Trans vs feminists: Are Trans women women?

[birch]

And how do we distinguish between those who would demand rights on pretense and those who are serious about their condition? The ones who are serious goes through the long process of taking HRT and going through surgery, no duck walk to be sure. My question to you is how are women supposed to navigate the following?

SEATTLE, Washington, February 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - A man twice entered the changing room of a swimming pool and began disrobing, once in front of a young girls' swim team, saying transgender policies gave him the right to do so.
The unidentified man entered Evans pool in Seattle near Green Lake last Monday, February 8, and began taking off his shirt in front of female patrons.

When asked what he was doing, he said, "The law has changed and I have a right to be here."

"Seeing this individual in the locker room, parents of swim team members (girls) and women who had paid for lap swim became alarmed and alerted our front desk staff," said Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami in a statement. "In response, an Evans pool staff member entered the women's locker room and asked the man to leave." They offered both the man and the girls the opportunity to use a family changing room.

He left, only to return during a later youth lap swim, Takami said.

Officials said he had made no attempt to present himself as a woman, nor to identify as transgender when he checked in. By all appearances, he was a man.
But appearances do not matter when it comes to "gender identity." LGBT theorists hold that biological sex is distinct from gender, which is determined solely by the person's mental self-identification.https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/m...n-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a

What do you do if you're a woman with young children who are learning to swim and find a naked biological male in the dressing area and showers? Because according to Tiassa they are hateful bigots and disgusting because they cannot see into this man's head and know that he is female just like them.

There are two aspects to this and one is the common sense approach while still respecting other's rights to their own gender identity. Until one has gone through the sex change, people should have to use the facilities based on physical gender.

This is for the safety and deterrant of abuse or exploitation of the gender issue. Any decent person should be able to understand that even if one is sincere, there will be others who will or could use it as a disguise or ruse to be peeping toms or trying to gain access to children.

There was a situation at a shelter where this man dressed mostly in women's clothes who demanded to be able to use the women's showers. Come to find out he was not really transgender but was making very sexist come-ons to women and was heterosexual. Now, one woman made a huge fuss about it and there were some who accused her of discrimination before they realized what he was really up to or about. They made the right call in the practical sense that you use the facilities of your physical gender. Until you put your money where your mouth is and go through with the gender change, these situations can occur.

However, i think what some may be upset about is that you are not acknowledging there are people who are born feeling trapped with the wrong physical gender and to tell such people they are not what they truly identify as is painful because they are not acknowledged or validated. That is not really for you to say because you dont know how they feel.

But how society handles it in a practical sense may have to be different and even transgenders will have to do some adjusting because it is not all about them and their rights but everyone's and yes, including them. Society should acknowledge their rights and make accommodations as is needed and appropriate but still consider the ramifications to others as it is more complex. You seem to not be compromising at all as to what gender identity is mentally, emotionally and sociologically though. That's the issue it seems some might have with your views.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

There are two aspects to this and one is the common sense approach while still respecting other's rights to their own gender identity. Until one has gone through the sex change, people should have to use the facilities based on physical gender.

This is for the safety and deterrant of abuse or exploitation of the gender issue. Any decent person should be able to understand that even if one is sincere, there will be others who will or could use it as a disguise or ruse to be peeping toms or trying to gain access to children.

There was a situation at a shelter where this man dressed mostly in women's clothes who demanded to be able to use the women's showers. Come to find out he was not really transgender but was making very sexist come-ons to women and was heterosexual. Now, one woman made a huge fuss about it and there were some who accused her of discrimination before they realized what he was really up to or about. They made the right call in the practical sense that you use the facilities of your physical gender. Until you put your money where your mouth is and go through with the gender change, these situations can occur.

However, i think what some may be upset about is that you are not acknowledging there are people who are born feeling trapped with the wrong physical gender and to tell such people they are not what they truly identify as is painful because they are not acknowledged. That is not really for you to say because you dont know how they feel.

But how society handles it in a practical sense may have to be different and even transgenders will have to do some adjusting because it is not all about them and their rights but everyone's and yes, including them. Society should acknowledge their rights and make accommodations as is needed and appropriate but still consider the ramifications to others as it is more complex. You seem to not be compromising at all as to what gender identity is mentally, emotionally and sociologically though. That's the issue it seems some might have with your views.

That's a solution I would welcome and think is fair and it may be that you're one of the few adults in the room. I agree with mostly everything you've said in regards to how this could be handled.

I agree that as much as any existential experience is valid so is that of the person who feels trapped, what is meant by that feeling though seems to be a matter of contention, nevertheless there are people who feel this way. My first question to you is whether it is anyone's job to validate another's experience? To the point of ignoring and dismissing biological sex I say its not possible and so they will always face this hurdle. I remember watching a news documentary on transgender children and there was this little boy and he was sitting with a therapist and he was being transitioned wearing girls clothes and using a different name etc, at one point the therapist starts talking to him about his future as a woman and reminds him that he will never be able to conceive like his friends and the kid started to cry. What should be said next? Should he be told 'Oh and one day you'll have a baby and it will be great' because its not something he wants to hear? Or do you tell him the truth? When they were interviewing his female friends from school they were saying how sometimes they have to change the subject if they start talking about their periods or their body parts as girls are apt to do because it upsets him so the girls consciously avoid certain subjects in his presence. Is this kid going to be shielded all his life from reality? When does his feelings start being his feelings and not everyone else's problems because he's at a very young age but when he's a teen and a young adult all this coddling is going to go out the window because its no one's job to validate anyone's else idea of themselves.

What would the compromise look like?

And how about this, would we pretend that this isn't happening too because it makes some people feel upset?

Sex changes are not effective, say researchers
There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.

The Guardian asked Arif to conduct the review after speaking to several people who regret changing gender or believe that the medical care they received failed to prepare them for their new lives. They explain why they are unhappy with their sex change and how they cope with the consequences in the Weekend magazine tomorrow (July 31).

Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: "There is a huge uncertainty over whether changing someone's sex is a good or a bad thing. While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there's still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised - often to the point of committing suicide." Arif, which advises the NHS in the West Midlands about the evidence base of healthcare treatments, found that most of the medical research on gender reassignment was poorly designed, which skewed the results to suggest that sex change operations are beneficial.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

The rate of suicide for transgender people is about 40% before surgery and remains at the same rate after surgery. So why are people being told that this is the only way to 'cure' what is obviously a maladaptive condition is by going through a complete transition? We are pretending that we know the answer for this and then run around trying to legislate something that isn't even properly understood by professionals but being pushed as fact by activists.

 

[birch]

That's a solution I would welcome and think is fair and it may be that you're one of the few adults in the room. I agree with mostly everything you've said in regards to how this could be handled.

I agree that as much as any existential experience is valid so is that of the person who feels trapped, what is meant by that feeling though seems to be a matter of contention, nevertheless there are people who feel this way. My first question to you is whether it is anyone's job to validate another's experience? To the point of ignoring and dismissing biological sex I say its not possible and so they will always face this hurdle. I remember watching a news documentary on transgender children and there was this little boy and he was sitting with a therapist and he was being transitioned wearing girls clothes and using a different name etc, at one point the therapist starts talking to him about his future as a woman and reminds him that he will never be able to conceive like his friends and the kid started to cry. What should be said next? Should he be told 'Oh and one day you'll have a baby and it will be great' because its not something he wants to hear? Or do you tell him the truth? When they were interviewing his female friends from school they were saying how sometimes they have to change the subject if they start talking about their periods or their body parts as girls are apt to do because it upsets him so the girls consciously avoid certain subjects in his presence. Is this kid going to be shielded all his life from reality? When does his feelings start being his feelings and not everyone else's problems because he's at a very young age but when he's a teen and a young adult all this coddling is going to go out the window because its no one's job to validate anyone's else idea of themselves.

What would the compromise look like?

What? Like with any personal issue. People feel what they feel. Just try to be as kind as possible or at least not judge harshly. The person already knows what their physical gender is. Unless they have been groomed in some strange way and may need counseling, most people know what their sense of gender is and will insist on it.

You know, gender is pretty complex from a mental standpoint and it's through all possible gradients and not just between male/female physical gender. For instance, my mother was more masculine or 'butch' and she tended to discriminate and hate on women who were more feminine than her. She was cruel to anyone she felt was weaker than her. I think it was just jealousy but there are people who don't do that. They realize its okay to be you and someone else may be different. You know, live and let live. Likewise, there are very aggressive men who dont think more effeminate men are 'real' men. This is all bullshit and intolerance for the uniqueness and complexity of varying people. There are people even within their own gender who judge others based on their idea of what is a real man or woman. Again, it doesnt matter. It's frivolous and fake like social memes such as 'real women have curves' or 'real men have bulging muscles'. No, real men and women come in all sorts of amazingly complex, varying, unique and interesting attributes. You are what you are.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

What? Like with any personal issue. People feel what they feel. Just try to be as kind as possible or at least not judge harshly. The person already knows what their physical gender is. Unless they have been groomed in some strange way and may need counseling, most people know what their sense of gender is and will insist on it.

Well I don't think of it as judging any individual person as much as discussing the whole notion of trans theory and the lack of biological sex reality contained in that theory and the social ramifications it has for women in particular. There is no way to discuss it without someone somewhere being upset about it. The link to The Guardian article I posted, are researchers supposed to censor their findings because there are people who would be upset by it? Or to fill some ideological agenda? No. This idea that I am now responsible for the feelings of men and women everywhere I have never met is a little bit of a stretch. Either we are free to investigate this subject honestly or we're not. I'm either able to say "Yes it makes me uncomfortable that men now have access to women's lockers and dressing rooms etc" without being called a bigot or we're living under some kind of ideological oppression. I don't fair well in an ideological gulag. If people really cared about the transgender community then they would ask for more information and question why gender reassignment is being pushed though it shows itself to be of little benefit to those with gender anxiety.

 

[birch]

No, i think some of what you brought up needs to be considered as well. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with all of your points but the fact it impacts others in unforeseen ways does need to be looked into and addressed as best as possible.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No, i think some of what you brought up needs to be considered as well. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with all of your points but the fact it impacts others in unforeseen ways does need to be looked into and addressed as best as possible.

So how is it supposed to be done Birch? I don't mind people not agreeing I just wish I understood what they disagree with. Not one has said "Yes trans women are women and here's why", not one. They all just keep going on about my cruelty or in the case of Bells my stereotyping women (as if a woman's physical reality is a stereotype) or about how its all 'garbage' but without any effort to actually refute the argument on its basis. There is no scientific evidence of a female brain or ethereal spirit there is only evidence of a biological reality, this means that the whole transgender matrix itself is a social construct without material reality. Does that mean the anxiety is not real? No. Does it mean trans people shouldn't reassign? No. Is there a need for more study on what's going on with transgender people? Yes and some of that is happening now but it will be difficult when you have activists trying to bully people into using their terminology and accepting their views on biological sex. Its a form of censorship, just throw out an emotive invective as a means of dismissing the argument and silencing any question of the narrative, that's why they were so stuck on disparaging Greer and Paglia.

 

[iceaura]

I'm going to ignore most of the drivel and get down to your serious questions. Jill Soloway says she was treated "more like a human being" when she cut her hair, wore men's clothing and called herself 'they, them or their'. In what universe does that make sense to you unless you agree that there is something wrong with being a feminine woman and so it should be subsumed and eschewed.

In this one. She is saying nothing of the kind, there. You are making no sense.
Her objection or comparison is explicitly not to her own or anyone's femininity of style - which as far as that goes she may even prefer, personally - but to her treatment by other people.

If she's really binary then why does she insist on male clothing?

Insist?
She told you, in a simple declarative sentence, what she found the advantages of dressing less effeminately to be. (And I don't recall her using "binary" to characterize herself).

What I said is why doesn't she question whether the new respect she's enjoying is due to her success with the creation of show Transparent? What makes her believe its all due to her dress code and insisting she's called 'they' and 'their'?

Are you talking about some other interview or essay not mentioned here? Because that's not what's posted here or linked.

What equivalencies matters? You tell me

It's your obsession much more than mine. I suppose maybe equivalent socialization and mental reflex might be a factor, among others. Up for discussion, one would presume.

If they aren't, if trans women are not women then we have to be able to say this without being bullied into silence or called a bigot for saying it.

And if they are, then calling you a bully or a bigot is just fine.
That may explain the intensity of your focus.
It doesn't tell us what you are planning to call them, however.

You claim that biology doesn't count so what does then in your mind?

I made no such claim.

You claim otherwise so the onus is on you to show evidence of how this is the case

I made no such claim.

So let's say trans women are not women and go from there. Why? Because they are not because they cannot be, its impossible! All they can achieve is the appearance of what is female with none of the attributes that actually make a female a female.

So that's a clue to whatever you're trying to talk about - appearances don't count, nothing achievable via surgery or hormones counts, none of the sociological stuff counts, none of the mental or brain structures count. Do the genetics count - regardless of somatic expression?

 

[billvon]

I also have no problem with co-ed bathrooms. Why is it then that transgender women are not content with co-ed bathrooms?

How do you know they are not? I think you'd be upset if you were forced to use the men's room because of your views rather than the women's room, even if you are OK with coed bathrooms.

Why are they insisting on using toilets designated to women?

See above.

Unless your argument is that women do not have the right to a space where men cannot enter (dressing locker rooms and bathrooms). So a woman who doesn't want a man in the same bathroom as her is a bigot? Or girls in HS who don't want their male peers in their gym changing rooms are bigots? I guess lesbians are also bigots for not wanting to have sex with trans women because they prefer women? Is this your argument?

No, not even close.

Look, I am a man and you are a woman. I am telling you that trans people just want the same consideration as anyone else, and that extends to bathrooms - and my word on this is final. As your leader, I expect you to agree.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Ok so why does it matter who goes into a bathroom?

If a women was to come into a men's bathroom, while I'm taking a piss and proclaims "I'm trans I can be here" I'm going to roll my eyes and continue pissing.

Explain to me why we should care who goes into what bathroom?

 

[Neddy Bate]

Ok so why does it matter who goes into a bathroom?

If a women was to come into a men's bathroom, while I'm taking a piss and proclaims "I'm trans I can be here" I'm going to roll my eyes and continue pissing.

Explain to me why we should care who goes into what bathroom?

Yeah, I don't get it either. I can somewhat understand the concern over places like locker rooms and showers where there might not be private stalls, but the ladies bathroom does have stalls.

And if there is no problem, why attempt to solve it with a law that does not actually solve anything? (A trans man using a ladies room will probably cause more alarm than trans woman using it.) Oh, now I remember, it's all about riling up the conservative voting base.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You say has nothing to do with femininity style but her treatment by other people, yet these are the words she uses to describe it. She says “I’m happy to speak on behalf of women and on behalf of feminism. But I notice when people see me as non-binary, I get treated more as a human being.”Well her default was to embrace a masculine appearance not a neutral one again its the idea of ‘femininity’ that has been subsumed. If she finds she is treated better by people because she sports a male look instead of a female look then what are the connotations? One can only take away from the statement that she’s run up against patriarchal norms and these norms do not “treat women as human beings”. That’s the part that concerns me. Even Hadley Freeman who interviewed Soloway for the piece wrote

“Hearing Soloway, whose work is so profoundly feminist, suggest that the best way to be treated as a human is to not be a woman is so befuddling that I am almost speechless. But, I manage, isn’t the point that the definition of a woman should be broader, as they have shown in their work. To retire the field.”

Yes she does call herself binary.

“I identify as trans, which means that I am not seeking to synthesise my appearance with the label assigned to me at birth and instead am opting to live in a space where a label other than male or female is used to define me,”

Freeman goes on to write Soloway and Gilbert have separated and the director now identifies as a gender non-conforming queer person, who prefers to be referenced with gender-neutral pronouns (they/them/their), and if reading an interview in that style takes some getting used to, I can assure you that writing it up did, too.”

The article again is here so you can actually read the article and find everything she said which includes the above quotes https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...ds-male-and-female-describe-who-we-used-to-be

Its not an obsession because its not a mystery. Biology has already answered the question. Only children who are being transitioned are socialized as women or men, Bruce Jenner for example was never socialized as a female and yet he claims to be one. I’m not sure what you mean by mental reflex, being a woman isn’t a mental construct. If male and female are biological facts then anything else we say about gender is a matter of social engineering.

Why is questioning a notion that even researchers don’t have an explanation make someone a bully or bigot? How does that follow in a debate or intellectual discussion?

You say “and if they are”? There is no mystery. They are not, they are not from the level of DNA. To say any differently without offering even the slightest evidence can only be ideologically motivated and not grounded in any actual fact. What do I call them? I call them trans men and trans women. I do not call them men and women.

If you’re not claiming that biology doesn’t count then why are you arguing with me on whether a trans woman is a real woman? The only way you can argue affirmatively is if you pretend biology is inconsequential. If you are arguing that trans women are women then you should offer up some kind of evidence that this is so and yet you do not. You would rather argue about anything and everything else from wheelchairs to Soloway.


The surgery, the hormones and the socialization or sociological stuff as you say count as to the intentions of the person going through the process, meaning they are creating space for themselves in a gender affirmative way but none of that creates the physical reality of being female, it just doesn’t and no sex reassignment doctor would say so because on a biological level all those changes are simply cosmetic. If there is some difficulty and a trans woman doesn’t get their hormone shot once a week their features feminine features begins to revert its not going to start producing these hormones on its own just because of surgery, HRT and socialization. The body doesn’t care what the mind thinks it is. Which is why some trans men end up getting pregnant and why no trans woman can menstruate, carry a child or go through menopause. Its our reproductive organs that give us the title of male or female, so unless you change biology on a fundamental level then this still stands as reality.


Remember I said that trans theory doesn’t abolish gender but reinforces it? Well that’s what I meant but to get back on point. Its like Hosteen Klah, who was intersex (not trans) lived in the space of the nadleeh who could be born male, female or intersex (which is all there is biologically), he moved into a carved out space but notice that the Navajo didn’t abolish the notion of biological sex to accommodate those born nadleeh, they didn’t refer to them as male or female but something else.


Now when it comes to brain structure neuroscientists have been engages in some interesting research.


Antonio Guillamon‘s team at the National University of Distance Education in Madrid, Spain, think they have found a better way to spot a transsexual brain. In a study due to be published next month, the team ran MRI scans on the brains of 18 female-to-male transsexual people who’d had no treatment and compared them with those of 24 males and 19 females.

They found significant differences between male and female brains in four regions of white matter – and the female-to-male transsexual people had white matter in these regions that resembled a male brain (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006). “It’s the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised,” Guillamon says. In a separate study, the team used the same technique to compare white matter in 18 male-to-female transsexual people with that in 19 males and 19 females. Surprisingly, in each transsexual person’s brain the structure of the white matter in the four regions was halfway between that of the males and females (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.007). “Their brains are not completely masculinised and not completely feminised, but they still feel female,” says Guillamon.

Guillamon isn’t sure whether the four regions are at all associated with notions of gender, but Ivanka Savic-Berglund at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, thinks they might be. One of the four regions – the superior longitudinal fascicle – is particularly interesting, she says. “It connects the parietal lobe [involved in sensory processing] and frontal lobe [involved in planning movement] and may have implications in body perception.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/


But its contradicted by this study


Structural MRI scans were used to compare the size of various brain structures between three groups of volunteers: heterosexual men, heterosexual women and the transexuals (or “MtF”s as I will call them for short) who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and were “genetically and phenotypically males”. There were 24 in each group, which makes it a decent sized study. None of the MtFs had started hormone treatment yet, so that wasn’t a factor, and none of the women were on hormonal contraception. The scans showed that the non-transsexual male and female brains differed in various ways. Male brains were larger overall but women had increases in the relative volumes of various areas. Male brains were also more asymmetrical. The key finding was that on average, the MtF brains were not like the female ones. There were some significant differences from the male brains, but they weren’t the same differences that distinguished the females from the males.

Gender dysphoria is suggested to be a consequence of sex atypical cerebral differentiation. We tested this hypothesis in a magnetic resonance study of voxel-based morphometry and structural volumetry in 48 heterosexual men (HeM) and women (HeW) and 24 gynephillic male to female transsexuals (MtF-TR). Specific interest was paid to gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) fraction, hemispheric asymmetry, and volumes of the hippocampus, thalamus, caudate, and putamen. Like HeM, MtF-TR displayed larger GM volumes than HeW in the cerebellum and lingual gyrus and smaller GM and WM volumes in the precentral gyrus. Both male groups had smaller hippocampal volumes than HeW. As in HeM, but not HeW, the right cerebral hemisphere and thalamus volume was in MtF-TR lager than the left. None of these measures differed between HeM and MtF-TR. MtF-TR displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus.The present data do not support the notion that brains of MtF-TR are feminized. The observed changes in MtF-TR bring attention to the networks inferred in processing of body perception.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21467211


These findings have been criticized for using a support Vector Machine looking at groups on average instead of looking at male and female groups and try to work out which group each individual Male to Female is most similar but the study is regarded as sound (critics are not refuting the findings).


*continued in next post*

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

In this one. She is saying nothing of the kind, there. You are making no sense.
Her objection or comparison is explicitly not to her own or anyone's femininity of style - which as far as that goes she may even prefer, personally - but to her treatment by other people.

Insist?
She told you, in a simple declarative sentence, what she found the advantages of dressing less effeminately to be. (And I don't recall her using "binary" to characterize herself).

Are you talking about some other interview or essay not mentioned here? Because that's not what's posted here or linked.

It's your obsession much more than mine. I suppose maybe equivalent socialization and mental reflex might be a factor, among others. Up for discussion, one would presume.

And if they are, then calling you a bully or a bigot is just fine.
That may explain the intensity of your focus.
It doesn't tell us what you are planning to call them, however.

I made no such claim.

I made no such claim.

So that's a clue to whatever you're trying to talk about - appearances don't count, nothing achievable via surgery or hormones counts, none of the sociological stuff counts, none of the mental or brain structures count. Do the genetics count - regardless of somatic expression?

*continuation*

The one study I find particularly interesting is from Scientific American where they question whether gender is hardwired or not and supports the theory radical feminists have forwarded that gender is not hardwired and that there is no such thing as a ‘female brain’. Sex is fixed, gender is not fixed that’s what gals such as Greer have been saying and just to clarify its trans activists who keep saying that gender is in the brain and that is what determines sex which determines gender. If it weren’t so they wouldn’t feel the need to appear as physically female.



Social cognition is one realm in which the search for brain sex differences should be especially fruitful. Females of all ages outperform males on tests requiring the recognition of emotion or relationships among other people. Sex differences in empathy emerge in infancy and persist throughout development, though the gap between adult women and men is larger than between girls and boys. The early appearance of any sex difference suggests it is innately programmed—selected for through evolution and fixed into our behavioral development through either prenatal hormone exposure or early gene expression differences. On the other hand, sex differences that grow larger through childhood are likely shaped by social learning, a consequence of the very different lifestyle, culture and training that boys and girls experience in every human society.


At first glance, studies of the brain seem to offer a way out of this age-old nature/nurture dilemma. Any difference in the structure or activation of male and female brains is indisputably biological. However, the assumption that such differences are also innate or “hardwired” is invalid, given all we’ve learned about the plasticity, or malleability of the brain. Simply put, experiences change our brains.


Recent research by Peg Nopoulos, Jessica Wood and colleagues at the University of Iowa illustrates just how difficult it is to untangle nature and nurture, even at the level of brain structure. A first study, published in March 2008 found that one subdivision of the ventral prefrontal cortex—an area involved in social cognition and interpersonal judgment—is proportionally larger in women, compared to men. (Men’s brains are about 10 percent larger than women’s, overall, so any comparison of specific brain regions must be scaled in proportion to this difference.) This subdivision, known as the straight gyrus (SG), is a narrow strip of cerebral cortex running along the midline on the undersurface of the frontal lobe. Wood and colleagues found the SG to be about 10 percent larger in the thirty women they studied, compared to thirty men (after correcting for males’ larger brain size). What’s more, they found that the size of the SG correlated with a widely-used test of social cognition, so that individuals (both male and female) who scored higher in interpersonal awareness also tended to have larger SGs.


In their article, Wood and colleagues speculate about the evolutionary basis for this sex difference. Perhaps, since women are the primary child-rearers, their brains have become programmed to develop a larger SG, to prepare them to be sensitive nurturers. Prenatal sex hormones are known to alter behavior and certain brain structures in other mammals. Perhaps such hormones—or sex-specific genes—may enhance the development of females’ SG (or dampen the development of males’) leading to inborn differences in social cognition.


The best way to test this hypothesis is to look at children. If the sex difference in the SG is present early in life, this strengthens the idea that it is innately programmed. Wood and Nopoulos therefore conducted a second study with colleague Vesna Murko, in which they measured the same frontal lobe areas in children between 7 and 17 years of age.


But here the results were most unexpected: they found that the SG is actually larger in boys ! What’s more, the same test of interpersonal awareness showed that skill in this area correlated with smaller SG, not larger, as in adults. The authors acknowledge that their findings are “complex,” and argue that the reversal between childhood and adulthood reflects the later maturation of boys’ brains, compared to girls. (Adolescents’ brains undergo a substantial “pruning” or reduction in gray matter volume during adolescence, which happens about two years earlier in girls, compared to boys.)


However, in both studies, Wood and colleagues added another test that reminds us to be cautious when interpreting any finding about sex differences in the brain. Instead of simply dividing their subjects by biological sex, they also gave each subject a test of psychological “gender:” a questionnaire that assesses each person’s degree of masculinity vs. femininity—regardless of their biological sex—based on their interests, abilities and personality type. And in both adults and children, this measure of “gender” also correlated with SG size, albeit in just as complicated a way as the correlation between “sex” and SG size. (Larger SG correlated with more feminine personality in adults but less feminine personality in children.)


In other words, there does seem to be a relationship between SG size and social perception, but it is not a simple male-female difference. Rather, the SG appears to reflect a person’s “femininity” better than one’s biological sex: women who are relatively less feminine show a correspondingly smaller SG compared to women who are more feminine, and ditto for men.


This finding—that brain structure correlates as well or better with psychological “gender” than with simple biological “sex”—is crucial to keep in mind when considering any comparisons of male and female brains. Yes, men and women are psychologically different and yes, neuroscientists are uncovering many differences in brain anatomy and physiology which seem to explain our behavioral differences. But just because a difference is biological doesn’t mean it is “hard-wired.” Individuals’ gender traits—their preference for masculine or feminine clothes, careers, hobbies and interpersonal styles—are inevitably shaped more by rearing and experience than is their biological sex. Likewise, their brains, which are ultimately producing all this masculine or feminine behavior, must be molded—at least to some degree—by the sum of their experiences as a boy or girl.



And so, any time scientists report a difference between male and female brains, especially in adults, it begs the question, “Nature or nurture?” Is women’s larger SG the cause of their social sensitivity, or the consequence of living some 30 years in a group that practices greater empathetic responding? Wood and colleagues are among the few neuroscientists to analyze male-female brain differences for their relationship to gender type, as opposed to strict biological sex. Their findings do not prove that social learning is the cause of male-female differences in the brain, but they do challenge the idea that such brain differences are a simple product of the Y chromosome.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/girl-brain-boy-brain/



So this is why I refute the notion that gender traits is something one is born with, something in the brain which is what trans theory claims, trans theory brain/mind/thought=gender=sex. That's the formula, that's why they push for reassignment surgery on any male or female who is 'gender non-conformative' to become the opposite sex even though there is no evidence that this cures gender dysphoria. The study is saying that bearing some biological interaction 'gender' is still a sociological phenomenon and not a biological one. Feminists 1, trans theory 0. LOL

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

How do you know they are not? I think you'd be upset if you were forced to use the men's room because of your views rather than the women's room, even if you are OK with coed bathrooms.

See above.

No, not even close.

Look, I am a man and you are a woman. I am telling you that trans people just want the same consideration as anyone else, and that extends to bathrooms - and my word on this is final. As your leader, I expect you to agree.

I used the men's room once. I was at the movie theater and there was a very long line for the ladies room and I instinctively went into the men's bathroom but it didn't really dawn on me until I was washing my hands and this man was looking at me. LOL! It was the only time to be sure. So how do you know? Well that was my question because as it stands from a legal point of view the bathroom bill allows ANY MAN WHO IDENTIFIES AS FEMALE, that's any man, not a man in a dress, not a man in wig not a man who's transitioned not even a man who appears to be a woman just anyone who declares themselves to be so which is why you had this incident

A man twice entered the changing room of a swimming pool and began disrobing, once in front of a young girls' swim team, saying transgender policies gave him the right to do so.
The unidentified man entered Evans pool in Seattle near Green Lake last Monday, February 8, and began taking off his shirt in front of female patrons.

When asked what he was doing, he said, "The law has changed and I have a right to be here."

"Seeing this individual in the locker room, parents of swim team members (girls) and women who had paid for lap swim became alarmed and alerted our front desk staff," said Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami in a statement. "In response, an Evans pool staff member entered the women's locker room and asked the man to leave." They offered both the man and the girls the opportunity to use a family changing room.

He left, only to return during a later youth lap swim, Takami said. Officials said he had made no attempt to present himself as a woman, nor to identify as transgender when he checked in. By all appearances, he was a man.https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/m...n-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a

And this incident

The decision to allow a transgender 45-year-old college student who identifies as a woman but has male genitalia to use the women's locker room has raised a fracas among parents and faith-based organizations, who say children as young as 6 years old use the locker room.The locker room at Evergreen College in Olympia, Wash., is shared with the Capital High School swim club and a children's swim academy, along with the students at Evergreen.

"The college has to follow state law," Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. "The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state." But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern.

"[A mother] reported her daughter was upset because she observed a person at the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia," said a police report filed in September by a mother on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter.http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/

And this incident

MIDLAND, MI -- A Midland County woman's gym membership was canceled after she refused to stop telling fellow gym members "a man" was using the woman's locker room.
Yvette Cormier said the incident occurred Saturday, Feb. 28, when she entered the women's locker room at the Planet Fitness location at 701 Joe Mann Boulevard in Midland.

"I was blocked, because a man was standing there," Cormier said. "It freaked me out because, why is a man in here?"

Cormier said an employee at the front desk told her that the individual identifies as a woman.

After taking her complaints to Planet Fitness' corporate office, Cormier said she was told that the gym was a "no judgement zone" and they would not tell the individual in question to stay out of the women's locker room. The person has not been identified. The slogan "Judgement Free Zone" is regularly used by Planet Fitness.http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/transgender_members_welcome_in.html


Basically women are being told that their needs has to be sacrificed on the alter of trans politics but that shouldn't really surprise me. I used to think that a lot of feminist theory was hyperbole but now I can see this quite plainly. In some perverse fashion yet again women are being asked to give away something they find essential to men, in this case privacy. They are being asked to subvert their perceived safety in favor of some male dominated agenda. Do the concerns of women and children come last? I guess they do.

LOL okay billvon, as your subjugated female I agree with you that trans people, real transsexuals, not 'transtrenders' or men with swinging dicks, only want some consideration, I can understand that but note the above examples and understand that women want some consideration too and the law doesn't allow for the feelings of women to be heard on this subject.

And you know what's interesting is that same Planet Fitness is known for the following complaint by female members for being body shamed by employees at the gym

"First they removed “intimidating squat racks” then requested a woman cover up her bare stomach.

Today’s target — a pregnant woman.

Melissa Mantor claims she was told to “cover up or leave” a Planet Fitness last week in South Carolina. The incident has left her incredibly embarrassed and she claims she’s “not comfortable working out in public anymore — at least not for the remainder of her pregnancy.” http://brobible.com/guyism/article/planet-fitness-pregant-woman/

That fascinates me. They punish a woman for her protruding pregnant stomach but she's supposed to accept a naked man in her dressing room. I mean its true feminist fodder, its all there. It smells of hatefulness towards those of the female sex.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yeah, I don't get it either. I can somewhat understand the concern over places like locker rooms and showers where there might not be private stalls, but the ladies bathroom does have stalls.

And if there is no problem, why attempt to solve it with a law that does not actually solve anything? (A trans man using a ladies room will probably cause more alarm than trans woman using it.) Oh, now I remember, it's all about riling up the conservative voting base.

Why not have private stalls? Problem fixed?

But yes this whole thing rallies the conservatives base with their "think of the women!" which is why it should never have been made a national issue to begin with.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Ok so why does it matter who goes into a bathroom?

If a women was to come into a men's bathroom, while I'm taking a piss and proclaims "I'm trans I can be here" I'm going to roll my eyes and continue pissing.

Explain to me why we should care who goes into what bathroom?

LOL. You're right and do you know why? Because you're male. You have zero reasons to feel threatened by a woman in your spaces in fact I bet many men would welcome it. Its different for women, its always been different for women. Outside of a male medical doctor a woman undressing in front of a man has sexual connotations because a woman's body is sexualized, I would say innately sexualized, that being said men who are obviously not effeminate, not sporting women's clothes, not going through transition can just invade a woman's space and legally force her to accept it. As a woman I find that hurtful, throwing women and girls under the bus for some trans political agenda is harmful and hurtful to women. Sorry but its not just conservatives who are saying 'think of the women' its also women saying 'think of us'.

 

[billvon]

I used the men's room once. I was at the movie theater and there was a very long line for the ladies room and I instinctively went into the men's bathroom but it didn't really dawn on me until I was washing my hands and this man was looking at me. LOL! It was the only time to be sure.

So you should be able to do it, but no one else should. Interesting.

A man twice entered the changing room of a swimming pool and began disrobing, once in front of a young girls' swim team, saying transgender policies gave him the right to do so.
The unidentified man entered Evans pool in Seattle near Green Lake last Monday, February 8, and began taking off his shirt in front of female patrons.

Yep. And we had a guy who did that at Cantiague Park when I worked there 30 years ago. We asked him to leave, too. So?

"The college has to follow state law," Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. "The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state." But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern.

And some men have women's genitalia (google AIS.) Again - so? If a woman with "male genitalia" (i.e. a big clitoris) or a man with "female genitalia" (i.e. small or nonexistent penis) makes other people uncomfortable, that's their problem.

"[A mother] reported her daughter was upset because she observed a person at the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia,"

And some people are upset that blacks can use the same locker rooms as white girls. Because, you know, blacks.

Basically women are being told that their needs has to be sacrificed on the alter of trans politics. . . . .

In your terms, yes. Just as women are being told that their needs have to be sacrificed on the altar of racial politics, and they're not allowed to kick the black women out of the white women's bathroom any more. Just as men are being told that their needs have to be sacrificed on the altar of gender politics, because they can't beat the crap out of the gay man who dares to use the men's room.

In some perverse fashion yet again women are being asked to give away something they find essential to men, in this case privacy. They are being asked to subvert their perceived safety in favor of some male dominated agenda.
Do the concerns of women and children come last? I guess they do.

When those concerns are racist and sexist - you bet. Racists and bigots do not have the right to impose their racism and bigotry on others. Even if sharing a locker room with a black person makes them quake with fear that they are about to be assaulted. Even if sharing a bathroom with a Jew or a transsexual makes them want to puke.

LOL okay billvon, as your subjugated female I agree with you that trans people, real transsexuals, not 'transtrenders' or men with swinging dicks, only want some consideration, I can understand that but note the above examples and understand that women want some consideration too and the law doesn't allow for the feelings of women to be heard on this subject.

That's OK - women are supposed to follow; men lead. They submit to their betters, and are "other-oriented," suppressing their selfish desires for the needs of others. Right? You told us that. That's how you define a woman.

 

[Neddy Bate]

So, Mrs.Lucy, would you have any problem using a ladies room with a trans man in it? And how are you going to know if they are really a trans man or not? Do you intend to perform a genital inspection on them?

 

[ElectricFetus]

LOL. You're right and do you know why? Because you're male. You have zero reasons to feel threatened by a woman in your spaces in fact I bet many men would welcome it. Its different for women, its always been different for women. Outside of a male medical doctor a woman undressing in front of a man has sexual connotations because a woman's body is sexualized, I would say innately sexualized, that being said men who are obviously not effeminate, not sporting women's clothes, not going through transition can just invade a woman's space and legally force her to accept it. As a woman I find that hurtful, throwing women and girls under the bus for some trans political agenda is harmful and hurtful to women. Sorry but its not just conservatives who are saying 'think of the women' its also women saying 'think of us'.

When you say innately sexualized, do you mean women instinctively fear being sexual? I would not be surprised if women are more fearful and prudish on average as a matter of instinct, but is such an instinct healthy in this day and age? Another human instinct is the desire to cuddle and protect women like children, both conservatives and feminist appeal to this instinct. Women though are adults, and like adults sometimes they need to deal with shit. Some pervert comes into a women's stall claiming to be trans you ignore him, he starts stroking his dick or something your report him.

When I did swim team in highschool and swim coatching, I never changed in front of others, at worse I would do the towel trick to drop my shorts and put on my speedos, and I certainly did not shower naked. Some men have a sense of prudish modesty as well, no one gives a fuck about our feelings. Here is the solution for all: private stalls.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So you should be able to do it, but no one else should. Interesting.

Yep. And we had a guy who did that at Cantiague Park when I worked there 30 years ago. We asked him to leave, too. So?

And some men have women's genitalia (google AIS.) Again - so? If a woman with "male genitalia" (i.e. a big clitoris) or a man with "female genitalia" (i.e. small or nonexistent penis) makes other people uncomfortable, that's their problem.

And some people are upset that blacks can use the same locker rooms as white girls. Because, you know, blacks.

In your terms, yes. Just as women are being told that their needs have to be sacrificed on the altar of racial politics, and they're not allowed to kick the black women out of the white women's bathroom any more. Just as men are being told that their needs have to be sacrificed on the altar of gender politics, because they can't beat the crap out of the gay man who dares to use the men's room.

When those concerns are racist and sexist - you bet. Racists and bigots do not have the right to impose their racism and bigotry on others. Even if sharing a locker room with a black person makes them quake with fear that they are about to be assaulted. Even if sharing a bathroom with a Jew or a transsexual makes them want to puke.

That's OK - women are supposed to follow; men lead. They submit to their betters, and are "other-oriented," suppressing their selfish desires for the needs of others. Right? You told us that. That's how you define a woman.

No Billvon I was a young kid, there was no agenda involved and was not something I did on the regular. If a man gets naked in a park should he be asked to leave? YES!

No billvon, these are not instances of women with a big clitoris, it was an actual man a male with normal male genitalia.

So if a mother doesn't want to expose her child to a naked man in the locker room its the same as saying black women don't belong in the same space in a woman's locker room? This is a false equivalent argument that amounts to saying a woman's right to physical privacy and safety makes her a racist. Its the same argument that reaches the allows for the following conclusion

As legislators and other government officials promote “gay” friendly laws, they are unwittingly laying the foundation for special protections for pedophiles, including the right to work with children, family advocates warn.In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.

The organization calls pedophiles “minor attracted people,” and the website states its purpose is to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”

B4U-Act later held a symposium in which a new definition of pedophilia was proposed for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied: “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

There are also those who advocate legalizing child pornography, contending it helps prevent pedophiles from becoming child molesters.

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, once stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

In 1998, the APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.'”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-set-stage-for-pedophilia-rights/#dVtjSDx6CBmFTSEL.99

Ergo, based on the argument you put forward a pedophile is entitled to be around playgrounds and preschools whether their parents approve or not because, well, its discrimination not to allow it. We wouldn't say no to a black woman being employed to work with children, we wouldn't say its inappropriate for a male gay or straight to work with children but its not okay for people who have a legitimate sexual orientation they cannot change? Why society's bigotry and discrimination knows no bounds. I mean how dare they impose illegal bans on child pornography? It helps the pedophile deal with his difficult feels of "stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”

Should anyone have to feel such feelings in today's society based on inclusivity, equality and diversity? Why should their needs be sacrificed on the alter of sexual politics?

Just saying mate. I mean your argument pretends that there are no male sexual predators so of course a man can go into a woman's locker room and gaze at naked women and children ITS THEIR RIGHT! And you wonder why feminists are up in arms over this? Your comparisons of equivalency extends itself far enough to reach the point that there can be no protection for women and children because all a man has to do to terrorize his partner in a women's shelter is claim he's a woman and demand entry as legally there is no way to "ask him to leave", all a sexual pervert has to do to gain entry into a woman's locker room and bathroom is declare himself a woman even while being exclusively a man. After all we cannot see into his head right? If he says he's a man then he must be one. *eye rolls*

Your argument disempowers one group in favor of another, don't see why that should be any different to pedophiles since just like a gay guy isn't going to act on his sexual feelings just because he's around other men neither does the pedophile. He can just be in the midst of children without acting on impulse. If you're okay with all that then you have no boundaries, no judgement and no discernment.



You wrote "That's OK - women are supposed to follow; men lead. They submit to their betters, and are "other-oriented," suppressing their selfish desires for the needs of others. Right? You told us that. That's how you define a woman."

I find that slanderous and demand an apology because everything I have written so far EVERYTHING points to the exact opposite. I don't define women as weak or unequal from men, I don't define a woman by gender but by sex. Everything else you categorize and project towards my statements is just that a projection on your part. Sorry if that's who you are but its not who I am and I don't appreciate you describing me as such. It is you who are using the old misogynistic trope that women have to defer to the needs of others specifically men and I think that makes you well...it begins with a 'c'. I challenge you to go back and find where I say that women should submit to their betters? Where?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Pepohiles are an entirely different subject.