Talking to non GC people

[Sausagenbacon]

I've been chatting to a few people recently about gender issues, and their opinion runs roughly like this ' we should all listen to each other, and not be so unpleasant. But of course, men shouldn't be in women's sports'
Which begs the question that, if GC people hadn't been 'unpleasant' men would have been firmly in women's sports.
So, should I be pleased that public opinion has shifted slightly, or should I be banging my head against the wall?

It's always entertaining to see what word or phrase the gender adherents will appropriate next. In this case "ideology".

You are in error. Fundamentally, unscientifically, embarrassingly in error.

Did you read the relevant parts of the educational material I've provided? I'd love to hear your thoughts on them.

I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the specific psychological tendency of confirmation bias...

This isn't the topic of the thread, that's a significant amount of material unrelated to the discussion and it will swamp this thread.

Of course you wouldn't want to do that, so if you are keen to discuss all that you should just start your own thread, just copy and past what you had in your post.

You aren't likely to get much traction on this thread as people want to discuss the topic in the OP.

Just to save me a bit of time, please can you point me to which of these scientific papers evidence how a person with a male body can go back in time to point of conception and become an entirely female bodied person?

Thanks in advance.

Indeed.

That's why I found the video I linked so helpful. It was shared my another MNer and was my penny-dropping moment that allowed me to make sense of all this stuff.

It critically and objectively examines the idea that we all have a gender identity.... and finds no evidence. It's a combination of accepted "faith", and how we understand stereotypes about men and women, to believe that we all have gendered souls.

The "science" that supports this belief is written by believers (or feigners), for believers (or feigners). Remove the belief (genuine or feigned) and there is no science.

The science which underpins the existence of gender identity is effectively nothing more than the opening parts of the Bible and the way the creation of the earth is described. Lots of people believe that god created the earth. That's no problem these days, because nobody is losing their job, getting ostricised or worse (any more) for saying they don't believe in the "science" of creationism.

that's a significant amount of material unrelated to the discussion and it will swamp this thread.

There were links to four entire journals. I'm embarrassed for that poster that they thought doing that was making any kind of claim or argument.

Surely @QuickJadeFinch is not so foolish to believe that anyone can wade through their extensive reading list in the three minutes since they posted it on this thread AND on the IRL thread. On back-to-work Monday.

Surely the poster wants to give us time to read and reflect?

It critically and objectively examines the idea that we all have a gender identity.... and finds no evidence. It's a combination of accepted "faith", and how we understand stereotypes about men and women, to believe that we all have gendered souls.

It's all about stereotypes. If it wasn't, someone somewhere would be able to state how men and women are differentiated. They can't.

The closest definition I can get is that men are adults of either sex, and women are adults of either sex.

No i wont be reading your bs "educational material ".
As for confirmation bias i am well aware of the harms it causes and every single pro trans "scientific research" paper ive read is riddled with it.
Sex is binary and DSDs dont change that fact.
Having suffered from what is now referred to as gender dysphoria many moons ago as a teenager I am well aware of the psychological issues that cause it.
Gender identity is a nonsense made up term created by a now discredited pedophilic Dr and was spread by the pedophile forcault to excuse his behaviour. The fact that useful idiots like Judith buttler have used it to shore up gender ideology and queer theory is shameful. What's really embarrassing is that you've come here of all places to try and shill it 🤭
May I suggest that you look outside of your bubble and have a good think about your own bias and agenda

Despite your off-puttingly patronising attitude ("For those still a little confused in their GC stance, here's a short list of proper reading material for you to ponder") I will respond briefly. And no, I haven’t read all the articles you linked; they aren’t applicable as I’m not at all confused in my GC stance.

The problem is the overreach. I’m quite ready to accept that some people truly identify with another gender, and that this is not mental illness. However, identifying with another gender is not the same thing as being another sex. In humans, sex is immutable. It is identifiable and unchangeable in every cell of our bodies, not to mention things like the shape of the pelvis which often make it possible to know, from the skeleton, the sex of someone who died hundreds of years ago. Yet people who express this truth have for years been hounded from their jobs and vilified as transphobic bigots who want all trans people dead.

If the entire organisational principle of our society is to be changed, why is it somehow impermissible for there to be open discussion about this, with views from both sides heard respectfully, rather than one side insisting that they are right so there should be no discussion allowed, and anyone who thinks differently is a transphobic bigot who wants all trans people dead?

If the meaning of common words such as "woman" is to be changed, how is it right for this to be imposed unilaterally, with anyone who thinks differently labelled a transphobic bigot who wants all trans people dead?

If people are troubled by the unnaturally large percentage of teenage girls deciding they are really boys who have a history of other problems such as autism or family breakdown, leading to the possibility that they could be wrongly attributing their difficulties to a fashionable idea, and are too young to fully understand the implications of taking medical steps that will irreversibly affect the rest of their lives, should those who express their concerns really be labelled transphobic… you know the rest.

Overreach: why should male people be allowed to self-identify as members of a historically disadvantaged group, and then qualify for the protections and affirmative actions in place to benefit those born and brought up in that group, such as all-women shortlists or awards? Why are those who point out the ridiculousness of this, or of ludicrous virtue-signalling such as the first UN Women UK Champion being a transwoman, accused of being … fill in the rest yourself.

How does it differ from Rachel Dolezal, a white woman, claiming to be Black because she feels black? Does anyone accuse the black people who object to this of being racists who want her dead? Would it be perfectly acceptable for her to be named as a leading representative of black people?

Why are those who point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that transwomen do not maintain the same level of criminality, including sexual crimes, as other men, howled down and accused of… you know what?

The proponents of the TWAW, TMAM mantra seem to think they are excitingly progressive, and that anyone who thinks differently is an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, whereas in fact the opposite is true. The idea that, for example, a boy who does not identify with traditional, stereotypical "boy behaviour" but prefers traditional, stereotypically "girl behaviour" must therefore be a girl is incredibly regressive. In my opinion he is not a type of girl but a member of a sub-section of the category "boy".

Well, that wasn’t as brief as I intended!

If one of those links states unequivocally what the difference is between a man and a woman then I'd be grateful if someone could paste the relevant text.

Until we know what people mean when they say those words then we can't discuss it clearly.

(How depressing that that needs to be pointed out!)

It's all about stereotypes.

Yes. For believers in gendered souls, stereotypes help to make sense of everything. Your soul (your "gender") maps to the stereotypes that most closely match how you feel about yourself (et voila, your "gender identity"). How the stereotypes came to be so is a convoluted mismash of hormone-driven behaviours (e.g. testosterone driven aggression and libido) and cultural customs. For some people, it makes sense that the answer lies in the idea that we all have a gendered soul.

The closest definition I can get is that men are adults of either sex, and women are adults of either sex.

Yep. To anyone who believes a) that sex and gender are different and b) we all have a gender identity this is the only plausible explanation of men and women. To everyone else it makes zero sense.

To those who are caught up somewhere in the middle of what to think, some things are obvious - such as the sport and prison examples in the OP - and some things take longer to get your head around, if indeed you even want to. Not everyone does want to, which is one of the reasons we're in this whole sorry mess.

I think one of the more pernicious aspects of the GC ideology is the assertion that anyone who doesn't identity with their assigned at birth sex must somehow be suffering from mental illness.

It's literally
a) a belief entirely in our head, which
b) causes us to attack our perfectly healthy biology through the use of hormones and surgeries.

In short: it's in the mind, and it has deleterious effects, thus it's a mental illness.

I've yet to see anybody cite or reference the exact part of the DSM5 that clearly shows trans-identification to be a mental illness;

Criteria: Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months’ duration, as manifested by at least two or more of the following:

• A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
• A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

"Desire", by definition, is exclusively mental. So all those criteria except the first one are purely mental. And the first one only refers to gender incongruence in expression, which isn't a pathological trait, and thus doesn't need medical treatment.

So yes, the DSM-5 definition makes it amply clear that gender dysphoria is purely a mental illness, that the hormones and surgeries are to treat a mental illness.

indeed, the generally accepted mindset among the professionals in the field is that trans-identification is both real and rational.

Real, yes, but rational? What's rational about wanting to hurt oneself through the use of hormones and surgeries? What's rational about saying, "Huh, I can totally see that I'm fe/male, but no, I argue I'm not!" ? Trans-identification is completely irrational. It's entirely in the head, and it's entirely at odds with the reality of one's body. It's a mental illness.

Here's the abstract of the first paper you linked to:

Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders. The umbrella terms for such genders are 'genderqueer' or 'non-binary' genders. Such gender identities outside of the binary of female and male are increasingly being recognized in legal, medical and psychological systems and diagnostic classifications in line with the emerging presence and advocacy of these groups of people. Population-based studies show a small percentagebut a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbersof people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as suchwhile not being disorders or pathological in themselvespeople with such genders remain at risk of victimization and of minority or marginalization stress as a result of discrimination. This paper therefore reviews the limited literature on this field and considers ways in which (mental) health professionals may assist the people with genderqueer and non-binary gender identities and/or expressions they may see in their practice. Treatment options and associated risks are discussed.

So in short: genderqueer or non-binary people exist. They may be at risk of victimisation or discrimination. Here's what mental health professionals can do to help them.

Okay, and? Nobody here denies that some people perceive themselves to be transgender, genderqueer, or non-binary. Nobody denies that such people should be protected from discrimination or victimisation. So what's your point?

Great post @Tooobvious

Especially this:
'The proponents of the TWAW, TMAM mantra seem to think they are excitingly progressive, and that anyone who thinks differently is an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, whereas in fact the opposite is true. The idea that, for example, a boy who does not identify with traditional, stereotypical "boy behaviour" but prefers traditional, stereotypically "girl behaviour" must therefore be a girl is incredibly regressive. In my opinion he is not a type of girl but a member of a sub-section of the category "boy".'

There is nothing shiny, new and progressive about this ideology.

No i wont be reading your bs "educational material ".
My confirmation bias prevents me from seriously considering any facts that contradict my views. I will dismiss all such facts, papers, journals, etc. as "bs" because it's much easier than doing my own research and applying critical thought.

i [sic] am well aware of the harms it causes and every single pro trans "scientific research" paper ive [sic] read is riddled with it.
I once followed a link online to a paper but it was a bit heavy so I decided it was all filled with bias because the bits I could understand seemed to be criticising my world view and I didn't like it.

There, I've translated your post for you.

Having had a quick look at one of Quick's links (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2042-6410-3-9 Sex-specific mouse liver gene expression: genome-wide analysis of developmental changes from pre-pubertal period to young adulthood) I think I am going to award Quick a 1/10 for effort.

Is this a list that the TRA's have compiled to use in replies to sex realist posts as a gish gallop of data? Have they actually read, understood and assessed the links?

Going back to the OP's question. My previously absolute handmaiden relative has moved position from 'I don't care about sport' to biological males 'shouldn't be in women sport'. However, 'JKR is still a big meanie regarding Khelif, who is a true and honest woman.' I may have paraphrased a bit, but it is a change of position. They just need to consider the possibility that Khelif could actually be male and that the public were lied to, and I think a further shift could occur.

So, some people believe they have a gender identity that is usually associated with the opposite sex, or that is associated with both sexes? Fair enough.
How does that justify allowing male bodied people into spaces designed for the protection and privacy of female bodied people?
Because women's single sex spaces are not there so we can all get together and express our female gender identity together.
They are there because our bodies mean we need certain protections. Whether this be a space that bans all males to ensure harmful ones can be excluded, or a sport where to compete alongside males means we don't stand a chance and may be badly hurt.
The right to express a particular gender identity cannot supercede sex based rights and protections.

I think that poster is dyslexic?
I imagine it made you feel better to correct her though.

Your “science” is nonsense, as those of us with relevant knowledge, training and experience are well aware.

Utterly irrelevant. My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody. It is the correct use when quoting text that contains an error.

As to whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that a wrong opinion should never be challenged simply because of a characteristic of the person espousing it? Do you?

As for the original topic of this thread:

I don't get to discuss my GC views much. It's just not a topic that comes up. Then again, I have very few friends and relatives to discuss stuff with to begin with, and there's an understanding that too-political topics should be avoided at my place of work.

But interestingly, the one relative I talk to about GC stuff has turned, not so slowly and very steadily, into a full-blown "terf" herself, both from what I shared of my opinions, and from watching detransitioners' videos online. She's someone who ponders her opinions A LOT, and tries to be as kind and fair as she can to as many people as possible; yet, she can't agree with what's being done to the so-called "trans kids", and she's getting more and more fed up with transwomen trying to steal everything and every space from women. Yet another case of someone educating herself and becoming firmly GC.

🤣
I dont have confirmation bias on this subject, I have lived experience that has informed my opinions on this subject. I have read and understood many pro and anti gender ideology research papers. The anti gender ideology papers have minimal confirmation bias however every single pro gender ideology papers are riddled with it, you many not like this fact or the fact that they all seem to cite previous unevidenced papers to shore up their conclusions. When you dig down through all their links conclusions and "peer reviews" each and every paper falls down because there is no evidence for anyone having a gender identity

@Seethlaw thanks for contributing from a trans viewpoint.

And of course, if you can shed any light on how the findings of
"Sex-specific mouse liver gene expression: genome-wide analysis of developmental changes from pre-pubertal period to young adulthood" have revolutionised your life, I'd love to hear it

Oh joy, new year new visitor to turn up with a load of stuff that's been taken apart a 1000 times before

i couldn't give a fuck whether a man reeeeeaaaaly believes he's a woman , he's not and he never will be. The idea that womanhood can be a set of stereotypes that can be performed by men is utterly insulting and fucking ridiculous

I'm infertile, can I go around insisting I'm a mother because I reeeeeaalky feel like one? How about if I stuff a cushion up my jumper? Or carry a doll about and pretend to feed it? What about if I go on maternity wards and insist they allow me to 'give birth' even though im not and can never give birth? Abd then call them infertilephobic if they say no? After all I reaaaaally believe I'm pregnant/a mother? What about if I get a certificate saying I'm a mother even though I'm not?

or would that be really mad/ridiculious/fucking insulting?

One of those links agrees with the GC position that treating sex and gender as synonymous is unhelpful.