8ball
Decolonise colons!
So how would you explain the twin studies?
Hard to say, do you have the protocol to hand?
So how would you explain the twin studies?
I've only ever known one set of identical twins but they lived their lives in a remarkable closeness that involved doing the same thing at the same uni, dressing very similarly etc. I think hanging 'transness is genetic' onto this finding about 40% of identical twins who are trans having their twin also come out as trans is ridiculous.So how would you explain the twin studies?
That doesn't look much like an emerging scientific consensus to me. Just a paper.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To review current literature that supports a biologic basis of gender identity.
METHODS:
A traditional literature review.
RESULTS:
Evidence that there is a biologic basis for gender identity primarily involves (1) data on gender identity in patients with disorders of sex development (DSDs, also known as differences of sex development) along with (2) neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity.
CONCLUSIONS:
Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity..
Twin studies are notoriously tricky to draw conclusions from. Confounding factors are plentiful. This is year 1 social science stuff.
Twin studies are notoriously tricky to draw conclusions from. Confounding factors are plentiful. This is year 1 social science stuff.
None of which is to say there *aren't* any biological or genetic bases to gender issues, but so far this doesn't look like a scientific consensus to me (having admittedly only looked at bits of it, and not in detail).
"growing scientific consensus" not exactly what you meant to say then.I'd suggest the evidence means it shouldn't be ruled out, so blanket statements about the impossibility of transgenderism having some kind of biological basis are unscientific. And given the unknowns perhaps taking seriously how transgender people often experiencing their bodies might prove fruitful.
"growing scientific consensus" not exactly what you meant to say then.
The medical consensus in the late 20th century was that transgender and gender incongruent individuals suffered a mental health disorder termed “gender identity disorder.” Gender identity was considered malleable and subject to external influences. Today, however, this attitude is no longer considered valid. Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender identity.1,2 Individuals may make choices due to other factors in their lives, but there do not seem to be external forces that genuinely cause individuals to change gender identity.
Although the specific mechanisms guiding the biological underpinnings of gender identity are not entirely understood, there is evolving consensus that being transgender is not a mental health disorder. Such evidence stems from scientific studies suggesting that: 1) attempts to change gender identity in intersex patients to match external genitalia or chromosomes are typically unsuccessful3,4; 2) identical twins (who share the exact same genetic background) are more likely to both experience transgender identity as compared to fraternal (non-identical) twins5; 3) among individuals with female chromosomes (XX), rates of male gender identity are higher for those exposed to higher levels of androgens in utero relative to those without such exposure, and male (XY)-chromosome individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome typically have female gender identity6; and 4) there are associations of certain brain scan or staining patterns with gender identity rather than external genitalia or chromosomes7,8.
god forbid a literature review on a subject looks at literature on that subject and assesses it.
Innit! Not only that :
So they reviewed the papers only which supported a biological basis for gender identity, and came to the conclusion from those papers there is a biological basis.
Ben Goldacre has written a lot about it in his All Trials campaign. It is problematic to only look at positive results which which support your theory, and can lead to false positives.
Yeah. This is definitely the "lady brain" sexist shit I was talking about.
Next week: The black brain and phrenology.
I just don't think the actual results say what you think they say.Are you accusing scientific journals reporting the evidence of sexism or the researchers? Do you think this research should be prevented?
For example, being exposed to androgens in utero is an environmental factor.
Yes, like both of mine. "No woman should have to identify with her shackles. Gender is the oppressor not a mere "identity"" and "People asking women to give up their hard won seats at the political table should ponder on why do those seats need to be taken from women when men are the one's who are over represented on that table."I did look at the link, and at the disgusting comments left by contributors.
I've no doubt you believe this. I have a suspicion it's all you're willing to believe. Because being led into deserted site by an adult man who makes you touch his fucking penis knowing a priori your word won't be believed if you complain on the grounds that **you're a child** and, if that fails, you can always be deemed a precocious little whore which is somehow all to do with choosing one's woman's "gender identity" and **nothing** to do with you happening to be having a vagina. I'm too fond of my blurb but I may just change it temporarily toSince my first posts on this thread I’ve been arguing that they are a marginal and politically defeated fringe group. Since my first posts on this thread I’ve been arguing that they are a marginal and politically defeated fringe group. They only have any real significance in so far as they provide seemingly progressive arguments and a stream of shock stories for the use of the actually rich and powerful transphobic lobby, the forces of social conservatism, and help to disorient left wing responses to transphobia.
unwilling to be emotionally manipulated (again) into letting go of my needs out of compassion towards others who constantly make a race out of suffering in an effort to keep the forces of right wing conservatism at bay.
I can but to give you my own example which is pretty much splashed out on this thread. I was asleep and now I've woken up. Tell you more. I'm making it one of my missions to wake other women up to what may lie in waiting for their daughters, grandaughters, nieces and friends. Tell you what more. Even in deep leafy right wing Surrey, women don't forget where they have come from and how they got here. They certainly don't think men like you and your brogressivehood suddenly decided to, by the kindness of your hearts, relinquish power to women. Tell you even more. This is not the only forum I stop at. I also talk to feminists in Portugal and Brazil for example. It may seem strange to you but in my brief voyage of discovery the most informative links I found were not in English even though some linked to some English language thought. Conversations are being had. Have not doubt about it.If they didn’t play that role nobody would care about their views at all and the only people who would even have heard of them would be people like me who happen to have an interest in bizarre political sects and subcultures.TERFs are so marginal in fact that I’ve never once heard anyone make a left wing or feminist transphobic argument in real life. It’s almost entirely an online phenomenon, particularly outside of Britain.
My ring finger is longer than my index finger AND I have gender disphoria. Co incidence?
I. think. not.
Like a white person saying they've never seen racism. Gobsmacking.
Last time I checked, The Morning Star was the political voice of those closer to socialism. Where do you think gender critical socialism should have a voice, especially now that you and your sisters want any one with an ounce of doubt about trans ideology or simple concern about the direction of travel for women be expelled from the Labour Party?There are anti trans editorials in the Morning Star for fecks sake. TERFs - some who are powerful and wealthy with good political and media links - are managing to lobby government, their arguments particularly seem to appeal to right wing christian Tories who seem to be parroting radical feminist arguments in some of their literature now, and getting their arguments into The Times, The Express (can you believe that the Express have turned feminist all of a sudden just so they have an extra argument against trans people?), the Mail, on to Mumsnet.
This stuff is getting into schools now in order to undermine us at the most fundamental level.
Then the TERFs come along and say those trans adults must be excluded because they "look like men" and were "socialised as boys".
Cis people on the whole can't see it and will often collude in parts of it without realising or they refuse to challenge their own prejudices on this subject
I just don't think the actual results say what you think they say.
For example, being exposed to androgens in utero is an environmental factor.
What I think is that making political and medical decisions based on unknown science is unethical when those decisions might harm people.
I couldn't agree more.What I think is that making political and medical decisions based on unknown science is unethical when those decisions might harm people.
Of course it wouldn't. But the consequences would be vastly different, because gender is a socialised factor.And not one that would go away in a post gender society.For example, being exposed to androgens in utero is an environmental factor.
Of course it wouldn't. But the consequences would be vastly different, because gender is a socialised factor.
it's certainly what we do with socialisationThat's seems to me to be what we're doing all the time with gender re-assignment operations.
Making a guess and hoping it works out.
men being bigger and stronger doesn't require socialisation, does it?Agreeing that one feature of humans is extreme brain plasticity, what that allows is for us to be socialised into very different cultures. But it also means we need to learn an awful lot of stuff in order to be socialised/socialise ourselves (not a passive learning). Some of that learning involves biological sex. I'm not sure how a 'genderless society' would be possible or desirable, for that reason - men and women have different bodies, men are generally bigger and stronger, women give birth and breast feed. All these things require socialisation so that we treat each other well, and that puts us into the realms of gender, no?
It’s not a gendeless society then!