That’s not a biology book. Sex is a biology thing, Gender is a social concept.
“don’t you lecture us and uni-grade biology with your mid-school biology 🗿”
I took a psychology class for collage and one think that I found interesting is how scientist can actually find a difference in brain structure in trans individuals that correlate with their gender identity
It’s so much more fascinating than just that!
So the most well-known of these structures is the bed nucleus of the striae terminalis. The size and number of a specific type of neuron in that region is highly predictive of the gender of the individual, with very high reliability. Postmortem, you can count these neurons and be very close to sure what the sex of the dead person was.
Not only do trans individuals have the structure of the gender they identify as, but there were several interesting controls done to double-check.
First, they looked both at trans people who had undergone different stages of reassignment and compared them to trans people who had not initiated treatment at all. There was no difference, so HRT, etc, is not the cause of the structural differences.
Then they went to a sample of men who were sufferers of specific types of penile/testicular cancers that required a large number of feminizing hormones during the treatment process. Still no change in the striae terminalis.
And then they went back a couple years later and repeated the same experiment, with the same result.
This was all done close to 20 years ago. We’ve known this for a long time.
Fun addendum: there are a couple types of penile cancer that, sadly, requires the penis to be excised. In 70% of these cases, the men involved experienced phantom penile sensations (phantom limb syndrome). So what’s the rate of phantom penile sensations in MTF post-operation trans people? Almost 0%.
Printed books in universities are scams. They print new versions of book that is the same as it was, sometimes they just change the order and then teachers mention you need that very version to be able to follow the course but it really is the same book in a different order. So of course if there is a popular movement that advocates replacing the word woman for a meaningless terms they will jump on the occasion to print new books. Then when people realise that this gender affirmation doesn’t (for most of them) make them any happier or actually make them worse, it will be another great opportunity to print another version of their books.
Here’s a documentary about the gender affirmation made ~10 years ago. I think there is 6 parts to it. It is also available on Youtube but I recommend using Invidious
Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds when you say “a gender dysphoria concept that has been around for hundreds of years is fake because colleges need to reprint books”?
This is the very essence of a disingenuous argument. A book does not dictate the absolute meaning of a concept, and likewise the motivation of printing a book does not invalidate the information therein.
Haven’t made that claim sorry. I haven’t been clear enough. There’s an obvious trend to remove the word woman from books to be replace with people with such organs. Doesn’t make gender disphoria false.
So you’re having a problem with clearer, more specific language?
Here’s a fun game: Define “woman” in such a way as to include only the people you believe should count as women that also excludes anyone else. I’ll even give you some hints—
-
Going with “people who menstruate” means post-menopausal women, women on birth control, and women with certain types of infertilities are now “men”.
-
Going with “people with XX chromosomes” means men born 46,XX (de la Chapelle syndrome) are now “women”. It’ll be news to them; most of them never know unless they have some other occasion to look at their chromosomes! I guess that big biker-looking beared motherfucker is going to the women’s room. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency causes a lot of problems for this definition, too… they’re XY, but all their external sex characteristics are female, which may or may not change with the onset of puberty. Oh, and XY complete androgen insensitivity is going to cause an issue with this one, too. No secondary male sex characteristics at all, but you’re sending them over to the dangerous men’s bathroom after finding a micropenis on the Mandatory Small-Goverment Pre-Bathroom Crotch Check.
-
“People who were born with vaginas” means every intersex person ever born is a “woman”, regardless of what call the doctors made at birth. Including, again, those with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, who are now “women”, when, under the above definition, they were “men”.
-
“People with female brain structures” isn’t one I’ve heard often, but it’s come up, and the problem with that is the sexually dimorphic nucleus (the INAH) is “female” in gay men and “male” in lesbians, and the bed nucleus of the striae terminalis is “male” in trans men and “female” in trans women. So a lot of big, burly, hairy dudes are now going into the women’s bathroom. And it’s not like we just noticed this; we’ve known about the INAH for almost 40 years, and the striae terminalis for close to 20.
-
“It’s just obvious! Women are women! Stop making it complicated!” Ok, but we’re talking about both science and policy, both of which have to be written very specifically. You can’t pass a bill that says “Only women are allowed to do X” and then define “women” as “you know what we’re talking about”. It’s not the rest of the world’s fault that this shit is too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.
The fact we can’t even agree that sex and gender are two different things is the final proof to me that the Right is arguing in bad faith. It’s such a simple concept to grasp.
One podcaster was suggesting we use male/female/intersex to refer to biological sex, and man/woman/etc. to refer to gender identity. Such an obvious and non-controversial idea, yet it’ll never fly with the transphobes.
With whom are you arguing? Who is the right? Did the right say anything about gender and sex being a different thing? Why are you assuming that some kind of people thinks differently on that matter?
This has nothing to do with the right. If you want to argue with people, you should do so instead of posting and pretending that someone made a claim. I know it is something a lot of people do online but I think it doesn’t really help making sens of things and it mostly serve the purpose to divide from each other by picturing some kind of boogeyman out of a group of people.
In general, conservatives claim that sex and gender are the same thing. It’s probably not true of all conservatives, but when most conservative pundits and influencers have made this claim at some point, it’s fair to say that it is the view of the conservative movement. It’s not a strawman, it’s not made up, it’s a claim regularly made by the conservative movement, and if you think “the right” means “all right-wingers” in this scenario, that’s you’re problem because noone else but you thought that.
