Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

[MarcTheGenderSkeptic]

Despite being called a conspiracist here by a TRA, actually I work very hard to continually interrogate my thought processes, and not fall into easy generalisations etc.
So, I was reading Róisín Michaux and her fascinating conversation with someone high up in HIV funding, and the push in the last 20 years is to get everyone in the tent on retrovirals, meaning reaching out to not just gays and addicts, but sex workers (incl trans) and critically, the "third genders" who have migrated to the West in large numbers to end up as sex workers. And the decision was made to go for maximum anti stigmatization, which means zero messaging on personal behaviour, and critically deciding to accept these men as women. Don't blame them, get more onside.
Guess who has to move aside, and accept the messaging on health grounds that biological men can be women? Made even worse by the increase in HIV in European women who are the partners of men who use the services of these "third genders".
Then yesterday I read the amazing post from Hellofabore about how for 30 years plus, the sports authorities including IOC and FIFA decided to make total inclusion the policy, phasing out gender testing, primarily to allow the male DSDs from Africa mainly to be included, as they were IDd as female at birth, and the cruelty to deny they're still female is wrong.
Again, the overwhelming need is to not stigmatize these individuals. Of course a huge group (we know who) are stigmatized for objecting to losing sports opportunities.
And then back to Róisín Michaux again, her illuminating the revolution in psychiatric medicine, where men back in the day were diagnosed with transvestic disorder, a pure paraphylia, again to stop judging and be more inclusive, underwent massive de-stigmatisation and de-pathologisation, from paraphylia, to dysphoria, now to common all garden "sexual health category".
Three enormous areas where the drive to include men, to destigmatise their plight, to bring them in from the cold, couldn't happen in a vacuum. Society organised along sex-based lines couldn't be simply recategorised, no, a large population group (51% XX) was expected to move over, make their definition porous, extend the collective hand of kindness and inclusion, to this hardcore of men who were deemed most at risk, and needing most help.
At the same time, this blurring of definitions and imposed inclusivity spread from sport and medicine to law and education, the most motivated men worked hard to get the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book, and via Stonewall culture, "social training" and the "trans child" escalated as concepts and then real world consequences as noone in polite society other than a very brave few said anything.
So now we have developing nations male DSDs and "third genders", socially incorporated transvestites/transsexuals, and queer culture first world transgenders in the mix, a political culture in the West frozen into aquiescence and policy drift, and the only light of realism and sanity, an army of women fighting back, with amazing results re SC ruling, banishing self ID into the long grass, and medical and sports bodies tacking back to sanity.
But reading the almost scary analogousness of how health brought in trans and third genders at the expense of women, sport brought in male DSDs at the expense of women, psychiatry brought in transvestites from the cold at the expense of women, you can then see how the most motivated men got the Gender Recognition Act on the statute book to turbo charge the social trans/trans child revolution.
For me, I can now see the past as it travels into the future.

The general public doesn't know the difference between a trans woman & woman? You really are out doing yourself with this championship level of denial…& that's really saying something for you.

An no, its not misogynistic to state a fact that gender is a socially constructed set of norms, roles, behaviours and expectations that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex.

All comes down to words and power, I suppose.

As exploitation and abuse have become more restricted by moral frameworks, international & humanitarian law, norms, regulations and agreements, humans, being some of them venal, abusive, and base, have sought ways to subvert.

We used words to create laws to control human behaviour, and then we used yet more words to undermine and moderate and 'queer' social contracts and norms and legislation.

So we can construct linguistic cases for absurd assertions, like humans changing sex, and turn fundamentally cruel concepts, like surrogacy/baby trafficking, into linguistically asserted positive moral acts, and turn abusive acts of prostitution into 'sex positive' narratives.

It all ends up looking like a giant exercise in narc wheedling, in the end.

When you say 'trans female', a big chunk of the population think you mean a woman pretending to be a man.

Polling survey showed around a third of the UK populace thought 'trans woman' meant 'female'.

May I add...

Fetishism - the man in the doorway wearing the rubber gloves

DH? I understood that reference. 🤣🤣🤣. Somehow these women feelings never include insane urged to do housework, childcare or take on any of the mental load wives and mothers often carry. My friend is married to a TIM for her sins. She does all the childcare, housework and admin SS he’s too busy ‘finding his true self” by shopping, watching YouTube videos and attending LGBT events. My TIM ex said he couldn’t do cooking or housework as it was ‘triggering”. Apparently doing those things just reminded him he was not a woman 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Are you doing that thing again where you don’t understand the difference between ‘most violent criminals are male’ and ‘most males are violent criminals’, and now also taking it to mean ‘if you are violent you are male’?

I can’t work out whether you are more upset that crime statistics reveal that men commit most violent crimes, or more upset that society doesn’t group people according to behavioural traits like in YA fiction.

It's gender not sex categories. And the point of self identification is because of the overlap.

By the way, have you ever produced any evidence

Lol. Science has.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4681519/

Incidentally, I don’t think this is a correct understanding of the concept of either human rights or suffrage.

Humans have rights, including the right to vote, regardless of their cognitive abilities.

Very funny.

A huge % of the UK population are confused by the term ‘transwoman’ and whether it refers to a female person or a male person.

When are these gender categories relevant?

It all sounds a but like putting ‘I like walking’ on a dating profile.

You’re the one stating gender is ingrained in DNA. And as DNA determines sex, that poster is correct.

you said this.

For humans to become genderless they would have to change their DNA

gender is nothing to do with sex apart from the fact that society decided certain traits, clothes and hobbies “belong to” each sex. Society has moved on a lot since those days though. Women are even allowed to wear trousers!!! And have short hair!! Who could have seen that coming?

Its about a third of the UK public …that a minority. 65% do understand. And its actually surprising its that high given most people don't know trans people or trans people aren't relevant to their lives so there's no reason to know the difference. There's probably even bigger misunderstandings about bigger issues. We are talking about a minuscule amount of people so they aren't relevant to anyone but obsessed wowsers. The idea that the British public is some bastion of well educated & thoroughly informed on every issue is fanciful. Also, a lot of people as demonstrated on this forum don't have the capacity to understand nuanced topics that aren't oversimplified particularly if they have a raging bias issue. Its why politics is in the state it is….you get the government you deserve….

You mean the paper that says:

”Overall, the zeal for neuroimaging studies has yet to be matched by findings, with few clear and consistent patterns regarding androgen effects on brain structure and activation.”

The paper that presents theories that as yet have not been shown to be significant enough for a conclusion to be drawn in a peer reviewed environment ? It also had a section based on a self reported questionnaire about aspects of personality as well.

So, this is it?

You have spent over a year discussing these theories with no evidence to support it. Well done.

And sorry, how are gender categories defined again? By sex categories. And sexist stereotypes based on sex categories.

That pesky overlap makes your theories unusable.

…….

Lots of things are in DNA that don't determine sex. Do you even know what DNA is?

A third of the population is not minuscule. Far from it.

In fact, groups of activists have tried to force compliance to allowing male people to access to some female single sex provisions based on about a third, sometimes much less, of the population stating they accept male people in those provisions.

Is it like a magic third? Important to activists when it is useful and to be dismissed as minuscule when that third is inconvenient?

The language is not clear and understood. The UK census also shows that the terminology around gender identity is not understood.

Conveniently miss this bit did you? 😂

"Nature and Psychological Mechanisms of Prenatal Androgen Effects on Gendered Behavior

Confidence has increased that early androgens affect gender development, in light of recent studies that confirm, extend, and clarify previous findings. Most promising, research has moved from asking whether hormones influence human behavior to asking how they do so.

Activity interests and participation – from childhood toy preferences to adult hobbies and occupations – continue to be strongly linked to prenatal androgen exposure [e.g., 7,8], with two notable recent findings. First, androgen effects on interest and engagement in male-typed occupations was seen to have economic consequences: women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs (despite having lower education, and more psychosocial problems) [9]. Second, the sensitive period for androgen effects on activity interests was extended to the early postnatal months, as seen in links between parent-reported child play and urinary testosterone during the first six postnatal months [10], and penile length at a similar time (marking the postnatal testosterone surge also known as mini-puberty) [11].

Speculations about the affective and cognitive processes that underlie children’s sextyped toy preferences have been stimulated by evidence that those preferences are paralleled in rhesus monkeys (male monkeys, like boys, strongly preferred wheeled toys, whereas female monkeys, like girls, had variable preferences, leading to sex differences in preference for wheeled versus plush toys) [12, 13]. Recent work has documented early sex differences in propulsive movement (hitting versus cradling an object), with sex-typed activities suggested to develop “from socialization mechanisms that build on a male predisposition to imitate propulsive motion” [14, p. 262]. Furthermore, sex differences in occupational choices (e.g., male-predominance in science and engineering, female-predominance in social service) appear to be driven in part by androgen effects on interest in things versus people [15].

Spatial abilities are facilitated by exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens. Performance on several spatial tests was higher in two samples of females with CAH compared to typical females [16,17]. Inconsistencies in early studies were clarified: androgen facilitation of spatial abilities may be countered by adverse effects of the disease during early life [17]. Converging evidence comes from typical samples. Spatial abilities were positively related to amniotic testosterone in girls for one measure, but not two others, perhaps due to small sample [18]. Spatial performance was also higher in females with a male co-twin than a female co-twin, thought to reflect transfer of testosterone during gestation [19,20]; importantly, one study controlled for postnatal socialization effects by showing that females with a (non-twin) brother did not have better spatial ability than those with a sister [19]."

Ah, that must be why the very barristers and other legal team in cases where they're representing a TIM often misgender their clients in court.
I would say LOL, but this social misfire is so serious, I really can't.
You'll be telling us next that the public understand there's a difference between natal sex female and social construct woman definitions.
In fact, I don't know what's most wacky here, that you think the public get all your semantic turns, there is incontrovertible scientific evidence for the basis of gender, that you're confident a majority via the arc of justice and history will see women as natal biological males plus males IDing as women because they say they're women.

Yes, yes I do. And nothing in it determines gender 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.

Oh please stop embarrassing yourselves. The data shows the majority know trans doesn't mean 'natal' which was the claim being made that they don't not the ins & outs of gender just like they don't know the ins & outs of sex traits…..BECAUSE ITS NOT RELEVANT TO THEIR LIVES.

It is quite amusing when people are literally in court being put through years of 'process' and yet the people taking them through this 'process' do the same exact thing in the actual documented court but in their case it's just an error but in the person in the dock's case it is deliberate.

But hold on, I thought gender in congruence was innate, which means trans ness is therefore natal, as it would have been there since birth. That’s what innate means. So according To TRA, trans is natal. Wanna start again?

Actually the data for example the actual official UK census had to be scrapped because nobody understands one iota of the utter garbled nonsense.