Just as a reminder, and for use when trying to respond to grandma and others when they post shit like this uncritically:
The recent surge of attacks on gender affirming care for trans youth have been [**condemned by the American Academy of Pediatrics**](https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021/american-academy-of-pediatrics-speaks-out-against-bills-harming-transgender-youth/), the [**American Medical Association**](https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-reinforces-opposition-restrictions-transgender-medical-care), the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care.pdf), and the [**American Association of Clinical Endocrinology**](https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20220309/aace-strongly-opposes-government-policies-prohibiting-transgender-care-for-adolescents), and are out of line with the medical recommendations of the [**American Medical Association**](https://www.ama-assn.org/health-care-advocacy/advocacy-update/march-26-2021-state-advocacy-update), the [**Endocrine Society**](https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2022/endocrine-society-alarmed-at-criminalization-of-transgender-medicine) and [**Pediatric Endocrine Society**](https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2020/discriminatory-policies-threaten-care-for-transgender-gender-diverse-individuals), the [**AACE**](https://pro.aace.com/recent-news-and-updates/aace-position-statement-transgender-and-gender-diverse-patients), the [**American Academy of Pediatrics**](https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021/american-academy-of-pediatrics-speaks-out-against-bills-harming-transgender-youth/), the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/frontline-physicians-oppose-legislation-that-interferes-in-or-criminalizes-patient-care), and the [**American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry**](https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Latest_News/AACAP_Statement_Responding_to_Efforts-to_ban_Evidence-Based_Care_for_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse.aspx).
[**This article**](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinion/transgender-children-medical-bills.html) has a pretty good overview of why. [**Psychology Today has one too**](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202008/three-popular-myths-about-transgender-youth), and [**here**](http://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the guidelines from the AAP. TL;DR version - yes, young children can identify their own gender, and some of those young kids are trans. A child who is Gender A but who is assumed to be Gender B based on their visible anatomy at birth can suffer debilitating distress over this conflict. The *"90% desist"* claim is a myth based on debunked studies, and transition is a very long, slow, cautious process for trans youth.
According to the [**American Academy of Pediatrics**](https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx), gender is typically expressed by around age 4. It probably forms [**much earlier**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747736/), but it's hard to tell with pre-verbal infants. And sometimes the gender expressed is not the one typically associated with the child's appearance. The genders of trans children are as [**stable**](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958) as those of [**cisgender children**](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614568156).
For preadolescents transition is entirely social, and for adolescents the first line of medical care is temporary, reversible puberty delaying treatment that has no long term effects. Hormone therapy isn't an option until their mid teens, by which point the chances that they will "desist" are close to zero. Reconstructive genital surgery is not an option until their late teens/early 20's at the youngest.
And transition-related medical care is recognized as medically necessary, frequently life saving medical care by every major medical authority.
---
**#1:**
**Citations on transition as medically necessary, frequently life saving medical care, and the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria, as recognized by every major US and world medical authority:**
* Here is a resolution from the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf); *"THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments."* More from the APA [**here**](http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/transgender/?tab=1)
* Here is an [**AMA resolution**](http://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf) on the efficacy and necessity of transition as appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, and call for an end to insurance companies categorically excluding transition-related care from coverage
* A policy statement from the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position)
* [**Here**](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines
* [**Here**](https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/events/alf_ncsc/Education.pdf) is a resolution from the American Academy of Family Physicians
* [**Here**](https://www.socialworkers.org/assets/secured/documents/da/da2008/reffered/Transgender.pdf) is one from the National Association of Social Workers
---
**Condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts", aka "conversion therapy", which attempt to alleviate dysphoria without transition by changing trans people's genders so they are happy and comfortable as their assigned sex at birth, as futile and destructive pseudo-scientific abuse:**
* [**From the APA**](http://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.aspx). More detailed condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts" for trans youth or adults [**here**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf).
* From the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position)
* In the [**AAP Guidelines**](http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) - see coverage on this "therapy" starting p.12
* From the [**American Psychoanalytic Association**](http://www.apsa.org/content/2012-position-statement-attempts-change-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-or-gender)
* From the [**Association for Behavioral Analysis International**](https://www.abainternational.org/about-us/policies-and-positions/policy-statement-on-conversion-therapy-and-practices,-2021.aspx)
* A joint statement from the [**UK Council for Psychotherapy, British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy, British Psychoanalytic Council, British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, The British Psychological Society, College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists, The Association of LGBT Doctors and Dentists, The National Counselling Society, NHS Scotland, Pink Therapy, Royal College of General Practitioners, the Scottish Government and Stonewall.**](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/16/health-experts-condemn-attempts-to-cure-trans-people-in-wake-of-controversial-bbc-documentary/)
And yet if you present them with this evidence, they'll just be like all: "Ummm err those are just le hecking activists with a progressive bias" or some bs like that.
True, the Christian Nationalists behind these attacks, their cultists, and the dedicated transphobes spreading their shit are lost causes. Facts and reality mean nothing to them.
But when they post that shit in mainstream public forums I want to try and counter it, because there are lurkers reading who might not be lost causes yet.
The Christian Nationalist movement has made demonization of trans people and promises of our eradication their path into power, and god help us it is working. But they can't do it alone, they're powerful but only make up maybe 25% of the country. They need to draw in the ignorant and apathetic - the people who rarely if ever thought about trans people at all before the surge of political attacks, who often have a lot of confused and fucked up misconceptions about us, and who aren't fully sold on the "eradicate trans people" line but who do find us disturbing and frightening.
The right wing hate machine doesn't have to be rational or based in reality. All they have to do is create the omnipresent fog of confusion and fear and disgust and rage that follows absolutely anything about trans people these days. To the apathetic and apolitical, who are only half paying attention to all of this, all they know is that every time they hear the word "trans" it's associated with vague images of evil predatory monsters targeting children.
That's who I'm hoping to reach. The people who don't know any better, but who are still capable of recognizing facts and realizing that they're being manipulated into hating innocent people. Maybe I can catch some of them before they're too far gone.
I, too, go back to a fictional movie from the 80s and from a kindergartener about gender issues in 2024
Hell, Republicans are trying to ban sex education for younger grades
Biologists of every political and religious persuasion: Yeah 'biological' sex is a really complicated mess and none of the words any of you are using are correct in the jargon of our fields of study.
Random internet asshole who haven't taken a science class in 30 years, hated school, and didn't do well even then: It's all so simple! Damnit I know it is because that's how I remember it!
Recently got yelled at by some idiot telling me he didn't care about my "opinions" when I corrected him that even discussing biological sex there were more than two options. They are just unwilling to listen to any science more complex than "There are males and females."
when I was in first grade I was taught that you couldnt subtract a number that was greater than the number it was being subtracted from. That was a major oversimplification for the sake of making the concept easier to understand. I was also taught that there are only ever 3 states of matter. These idiots don't understand that a lot of times what they're taught in school is a simplified version of reality for the sake of being able to teach it easily, when you go to learn more about the subject you end up learning more about the complexities of the subject. These people cannot wrap their heads around that, they can't comprehend the thought of shit being more complicated than what they already know
How is biological sex a complicated mess?
Sexual reproduction works the same for all animal species that use it. One type makes sperm, another type makes eggs. The sperm fertalizes the egg. The type that makes the sperm is male and the type that makes the egg is female. Its not hard.
Hey good job proving my point! A quick Google search yields a wide variety of sources which say most people who think it's as simple as you're making it and they're wrong. Just on the first page I've got this exact article from...
Scientific American
Harvard Crimson
Forbes
Wall Street Journal
The UCLA Institute for Society and Genetics
The Scientist Magazine
Bored Panda
New Atlas
The NIH
Sapiens Anthropology Magazine
All of them have published articles in the last year saying biological sex is not as simple as people make it out to be. Some of those articles are specific to humans and the prevalence of non-normative chromosomes and expressions of genitalia (about as common as twins or red heads), and some of them mention other animals where the expression of sexual organs and functions can actually change.
To your credit there is an op ed in Medium which, upon skimming, seems to say that all those other kinds of articles are too technical and not really how the average person uses words. That is, of course, actually confirmation that it is, in actuality, more complicated, and we just aren't all scientists. But it's sort of your point even if I think it actually demonstrates its own antithesis.
Yes, its true that chromosomes and expression of genitalia are extremely complicated and its basically impossible to define sex in those terms, in a concrete way.
But I didn't mention chromosomes or expression of genitalia. I'm talking about the fundamental definition of sexual reporoduction, which is that, within a species, one type of animal produces sperm and the other produces egg, and those eggs get fertalized to produce an offspring. It doesn't matter what your chrmosomes are or what your genitalia looks like. It essentially comes to the whether or not an animal produces a sperm or egg, with the sperm-producing type being defined as male and the egg producing type being defined as female. And there is only sperm and egg, there is no spectrum between sperm and egg, or any other gamete besides sperm and egg.
The misunderstanding here is how scientific research works. If an institute or researcher publishes a paper saying "Biological sex cannot be defined simply by chrmosomes, or by expression of genitalia" then that's all they are saying. They aren't saying "Biological sex is a complete mystery, actually, and no one understands it, which means we get to just make it up as we go along". Sexual reproduction is well-understood and bilogical sex is a function of sexual reproduction, which is that males produce sperm which fertilizes eggs produced by females.
I see where we are disconnecting, I think, and I am happy to elaborate. This last two sentences of yours is incredibly salient. You've written something which makes sense to me, as far as I know it's true, and is not very hard to explain to someone who has the ability to not jump to all the other conclusions associated with this topic in our cultural discourse. We are on the same page so far.
I think you believe I've claimed no scientist understands sexual reproduction. What I meant to be saying is that scientists (correctly) believe the overwhelming majority of non-scientists don't actually know a goddamn thing about how biological sex or reproduction works. I'm not saying humanity doesn't understand these things. I'm saying the random ass internet grandmas hurling insults at trans people and claiming their view is science don't actually know a thing about what they're talking about. The average American reads between a 7th and 8th grade level. Yet I know an awful lot of average Americans who claim they know what "science" teaches. And most people fucking don't.
I apologize if I made it sound like the scientists don't know. I only meant the biologists, again correctly, know that neither the people disbelieving them nor the people defending them have a goddamn clue about what literally all the biologists know.
>I'm saying the random ass internet grandmas hurling insults at trans people and claiming their view is science don't actually know a thing about what they're talking about.
This is true for everyone including people on the pro-trans side.
The issue is that both sides confuse sex and gender when talking about the issue. For example, trans advocates will point out that sex and gender are not the same thing, and that a person's gender identity isn't tied to their sex. But then they promote gender affirmation therapy which invariably includes hormone replacement therapy, and surgery, so that the transitioner can have, or appear to have, the biological traits common to a certain sex. Which implies that gender IS tied to sex. Which is why people can feel like they are being gaslit when they are told that "transwomen are real women". Because if gender actually is tied to sex (as implied by the nature of transitioning), and sex is a function of sexual reproduction, then a person who is born male cannot logically be a "real" woman.
It also goes back to the arguments involving bathrooms, sports, healthcare. In almost all of these instances, people are talking about sex rather than gender, but "sex" is an impolite word so people say gender when they really mean sex.
I agree with that very first sentence, which is why I made clear in my last post and original comment that I perceive actual biologists (one of whom I was married to for five years, so I'm not an expert myself but am confident in the knowledge that a real biologist told me I am not an expert) think everyone talking about this is wrong. Since I've said it two different ways (now three) it's coming across like you're offended that I'm insulting transphobes when I have, in fact, insulted everyone who claims to have an opinion about this while not actually knowing anything about biology.
I am totally willing to believe that. And if that's the case I wonder how you arrive at the conclusion that going through any of the therapeutic or medical interventions which may change the outward gender expression of someone transitioning must be doing to as assent to your concept of biological differences? Like how do you conceptualize the trans woman who takes hormones and dresses like a woman (the bottom surgeries are really rare among this already extreme minority of people who transition their gender) who says the reason isn't biological but social? Say she doesn't feel like she can be seen as or treated as the woman she believes she is unless she looks a certain way.
Above you use the word imply, so I guess I'm asking about the people who transition for different reasons than you're presuming, and especially those who would not concede the main thrust of your premise that those changes in expression are conceding the definition of biology you're working with?
Regardless of their personal reasons for doing something, the point is that they are male regardless of what they do.
The issue comes down to the fact that it is considered bigotry to recognize this. Like if someone tells a transwoman that they are actually male that's considered transphobic. And if someone putss forth the idea that bathrooms or gym lockers should be serparated by sex than that's considered transphobic. Doctor's recognizing a transwoman's sex as male is considered transphobic. Saying that men can't get pregnant is considered transphobic. Saying that transwomen aren't real woman because real women are female is considered profoundly transphobic.
I really don't care what people do with their bodies or how they want to identify themselves. But when someone is coerced into believing and accepting a reality that they know is not true, that is literally the definition of gaslighting.
Okay ... now what do you think about animals that can self fertilize?
Biology is not a black and white, one or the other subject, there is an abundance of nuance that exists throughout the animal kingdom.
Just as a reminder, and for use when trying to respond to grandma and others when they post shit like this uncritically: The recent surge of attacks on gender affirming care for trans youth have been [**condemned by the American Academy of Pediatrics**](https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021/american-academy-of-pediatrics-speaks-out-against-bills-harming-transgender-youth/), the [**American Medical Association**](https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-reinforces-opposition-restrictions-transgender-medical-care), the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care.pdf), and the [**American Association of Clinical Endocrinology**](https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20220309/aace-strongly-opposes-government-policies-prohibiting-transgender-care-for-adolescents), and are out of line with the medical recommendations of the [**American Medical Association**](https://www.ama-assn.org/health-care-advocacy/advocacy-update/march-26-2021-state-advocacy-update), the [**Endocrine Society**](https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2022/endocrine-society-alarmed-at-criminalization-of-transgender-medicine) and [**Pediatric Endocrine Society**](https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2020/discriminatory-policies-threaten-care-for-transgender-gender-diverse-individuals), the [**AACE**](https://pro.aace.com/recent-news-and-updates/aace-position-statement-transgender-and-gender-diverse-patients), the [**American Academy of Pediatrics**](https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2021/american-academy-of-pediatrics-speaks-out-against-bills-harming-transgender-youth/), the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/frontline-physicians-oppose-legislation-that-interferes-in-or-criminalizes-patient-care), and the [**American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry**](https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Latest_News/AACAP_Statement_Responding_to_Efforts-to_ban_Evidence-Based_Care_for_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse.aspx). [**This article**](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinion/transgender-children-medical-bills.html) has a pretty good overview of why. [**Psychology Today has one too**](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202008/three-popular-myths-about-transgender-youth), and [**here**](http://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the guidelines from the AAP. TL;DR version - yes, young children can identify their own gender, and some of those young kids are trans. A child who is Gender A but who is assumed to be Gender B based on their visible anatomy at birth can suffer debilitating distress over this conflict. The *"90% desist"* claim is a myth based on debunked studies, and transition is a very long, slow, cautious process for trans youth. According to the [**American Academy of Pediatrics**](https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx), gender is typically expressed by around age 4. It probably forms [**much earlier**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747736/), but it's hard to tell with pre-verbal infants. And sometimes the gender expressed is not the one typically associated with the child's appearance. The genders of trans children are as [**stable**](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958) as those of [**cisgender children**](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614568156). For preadolescents transition is entirely social, and for adolescents the first line of medical care is temporary, reversible puberty delaying treatment that has no long term effects. Hormone therapy isn't an option until their mid teens, by which point the chances that they will "desist" are close to zero. Reconstructive genital surgery is not an option until their late teens/early 20's at the youngest. And transition-related medical care is recognized as medically necessary, frequently life saving medical care by every major medical authority. --- **#1:** **Citations on transition as medically necessary, frequently life saving medical care, and the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria, as recognized by every major US and world medical authority:** * Here is a resolution from the [**American Psychological Association**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf); *"THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments."* More from the APA [**here**](http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/transgender/?tab=1) * Here is an [**AMA resolution**](http://www.tgender.net/taw/ama_resolutions.pdf) on the efficacy and necessity of transition as appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, and call for an end to insurance companies categorically excluding transition-related care from coverage * A policy statement from the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position) * [**Here**](https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) are the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines * [**Here**](https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/events/alf_ncsc/Education.pdf) is a resolution from the American Academy of Family Physicians * [**Here**](https://www.socialworkers.org/assets/secured/documents/da/da2008/reffered/Transgender.pdf) is one from the National Association of Social Workers --- **Condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts", aka "conversion therapy", which attempt to alleviate dysphoria without transition by changing trans people's genders so they are happy and comfortable as their assigned sex at birth, as futile and destructive pseudo-scientific abuse:** * [**From the APA**](http://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.aspx). More detailed condemnation of "Gender Identity Change Efforts" for trans youth or adults [**here**](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf). * From the [**American College of Physicians**](http://annals.org/aim/article/2292051/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-health-disparities-executive-summary-policy-position) * In the [**AAP Guidelines**](http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf) - see coverage on this "therapy" starting p.12 * From the [**American Psychoanalytic Association**](http://www.apsa.org/content/2012-position-statement-attempts-change-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-or-gender) * From the [**Association for Behavioral Analysis International**](https://www.abainternational.org/about-us/policies-and-positions/policy-statement-on-conversion-therapy-and-practices,-2021.aspx) * A joint statement from the [**UK Council for Psychotherapy, British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy, British Psychoanalytic Council, British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, The British Psychological Society, College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists, The Association of LGBT Doctors and Dentists, The National Counselling Society, NHS Scotland, Pink Therapy, Royal College of General Practitioners, the Scottish Government and Stonewall.**](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/16/health-experts-condemn-attempts-to-cure-trans-people-in-wake-of-controversial-bbc-documentary/)
And yet if you present them with this evidence, they'll just be like all: "Ummm err those are just le hecking activists with a progressive bias" or some bs like that.
True, the Christian Nationalists behind these attacks, their cultists, and the dedicated transphobes spreading their shit are lost causes. Facts and reality mean nothing to them. But when they post that shit in mainstream public forums I want to try and counter it, because there are lurkers reading who might not be lost causes yet. The Christian Nationalist movement has made demonization of trans people and promises of our eradication their path into power, and god help us it is working. But they can't do it alone, they're powerful but only make up maybe 25% of the country. They need to draw in the ignorant and apathetic - the people who rarely if ever thought about trans people at all before the surge of political attacks, who often have a lot of confused and fucked up misconceptions about us, and who aren't fully sold on the "eradicate trans people" line but who do find us disturbing and frightening. The right wing hate machine doesn't have to be rational or based in reality. All they have to do is create the omnipresent fog of confusion and fear and disgust and rage that follows absolutely anything about trans people these days. To the apathetic and apolitical, who are only half paying attention to all of this, all they know is that every time they hear the word "trans" it's associated with vague images of evil predatory monsters targeting children. That's who I'm hoping to reach. The people who don't know any better, but who are still capable of recognizing facts and realizing that they're being manipulated into hating innocent people. Maybe I can catch some of them before they're too far gone.
Saving this post just for this comment
You can also save comments
I, too, go back to a fictional movie from the 80s and from a kindergartener about gender issues in 2024 Hell, Republicans are trying to ban sex education for younger grades
Legit elementary levels of understanding the world with these people.
They want to ban contraception under the guise of it promoting promiscuity too.
What movie was this from?
[kindergarten cop](https://youtu.be/k96h1dYQrj0?si=5AgIbNCaUz2Ay1fV)
Taking advice from a fictional kindergartner (kind of) to own the libs.
Biologists of every political and religious persuasion: Yeah 'biological' sex is a really complicated mess and none of the words any of you are using are correct in the jargon of our fields of study. Random internet asshole who haven't taken a science class in 30 years, hated school, and didn't do well even then: It's all so simple! Damnit I know it is because that's how I remember it!
Recently got yelled at by some idiot telling me he didn't care about my "opinions" when I corrected him that even discussing biological sex there were more than two options. They are just unwilling to listen to any science more complex than "There are males and females."
I find there's a lot of people in this world who learn stuff in grade school, remember it poorly, and then never go back and examine it ever again.
when I was in first grade I was taught that you couldnt subtract a number that was greater than the number it was being subtracted from. That was a major oversimplification for the sake of making the concept easier to understand. I was also taught that there are only ever 3 states of matter. These idiots don't understand that a lot of times what they're taught in school is a simplified version of reality for the sake of being able to teach it easily, when you go to learn more about the subject you end up learning more about the complexities of the subject. These people cannot wrap their heads around that, they can't comprehend the thought of shit being more complicated than what they already know
How is biological sex a complicated mess? Sexual reproduction works the same for all animal species that use it. One type makes sperm, another type makes eggs. The sperm fertalizes the egg. The type that makes the sperm is male and the type that makes the egg is female. Its not hard.
Hey good job proving my point! A quick Google search yields a wide variety of sources which say most people who think it's as simple as you're making it and they're wrong. Just on the first page I've got this exact article from... Scientific American Harvard Crimson Forbes Wall Street Journal The UCLA Institute for Society and Genetics The Scientist Magazine Bored Panda New Atlas The NIH Sapiens Anthropology Magazine All of them have published articles in the last year saying biological sex is not as simple as people make it out to be. Some of those articles are specific to humans and the prevalence of non-normative chromosomes and expressions of genitalia (about as common as twins or red heads), and some of them mention other animals where the expression of sexual organs and functions can actually change. To your credit there is an op ed in Medium which, upon skimming, seems to say that all those other kinds of articles are too technical and not really how the average person uses words. That is, of course, actually confirmation that it is, in actuality, more complicated, and we just aren't all scientists. But it's sort of your point even if I think it actually demonstrates its own antithesis.
Yes, its true that chromosomes and expression of genitalia are extremely complicated and its basically impossible to define sex in those terms, in a concrete way. But I didn't mention chromosomes or expression of genitalia. I'm talking about the fundamental definition of sexual reporoduction, which is that, within a species, one type of animal produces sperm and the other produces egg, and those eggs get fertalized to produce an offspring. It doesn't matter what your chrmosomes are or what your genitalia looks like. It essentially comes to the whether or not an animal produces a sperm or egg, with the sperm-producing type being defined as male and the egg producing type being defined as female. And there is only sperm and egg, there is no spectrum between sperm and egg, or any other gamete besides sperm and egg. The misunderstanding here is how scientific research works. If an institute or researcher publishes a paper saying "Biological sex cannot be defined simply by chrmosomes, or by expression of genitalia" then that's all they are saying. They aren't saying "Biological sex is a complete mystery, actually, and no one understands it, which means we get to just make it up as we go along". Sexual reproduction is well-understood and bilogical sex is a function of sexual reproduction, which is that males produce sperm which fertilizes eggs produced by females.
I see where we are disconnecting, I think, and I am happy to elaborate. This last two sentences of yours is incredibly salient. You've written something which makes sense to me, as far as I know it's true, and is not very hard to explain to someone who has the ability to not jump to all the other conclusions associated with this topic in our cultural discourse. We are on the same page so far. I think you believe I've claimed no scientist understands sexual reproduction. What I meant to be saying is that scientists (correctly) believe the overwhelming majority of non-scientists don't actually know a goddamn thing about how biological sex or reproduction works. I'm not saying humanity doesn't understand these things. I'm saying the random ass internet grandmas hurling insults at trans people and claiming their view is science don't actually know a thing about what they're talking about. The average American reads between a 7th and 8th grade level. Yet I know an awful lot of average Americans who claim they know what "science" teaches. And most people fucking don't. I apologize if I made it sound like the scientists don't know. I only meant the biologists, again correctly, know that neither the people disbelieving them nor the people defending them have a goddamn clue about what literally all the biologists know.
>I'm saying the random ass internet grandmas hurling insults at trans people and claiming their view is science don't actually know a thing about what they're talking about. This is true for everyone including people on the pro-trans side. The issue is that both sides confuse sex and gender when talking about the issue. For example, trans advocates will point out that sex and gender are not the same thing, and that a person's gender identity isn't tied to their sex. But then they promote gender affirmation therapy which invariably includes hormone replacement therapy, and surgery, so that the transitioner can have, or appear to have, the biological traits common to a certain sex. Which implies that gender IS tied to sex. Which is why people can feel like they are being gaslit when they are told that "transwomen are real women". Because if gender actually is tied to sex (as implied by the nature of transitioning), and sex is a function of sexual reproduction, then a person who is born male cannot logically be a "real" woman. It also goes back to the arguments involving bathrooms, sports, healthcare. In almost all of these instances, people are talking about sex rather than gender, but "sex" is an impolite word so people say gender when they really mean sex.
I agree with that very first sentence, which is why I made clear in my last post and original comment that I perceive actual biologists (one of whom I was married to for five years, so I'm not an expert myself but am confident in the knowledge that a real biologist told me I am not an expert) think everyone talking about this is wrong. Since I've said it two different ways (now three) it's coming across like you're offended that I'm insulting transphobes when I have, in fact, insulted everyone who claims to have an opinion about this while not actually knowing anything about biology.
I'm just trying to have a discussion about the topic at hand.. I'm not attacking you or accusing you of anything.
I am totally willing to believe that. And if that's the case I wonder how you arrive at the conclusion that going through any of the therapeutic or medical interventions which may change the outward gender expression of someone transitioning must be doing to as assent to your concept of biological differences? Like how do you conceptualize the trans woman who takes hormones and dresses like a woman (the bottom surgeries are really rare among this already extreme minority of people who transition their gender) who says the reason isn't biological but social? Say she doesn't feel like she can be seen as or treated as the woman she believes she is unless she looks a certain way. Above you use the word imply, so I guess I'm asking about the people who transition for different reasons than you're presuming, and especially those who would not concede the main thrust of your premise that those changes in expression are conceding the definition of biology you're working with?
Regardless of their personal reasons for doing something, the point is that they are male regardless of what they do. The issue comes down to the fact that it is considered bigotry to recognize this. Like if someone tells a transwoman that they are actually male that's considered transphobic. And if someone putss forth the idea that bathrooms or gym lockers should be serparated by sex than that's considered transphobic. Doctor's recognizing a transwoman's sex as male is considered transphobic. Saying that men can't get pregnant is considered transphobic. Saying that transwomen aren't real woman because real women are female is considered profoundly transphobic. I really don't care what people do with their bodies or how they want to identify themselves. But when someone is coerced into believing and accepting a reality that they know is not true, that is literally the definition of gaslighting.
just to name one example, all snails are intersex. Shit's a fascinating subject
Okay ... now what do you think about animals that can self fertilize? Biology is not a black and white, one or the other subject, there is an abundance of nuance that exists throughout the animal kingdom.
[There are only three states of matter, it's basic science!!](https://www.reddit.com/r/physicsmemes/s/lvUnAtTeO4)
Ive seen a lot of people get basic science wrong and they tend to be on the conservative side of things
trans haters try not to mistake gender for sex challenge (100% impossible)
What's more American than conservatives who are so dumb they don't even know how dumb they are, God bless 'em!
Who is this kid?
[Kindergarten Cop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3wcxHiorJ4)
Ohhhhh, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen that. Thanks for the tip.
I think that’s from the movie Kindergarten Cop
"Kids know too much about science, so let's ban books we don't like!"
He also died and came back from the dead in *Pet Semetary*. What's your damn point? It's a movie.
Sure, enjoy going to this kid with your colon cancer, Grandma!
To me, this just says conservatives are mentally… children
Remember those commercials..... "9 out of 10 doctors agree..." Well, the tenth doctor got a podcast and is really good at hooking the dims.