Did they get stuck down the back of the sofa when looking for loose change? Did they all don their comfortable shoes and sensible trousers and bugger off to a remote Hebridean island?

How can we be so careless as to lose a whole load of them?

Indeed show me a woman in her 60s one in her 30 and one at 15 they will share common experiences due to their biology which no man will ever share.
And they in turn can not share experiences which arise from male biology as they are not and can not ever be male.

They may be manly manning in a different way?

Ok. So, I assume you have nothing more than this paper that you cannot write anything worthy of discussion about.

It was a self selected survey. That people were offered financial gain to specifically fill out.

At least it partially acknowledges one of its major failings.

”Further, the personality scores used in our investigation were obtained via self-report. Our findings could therefore indicate gender differences in how men and women perceive and report on themselves, which do not necessarily reflect how they are perceived by others or their actual behavioral tendencies.”

What this research team didn’t note was that personality surveys also have a significant bias because they also will be influenced by how a respondent wants to be perceived. Meaning they will reply to questions how they aspire to be perceived by others.

There is also a bias that I was taught in university where there was direct payment specific to a survey that respondents will also answer how they think the team behind the survey want them to answer.

If this is all you have and the papers linked, then I think you have a low threshold for evidence in trying to leverage male people into the definition of the female sex class.

What this research team didn’t note was that personality surveys also have a significant bias because they also will be influenced by how a respondent wants to be perceived. Meaning they will reply to questions how they aspire to be perceived by others.

By which I mean, not only is the major flaw about how a person does perceive themselves, it is also capturing how they aspire to be perceived. That aspiration could be hugely influenced by the very stereotyped behaviour that the study is trying to identify.

I have not seen any attempt to mitigate for these effects.

This is true! It doesn't explain the skewing of data in the female category where there is a significant lack of older female transition.

The data also is all pre 2017 before the huge rapid increase of female children and young people referring to the clinics. All the references for that first linked paper was before 2017, looking at the references, the data feeding this went to 2016. The two later papers used in the references had data from 2016 and before.

This data is nearly 10 years out of date. 10 years!

Or did I miss the new data being presented? Was there any?

No? Then that data is really not a relevant depiction of the current situation at all.

I am referring to this paper linked.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7430478/#CIT0039

I’ve not seen anything else from this poster on multiple threads.

I was born in 1961 so I am ancient according to a certain poster. Anyway, the reason women were not trans back in the 60s, 70s, 80s was that it wasn't a thing. It wasn't that we knew about it, considered it, and decided that the cultural climate wasn't right for it or that it wouldn't make us happy - women just didn't have it on their radar.

I was at uni in the early 80s. Being a feminist, lesbian, vegetarian, CND, socialist, Sloane, new romantic...these were the identities in vogue at the time.

So if the idea is that people have always felt trans, why did this not make itself known to us? All sorts of new identities were perfectly tolerated. We would have been interested in trans men. But they simply didn't exist in any sort of meaningful way.

But if they did, they have had all those years to start coming out, and they haven't.

I asked my mum in 1982 if she could use the name I picked out because I told her I was a boy. She told me it was impossible, so no. I was very disheartened, I had told me best friend and all.

Fucking hell.

I have just read the discussion of the first paper linked with stats from Melbourne 2017 - 2019 & Amsterdam 2016 - 2018.

"Assigned sex influences the age of referral to specialist gender services. Individuals assigned male at birth represent the majority of referrals during early childhood and adulthood but a minority in adolescence. In the context of community-based estimates consistently showing equal proportions of individuals assigned male and female at birth among gender diverse people, these insights suggest that transgender adolescents assigned male at birth may be subjected to higher levels of societal intolerance – such as trans misogyny – which delays their presentation to clinical services but which they eventually overcome in an effort to affirm their authentic selves."

Rather than raising the fucking alarm about the number of teenaged female and young adults referring to clinics, this research team dismisses them. Declares that because it evens out in adulthood, ie. the male people refer later, that it must be due to the societal impact.

This is what it says here:

"Finally, as noted earlier, social contagion theory has been postulated as a reason for the observed higher proportion of individuals assigned female at birth among adolescent referrals (Littman, Citation2018). Although our study was not designed to disprove this theory, our data from different age cohorts across the full life span do provide an alternative explanation for this observation. Namely, rather than there being an excess of individuals assigned female at birth presenting in adolescence, higher intensity societal suppressive forces directed toward adolescents assigned male at birth serve to inhibit efforts to confide or express their gender diversity, with lower numbers seeking referral to specialist gender services as a result."

What the actual fuck! Who posts something like this on Mumsnet and thinks that this is proof that teenaged girls are not being peer influenced to alarming numbers.

What kind of research team 'poses an alternative view' thinking that this is a balanced and non-biased approach? And this paper has AusPATH repeatedly mentioned in the disclosure statement. This was not a non-biased paper at all. It was not just reporting on the numbers and reasonably exploring all the reasons,

I actually don't think Howie reads the papers he posts links to. Invariably they don't prove his point and often they say the opposite.

Then he just reverts to links from Wikipedia and the yank dictionary.

yes. The poster posts one link that dismisses the rise in teenaged female patients at the clinics and one which doesn't even include the period of time where the numbers rapidly increased.

I genuinely believe that this poster doesn't understand how hateful their posts are towards women and girls. There really is no other way to view the posts over the past week.

The misogyny in the links they post are very, very clear.