Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Rolfe]

There is no possibility at all that 1% of transwomen have genetically XX brains. If such a chimera is even possible, it would be a one-off fluke.

You're also forgetting how many different varieties of transwoman there are. The ultra-feminine HSTS ones like Blaire White right through to the late-transitioning AGP men with a lifetime of male role-filling behind them.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Long ago I watched a TV programme where they followed a research team trying to prove that transwomen's brains were "female". Yes, they had that bias built-in from the start. I'm not saying they had hundreds of necropsy samples but they did have enough to do a bit of a study. It was extremely obvious that there was no way to tell a male brain from a female one, never mind to assign the transgender brain to the "wrong" sex.

There were differences at statistical level of course. Male brains on average are bigger and heavier, because male bodies on average are bigger and heavier, but there is an overlap. Everything they looked at, there was an overlap. They got very excited by one particular region of the brain where they said the transwomen's brains resembled women's brains more than they resembled men's brains, but again it was statistical and they couldn't have correctly assigned an unknown brain with more than maybe a 70% chance of being right.

What I'm not sure if the programme went into (it was a long time ago) is the possibility that even differences of that nature are acquired rather than innate. If you marinate a man's brain in oestrogen for years, does that change things?

There is evidence that long-term cross-sex hormones produce neurological changes in adults.

One area they were excited about in relation to transwomen having 'female brains' was the BTSc, which shows sex differentiation. However, the results originally obtained post-mortem were compromised by the possible effects of cross-sex hormones. BTSc size differences in males and females also don't appear until adolescence, suggesting they are mediated by hormone-driven brain restructuring and raising problems for explaining childhood gender dysphoria.

As far as I am aware, all other asserted cases of trans-identified people having similar brains to the opposite sex prior to hormone treatment did not control for sexual orientation, and the differences disappear when that is controlled for. I've also read more recently that size differences in the BTSc may also correlate with sexual orientation, which I previously thought was not the case.

Another issue with effects of long-term use of cross-sex hormones on the brain is that they may be harmful, even when administered after puberty or for the first time in adulthood. For example, MtF cross-sex hormones have been associated with decrease in hippocampal volume due to increase in the size of ventricles. This could be associated with increased risk of memory problems, dementia or psychotic illness. Causation is hard to established, but I think a lot of this research has been swept under the carpet.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

There is no possibility at all that 1% of transwomen have genetically XX brains.

Why not?

Quote:

You're also forgetting how many different varieties of transwoman there are. The ultra-feminine HSTS ones like Blaire White right through to the late-transitioning AGP men with a lifetime of male role-filling behind them.

I'm not forgetting that, I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't expect this to be an explanation for most trans people. But there's no reason to think it's just trans women and not trans men as well, since the mismatch can happen in both directions. In fact, the variety of trans people is precisely why I consider this a possibility. Chimerism of this sort should be too rare to explain all trans people.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Another issue with effects of long-term use of cross-sex hormones on the brain is that they may be harmful, even when administered after puberty or for the first time in adulthood. For example, MtF cross-sex hormones have been associated with decrease in hippocampal volume due to increase in the size of ventricles. This could be associated with increased risk of memory problems, dementia or psychotic illness. Causation is hard to established, but I think a lot of this research has been swept under the carpet.

The good news is there are far more cases to study now.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why not?

Because chimaerism simply doesn't occur with that sort of frequency, and not at all in the form you propose. That there should be millions of such people out there, and not one has been noticed by medical science, is not plausible.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not forgetting that, I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't expect this to be an explanation for most trans people. But there's no reason to think it's just trans women and not trans men as well, since the mismatch can happen in both directions. In fact, the variety of trans people is precisely why I consider this a possibility. Chimerism of this sort should be too rare to explain all trans people.

Get back to me when even one case is identified.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Because chimaerism simply doesn't occur with that sort of frequency, and not at all in the form you propose. That there should be millions of such people out there, and not one has been noticed by medical science, is not plausible.

1% of less than 1% is a small fraction of the population. Maybe it's even rarer than that, but rare isn't non-existent.

As for not noticing, nobody does population surveys for chimerism. It's primarily noticed when it produces cosmetic effects, which isn't always the case.

Assume for the sake of argument that there are rare cases out there. How would we find them? Other than by accident, there is no mechanism by which cases like that would be discovered. Few people have their genes tested. Of the people who get their genes tested, almost none of them are tested from multiple parts of their body to test for chimerism. Almost nobody has genes tested specifically from their nervous system, which is hard to do premortem. And even postmortem, it's still not convenient and so there's no reason to collect genetic material from the brain rather than other tissue.

The idea that we'd know of such cases is intuitively appealing, but there's no actual reason to believe that's true.

[Rolfe]

Get back to me when you find one, as I said.

[Upchurch]

I stopped paying attention to this thread, apparently, quite a long time ago. I'm astounded that it made it to a tenth thread.

Regardless, back when I was participated, I predicted that some of the anti-trans views would not age well. It's far too soon for that prediction to have played out, but maybe, just maybe, we're beginning to see some wrinkles or a gray hair.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I stopped paying attention to this thread, apparently, quite a long time ago. I'm astounded that it made it to a tenth thread.

Regardless, back when I was participated, I predicted that some of the anti-trans views would not age well. It's far too soon for that prediction to have played out, but maybe, just maybe, we're beginning to see some wrinkles or a gray hair.

Ns8NvPPHX5Y

John Oliver aside, the trend since you stopped paying attention seems to have been decidedly in the other direction - at least in this thread: It's the pro-trans views that have not been aging well.

The view that puberty blockers are reversible, for example.

Or the view that it's about transgenderism, and not transsexuality.

I'll leave it for someone one else to watch the video and report whether Oliver names any particular view that's showing signs of age, and whether his analysis is well-informed and coherent. Maybe he hasn't been paying much attention either, and is just trying to stir things up to get some notice.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

John Oliver aside

John Oliver is the only actual content of that post. And if you're looking to John Oliver for insight on serious issues, you're doing it wrong.

I got through about half the video before I got bored. Basically what it amounts to is that some of the people opposed to trans activism are idiots, and make bad arguments. Which is true, but not actually useful.

[Rolfe]

I can't access the video and it looks as if I'm not missing much. It's always interesting how people think things are going their way, on the basis of just one (often misinterpreted) incident - like John and Caroline Farrow's arrest - when others see a whole tide turning against them.

There are idiots who make bad arguments on any side of any major dispute. I'm seeing a whole lot of idiots making bad arguments on the pro-trans side too. It doesn't mean anything either way.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

Her closing advice included recommendations like 'be more non-binary', which I can wholeheartedly get behind, to get out of some of the weirdly essentialist positions in gender identity theory.

When I say I'm non-binary all the "gender-crit" folk throw a fit and tell me that gender is binary.

So what exactly is the "gender-crit" position? Is gender binary or is it not?

[Robin]

The "gendered brain" issue is another one in which the "gender crit" side seem to be arguing both sides of.

Here is Colin Wright upholding the gender crit side in Quillette (apparently unaware that his mortars are aimed at his own side and not, as he supposes, at their common enemy):

Originally Posted by Colin Wright

I am an evolutionary behavioral ecologist, and most of my work is concerned with how individual differences in behavior (i.e. personality) influence individual fitness, and the collective behavior and success of animal societies. Most are probably not aware, but animal personality research is a vibrant field within behavioral ecology due to the ubiquity of personality as a phenomenon in nature, and its ability to explain interactions both within and between species. In nearly every species tested to date for the presence of personality, we’ve found it, and sex-linked personality differences are frequently the most striking. Sex-linked personality differences are very well documented in our closest primate relatives, too, and the presence of sexual dimorphism (i.e. size differences between males and females) in primates, and mammals generally, dramatically intensifies these differences, especially in traits like aggression, female choosiness, territoriality, grooming behavior, and parental care.

Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits that any objective observer would predict, based on the mammalian trends, the claim that our behavioral differences have arisen purely via socialization is dubious at best. For that to be true, we would have to posit that the selective forces for these traits inexplicably and uniquely vanished in just our lineage, leading to the elimination of these traits without any vestiges of their past, only to have these traits fully recapitulated in the present due to socialization. Of course, the more evidenced and straightforward explanation is that we exhibit these classic sex-linked behavioral traits because we inherited them from our closest primate ancestors.

[Rolfe]

Robin, I'm sorry to burst your little bubble, but everybody is non-binary by the definitions the gender-fans use. It's not a special thing for special people.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Robin, I'm sorry to burst your little bubble, but everybody is non-binary by the definitions the gender-fans use. It's not a special thing for special people.

I'm not sure why you think this evasion of yours should burst my bubble.

The fact that you are trying to avoid my point seems to indicate I have hit a nerve.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Robin

When I say I'm non-binary all the "gender-crit" folk throw a fit and tell me that gender is binary.

So what exactly is the "gender-crit" position? Is gender binary or is it not?

Sex is binary. Gender is largely meaningless. That's the short version.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sex is binary. Gender is largely meaningless. That's the short version.

And yet when I say that gender is meaningless the gender crit folks on this forum are again outraged.

In fact they seem to be savagely opposed to the idea even that I don't know what it means.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Robin

When I say I'm non-binary all the "gender-crit" folk throw a fit and tell me that gender is binary.

So what exactly is the "gender-crit" position? Is gender binary or is it not?

Sex is binary (even intersex conditions tend to come down on one side or the other, but the mere existence of a small minority of intersex individuals doesn't refute the overwhelming evidence for sexual dimorphism). One cannot literally change sex; no one born as a male will ever give birth.

Gender refers to the social and cultural roles, behaviours and experiences associated with the two sexes, but precisely because they are social and cultural roles etc, they can be combined, challenged, subverted. There is nothing biological about pink being associated with girls and blue with boys, it's entirely cultural and historical. So one can appear to change gender roles, but it's only an appearance. And one can reject the standard gender roles or gender identities for either sex. All of which can be done regardless of one's sexual orientation (or lack thereof, or multiplicities thereof).

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Robin

And yet when I say that gender is meaningless the gender crit folks on this forum are again outraged.

In fact they seem to be savagely opposed to the idea even that I don't know what it means.

Where on this forum are you finding this outrage and savage opposition? Can you give an example of the kind gender crit reaction you're describing?

As far as I know this is the only thread currently active on the subject, and the binary sex proposition here is typically met with resounding silence with an occasional smattering of snark.

ETA: Also, who are the "gender crit folks" supposed to be, here? The TRAs? Or the trans-exclusionaries?

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Robin

And yet when I say that gender is meaningless the gender crit folks on this forum are again outraged.

In fact they seem to be savagely opposed to the idea even that I don't know what it means.

A little history might help.

Gender is a useful umbrella term in the actual writing of history to encompass the histories of masculinity and femininity (socially and culturally constructed roles), but also the history of women, which was largely ignored until the 1960s. The history of sexuality overlaps with all of these categories, and includes the history of homosexuality, breaking down further into gay and lesbian history, plus the histories of gender non-conforming subcultures.

One can write histories of countless phenomena which are very clearly gendered: childbirth, sex, motherhood, fatherhood, marriage, spinsterhood, pornography, prostitution, adultery, rape. The gendered construction of these phenomena has varied across time and space, and within societies between classes and subcultures. Other phenomena like sports, drinking cultures, socialising, education and work usually turn out to be heavily gendered, as do warfare and crime.

All of this meant a lot to men and women in the past and in the very recent past, and clearly means a lot to men and women today, so to say gender is meaningless is the exact opposite of how it actually was and is, but this doesn't then mean there is a clear pattern - humans are too diverse culturally in their behaviours to make such a claim.

Essentialising cultural and historical diversity of gender roles, behaviours and beliefs is certainly meaningless, since they've evolved and show variations across cultures/societies, as well as between sexual orientations. Indeed, the term sexual orientation is fairly recent. It's certainly difficult to fully make sense of modern British history without acknowledging situationally specific and ultimately, temporary, homosexuality, not just in single-sex institutions, but among working-class Londoners in the interwar period. That then changed in the past 70 years and was seemingly not the case 100 years earlier (or if it was, there's less evidence of it).

Gender roles also relate to work, family and other aspects of life, and these have varied as well. BUT there are also thoroughly gendered roles that do relate more directly to the biological roots of sex and reproduction. These might be more stable in some respects, but once again are still historically and culturally constructed. Conceptions of childhood have changed, although the idea of childhood has been there all along. What motherhood and fatherhood mean will still produce variations, either in different societies or at different moments - children might be reared and parented collectively or more individually, adoption practices contrast with surrogate pregnancies in less common cases, etc.

The human life cycle produces distinctive gendered groups of different ages, but the boundaries have constantly shifted - when did working age begin, how long does youth last, when does one become an adult, when does one become elderly and what happens to you. Teenage and prepubescent girls might variously have experienced what we would now consider child marriage or they might simply have experienced high school cliques and crazes, or high rates of teenage pregnancies and single motherhood. These are gendered experiences not necessarily shared by teenage and prepubescent boys, although both boys and girls likely got preyed on by Catholic priests and other predators we'd now identify as paedophiles. Teenage boys might not have been married off as early, or they might have successfully walked away from their pregnant high school girlfriends, or they might have been forced into shotgun marriages.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Where on this forum are you finding this outrage and savage opposition? Can you give an example of the kind gender crit reaction you're describing?

As far as I know this is the only thread currently active on the subject, and the binary sex proposition here is typically met with resounding silence with an occasional smattering of snark.

Take the whole of my thread on being agender for example

People there were bitterly opposed to the proposition that I didn't identify as any gender on the basis that I had no idea what gender meant and what it means to "identify as a gender".

Towards the end people were telling me that if I had a preference to one public toilet over another then I must know exactly what gender means. They were quite insistent on this.

Quote:

ETA: Also, who are the "gender crit folks" supposed to be, here? The TRAs? Or the trans-exclusionaries?

The tribe aligned with the likes of Kathleen Stock and JK Rowling often self identify as gender critical.

[Nick Terry]

Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan, How can universities promote academic freedom? Insights from the front line of the gender wars, Impact, November 2022 (published 18 September 2022)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...X.2022.12007.x

This is a decent sized pamphlet, open access, by two UCL academics (Suissa in education and Sullivan in sociology), well worth a read.

Quote:

The UK Government's Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is currently progressing through Parliament. The bill is designed to strengthen free speech and academic freedom in higher education, in response to what former Education Secretary Gavin Williamson describes as ‘the rise of intolerance and cancel culture upon our campuses’. But is there really a crisis of academic freedom in British universities?

To see that there is, say Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan, we need only look at the contemporary reality of suppression of debate on sex and gender. The evidence they catalogue of suppression of research, of blacklisting, harassment and smear campaigns, of no-platforming, disinvitations and shutting down of events, is incontrovertible. The recent experience of scholars and students wishing to discuss the material reality and political salience of sex makes complacency about academic freedom a luxury we cannot afford.

Suissa and Sullivan set out a powerful argument for the role of academic freedom in pursuing truth within the academy and developing democracy beyond it. They effectively counter attempts to narrow the scope of academic freedom so as to render it compatible with no-platforming. And they lay out a series of practical steps administrators can take to ensure that universities are places where an expansive and pluralistic intellectual climate prevails.

This is a timely and compelling intervention in a vexed but urgent public debate. For their clear-sighted diagnosis of where and how academic freedom has been eroded in our universities, and for their judicious account of what must be done to rebuild it, Suissa and Sullivan deserve a wide and attentive hearing.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Robin

Take the whole of my thread on being agender for example

People there were bitterly opposed to the proposition that I didn't identify as any gender on the basis that I had no idea what gender meant and what it means to "identify as a gender".

Towards the end people were telling me that if I had a preference to one public toilet over another then I must know exactly what gender means. They were quite insistent on this.

The tribe aligned with the likes of Kathleen Stock and JK Rowling often self identify as gender critical.

Thanks! It's all coming back to me now.

Upon reflection, I think everything that needed to be said was already said in that thread.

In the context of this thread: Gender, the way TRAs use it, is functionally meaningless. Every practical application turns out to be an application of sex - transsexuality, in fact.

Are you transsexual? Are you looking to transcend sex segregation? Are you a male, looking for access to sex segregated spaces for females? If you are, your experiences might be an important contribution to this thread.

If not, there's a whole other thread for you to talk about how transgender or agender you are. Whatever that means. Which nobody knows. Except maybe you?

Actually, if you do know what gender means, that would also be an important contribution to this thread. Do you?

[Robin]

The fact that our public platforms are jam packed with people claiming their free speech has been infringed seems to indicate the problem of cancel culture is somewhat exaggerated.

Compare:

Quote:

Doubters have pointed to OfS statistics indicating that, in 2017–18, ‘only 0.09 per cent of the total number of event requests made under an external speakers process were refused permission’ (OfS, 2019, pp.10-11)

With this:

Quote:

To determine whether or not universities are facing a crisis of academic freedom, they (Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan) argue, we need to attend to the detail of specific cases.

Well no. Attending to the details of specific cases cannot tell us anything about the scale of the problem.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Are you transsexual? Are you looking to transcend sex segregation? Are you a male, looking for access to sex segregated spaces for females?

No, are you?

Quote:

If you are, your experiences might be an important contribution to this thread.

So what are are you doing here then???

Quote:

Actually, if you do know what gender means, that would also be an important contribution to this thread. Do you?

You were in the thread where I repeated over and over that I don't know what gender means.

And yet you are still unsure about that.

Quote:

Actually, if you do know what gender means, that would also be an important contribution to this thread. Do you?

Well I said about 50 times in that thread that I had no idea what gender means.

Work it out.

Oh and since you and a number of others were insistent that I did, in fact, know what "gender" means then you must know what it means. So who don't you tell me?

I recall you saying that if I knew which public toilet to use then I must know which gender I am.

Or have you changed your mind and now you don't know what "gender" means either???

To clarify, do you identify as any particular gender? An important question that one.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Robin

And yet when I say that gender is meaningless the gender crit folks on this forum are again outraged.

In fact they seem to be savagely opposed to the idea even that I don't know what it means.

I don’t think that’s the case. In particular, your statement that you are non-binary implies that you have a particular idea of what gender means, so that you can categorize yourself as such. Rolfe’s response seems in line with having interpreted your position that way. If you are getting push back on that point, perhaps you didn’t express yourself well.

[lionking]

I just watched the John Oliver show in question. I am a leftie like him and think he hits the nail on the head most times. But to:

Deny transwoman advantages in women’s sport
Not even deal with transgender rights impacting on women’s rights
Say puberty blockers are totally reversible
Not deal with the reality of “affirmative care”
Deny any surgical intervention for pre-pubescent children even happens….

I stopped watching then.

He is totally wrong but very influential. A very sad and almost criminally misleading show.

[lionking]

Oh, he also failed to deal with the issue of transwomen insisting on ******* lesbians.

Yes, he was only interviewing young children (very manipulative of him) but failed to deal with the real threat to women posed by some TRAs.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I stopped paying attention to this thread, apparently, quite a long time ago. I'm astounded that it made it to a tenth thread.

Regardless, back when I was participated, I predicted that some of the anti-trans views would not age well. It's far too soon for that prediction to have played out, but maybe, just maybe, we're beginning to see some wrinkles or a gray hair.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That video is not available in the UK, I'm afraid.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I'm astounded that it made it to a tenth thread.

When I started it five years ago, I thought it might make a page or two.

Astounded doesn't begin to describe how I see it having gone this far.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

That video is not available in the UK, I'm afraid.

Click the quote reply option and copy the number between the yt tags. You can use this to do a search on youtube.

[Matthew Best]

And how is that supposed to help? The video is still not available in the UK.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

And how is that supposed to help? The video is still not available in the UK.

I think this link has the audio of the bit. That works from the UK. It's about 30 minutes.

https://huffduffer.com/gkrmbl/652118

Alternatively, if you don't mind the libertarian stylings of Stephen Crowder, he has a reaction to it in the second half of this video.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

And how is that supposed to help? The video is still not available in the UK.

For me it came up with multiple copies that appear to be the same content, some of which are viewable in the UK.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Robin

I'm not sure why you think this evasion of yours should burst my bubble.

The fact that you are trying to avoid my point seems to indicate I have hit a nerve.

Every so often John thinks he has discerned some hidden belief I have that he gleefully tries to drag into the light. I have to tell him again, no, I keep saying in clear that transwomen are not women, "real" or otherwise, whatever real means in that context.

I have no idea what point of yours you think I'm avoiding, but I can assure you I'm entirely untroubled by it.

Sex. Male or female. That encompasses everyone. There is nobody who is not either male or female, you can't be of "non-binary" sex. From your posts and your name I understand you're male. So we can leave that aside.

Gender. Lots of different definitions of that one. I am assuming from your posts that you mean either an internal feeling of being masculine or feminine, or the outward performance of masculine or feminine behaviour patterns.

Everybody is "non-binary" in that sense. Nobody either feels or acts 100% feminine or masculine. It may be that many cluster towards one or the other end of the spectrum, but everyone has some masculine or feminine in them. I think this "oh look at me I'm non-binary" is just a pathetic attempt to be "special" when you're not special at all.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Uhm, maybe because she did an awful lot more anti-transgender agitation in other areas, and zealously/ideologically doubled down (thereby placing her academic institution in an invidious position) rather than accepting that she should not be using the pulpit and privilege of her academic status to be broadcasting anti-transgender animus. Maybe?

What makes Kathleen Stock's public engagement 'anti-transgender'? How are you certain she was motivated by an 'anti-transgender animus'? Someone else's say-so? Have you read her book or other statements?

From her book:

Quote:

Trans people are trans people. We should get over it. They deserve to be safe, to be visible throughout society without shame or stigma, and to have exactly the life opportunities non-trans people do. Their transness makes no difference to any of this.

Stock clearly accepts trangender identities.

Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan noted in 2021 that "The right of trans people not to be discriminated against or harassed unlawfully because they are trans is guaranteed in Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010, under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, and covers people anywhere along the ‘transition’ route."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...467-9752.12549

Opposition arose because the interpretation of this act has sometimes gone far beyond this basic, generally accepted principle and has begun to conflict with the rights of other groups who are equally protected under the Equality Act 2010, most especially women as a class defined by the protected characteristic of sex.

The 'no debate' mantra and associated campaigning has had hugely deleterious consequences for academic freedom and freedom of speech in general.

If you can defend all of the examples where people's freedoms have been infringed upon noted in Suisa/Sullivan 2022, then please explain on what grounds these were justified and whether those grounds are at all realistic or accurate.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...X.2022.12007.x

That requires saying something more substantive than 'anti-transgender' or 'transphobic' - actually defining those terms. It also requires explaining why physical assaults, death threats and threats of rape are justified, and then explaining why moving to get people fired for disagreeing with you is justified. If those actions aren't justified, then what justifies the campaign against Kathleen Stock and distinguishes her from other cases?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Robin

So what exactly is the "gender-crit" position? Is gender binary or is it not?

GC's tend to say that gender is a set of sex-based expectations socially constructed by patriarchy in order to keep females docile, servile, & subordinate. Basically what the 2nd wave feminists said about it.

[Rolfe]

And I don't see how anyone could imagine that could be "binary" in the sense that every person fulfils one set of sex-based expectations exclusively.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Robin

No, are you?

So what are are you doing here then???



You were in the thread where I repeated over and over that I don't know what gender means.

And yet you are still unsure about that.

Well I said about 50 times in that thread that I had no idea what gender means.

Work it out.

Oh and since you and a number of others were insistent that I did, in fact, know what "gender" means then you must know what it means. So who don't you tell me?

I recall you saying that if I knew which public toilet to use then I must know which gender I am.

Or have you changed your mind and now you don't know what "gender" means either???

To clarify, do you identify as any particular gender? An important question that one.

In short: The meaning of gender is clear, in contexts where it is tightly coupled to sex, or is a proxy or synonym for sex. Women's sports, for example, are just female sports by another name.

Decouple gender from sex, and it becomes meaningless. So yes, I know very well what gender means, in contexts where we're actually talking about sex. And so do you.

And yes, gender is essentially meaningless, in all other contexts. When you say that you are agender, you don't mean that you are unsexed. You just mean that you feel uncomfortable about some vague idea of stereotypical gender roles that nobody expects you to conform to anyway. And that you cannot in any case describe with any detail or clarity, or in any meaningful way.

I ask you if you use the men's or the women's restroom, and you know right away what I mean and what "gender" you are. I ask you what it means to be a man or a woman, and you have no idea. Nobody does. Because, in the genderqueer paradigm, divorced from biological sex, gender is meaningless. And that's the paradigm you're working in.

[theprestige]

Meanwhile, going back to LJ's premise that transgender identity without distress is not a mental disorder...

... Of course there's no distress - as long as the transgender identity is accommodated. Use someone's preferred pronouns, and they're happy. Use their sex-derived pronouns, and they become unhappy. They become distressed. Give them trans-affirming hormone therapy, and they're happy*. Withhold those treatments, and they become distressed. Help them cut off their breasts, or mutilate their genitals, and they're happy*. Deny them this treatment, and they become distressed.

Gender dysphoria did not actually get removed from the catalog of mental disorders. It's still right there in the DSM. But okay, sure: If you can somehow thread the needle of having preferred pronouns but not becoming profoundly unhappy when people don't use them, then you are not actually suffering from gender dysphoria.

Kind of like how it annoys me to be referred to by certain nicknames, but I don't actually need therapy to cope with the annoyance. I might complain to HR about my co-worker's incivility, but I don't need a formal workplace accommodation under the ADA. I don't need to literally make a federal case out of my mental health grievance.

Show me an openly trans person who doesn't experience serious, that's a mental disorder in the DSMV, anguish, if people don't go along with their social transition.