• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Would it actually make a difference, though? The most a meta-study found as difference between men and women brain structure (lobe sizes and such) when accounting for volume was 1% and then another one next year showed it to be just error. There were various other claims, but most of them are seriously refuted by now. Most of what remains is rather trivial stuff like on MRI the fight or flight seems to be more biased towards flight in women, but then it's anyone's guess if it's a born difference or just being aware that they're weaker.

At the end of the day, both have the same kinds of neurons, organized as the same neural columns. Both form associations based on experience the same way, and the "voting" I described earlier as happening in the brain works the same for both.

More importantly both function by now in an environment that has nothing to do with the one when the human brain evolved. There's no such thing as girls being inherently interested in playing dress-up with dolls vs boys being inherently into toy cars, because there was no such thing way back when the species evolved. It's things that are learned.

So IS there such a thing as a male mind vs a female mind based on chromosomes? I'm open to the possibility, but I'd like to see some evidence first. And just that some activists said so is not the same thing as evidence.
First, whether mens' and womens' brains or psychology are different is not the same question as to whether one can have a woman's brain in a male body, and vice versa.

Steven Pinker, in "The Blank Slate," notes research by which mens' and womens' brains and behavior can be distinguished and which has at least some basis in biology, as opposed to being purely cultural or social.
 
As I was saying, there were several other such claims made, but then virtually all were refuted in later meta-studies. A lot of that happened after Plinker. I'll also note that Plinker is a psychologist and not a neuroscientist, and the book is rather light on the actual biological evidence. To put it mildly.

Oh, and also I'd be automatically wary of anyone who used "evolutionary psychology" in any serious argument. In case anyone missed what evo-psych is, it's basically navel gazing to try to explain any modern fad as verily built into our species evolutionary pressures. Even when anthropology can point out that it's not even universal all over the world. It's also the "science" which managed to write countless papers trying to justify "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" -- a whimsical book and movie title -- as actual evolutionary psychology... never mind that the gene for blond hair didn't even exist until 17000 years ago, long after the species was done evolving. And is at the very least more recent than Homo Sapiens leaving Africa, and new evidence shows that these modern humans did not leave Africa until between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago :p
 
Last edited:
As I was saying, there were several other such claims made, but then virtually all were refuted in later meta-studies. A lot of that happened after Plinker.
Links? And, do you mean refutations of the studies that Pinker cited?
I'll also note that Plinker is a psychologist and not a neuroscientist, and the book is rather light on the actual biological evidence. To put it mildly.
I wasn't promoting the entire book, just the section that referenced scientific studies about a potential biological basis for sex differences in brains and behavior.
Oh, and also I'd be automatically wary of anyone who used "evolutionary psychology" in any serious argument. In case anyone missed what evo-psych is, it's basically navel gazing to try to explain any modern fad as verily built into our species evolutionary pressures. Even when anthropology can point out that it's not even universal all over the world. It's also the "science" which managed to write countless papers trying to justify "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" -- a whimsical book and movie title -- as actual evolutionary psychology... never mind that the gene for blond hair didn't even exist until 17000 years ago, long after the species was done evolving. And is at the very least more recent than Homo Sapiens leaving Africa, and new evidence shows that these modern humans did not leave Africa until between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago :p
Pinker's point is not dependent on evolutionary psychology.

Lastly, just to clarify: is it your position that there is no biological basis for differences in mens' and womens' brains, behavior, or psychology?
 
To quote from my previous message, which was on the topic of if it would matter if a hypothetical chimaera has XX chromosomes in the brain: "I'm open to the possibility, but I'd like to see some evidence first."

Psychology is a start, but it deals with people after they've already had time to absorb the culture around them. E.g., girls being encouraged to play with dolls, and boys being encouraged to play with cars. Unless you can raise a batch of kids from birth in some white rooms where you can control that they get exactly the same information and experiences (which would probably get child protection services to want to get into the act,) that is not enough to prove that there is any innate difference.

For that you need neuroscience. And that one didn't manage to show much of a conclusive difference.
 
Last edited:
So IS there such a thing as a male mind vs a female mind based on chromosomes? I'm open to the possibility, but I'd like to see some evidence first. And just that some activists said so is not the same thing as evidence.

One of the interesting things about the whole chimera possibility is that the activists don't say so. The idea of chimerism as being responsible for transgenderism, even just for some sub-group of the transgender population, offends them. Because if that's a cause for transgenderism, that's something objectively testable and verifiable. And that flies in the face of self-ID. You can't self-ID if there's an objective test, and self-ID is the central dogma of trans activism. So this isn't coming from the activists at all, they're deeply offended by the notion. So much so that even doing research into the possibility (and yes, I know at this point it's just a possibility, we don't have evidence for it) may be effectively impossible.
 
One of the interesting things about the whole chimera possibility is that the activists don't say so. The idea of chimerism as being responsible for transgenderism, even just for some sub-group of the transgender population, offends them. Because if that's a cause for transgenderism, that's something objectively testable and verifiable. And that flies in the face of self-ID. You can't self-ID if there's an objective test, and self-ID is the central dogma of trans activism. So this isn't coming from the activists at all, they're deeply offended by the notion. So much so that even doing research into the possibility (and yes, I know at this point it's just a possibility, we don't have evidence for it) may be effectively impossible.

I know. But here we are discussing chimaeras anyway. Ain't the Internet great? :p

Plus they still use the notion of somehow having a male mind vs a female mind, and a whole lot of behaviours being based on that. Like, in Chloe Cole's case her acting like a bit of a tomboy was the reason they pushed the whole 'you must be really a boy' thing upon her and her parents. Without having any way to actually measure that, as you note too, or even how that would actually work in any brain to the extent that it's easier to lop body parts off than give them some cognitive behavioural therapy. Like, exactly what in the brain structure could even be that hard-wired to be a male in a female body, as to guarantee that it'll stay so for the next 70-80 years of her life. You know, the same duration that is affected by their medication and surgery.
 
Psychology is a start, but it deals with people after they've already had time to absorb the culture around them.

You can do some psychology on newborn infants, before any culture can possibly take root. And toddlers are pretty stupid, they haven't absorbed much culture because they aren't even aware of much culture.

But more to the point in regards to the chimera hypothesis, you can't do experiments on the brain absent the body. Every operating human brain is in a body. So if neurological differences between males and females aren't solely due to the genetics of the brain but are affected by the body that the brain inhabits, you can't tease that out without looking at chimeras. But it's generally hard to identify chimeras at all (yes, there are notable exceptions), and this particular population would be exceedingly difficult to identify. So... good luck.

What would be easier to look for is to take the already small population of transgender people and try to identify if any of them are chimeras, and if so, how many. That may be an achievable study. But you'll never get funding for that, because as I said in my previous post, that offends the activists, and they'll scream bloody murder about transphobia and the funding agencies don't want that headache. And no researcher is going to stake their career on trying to find that out in the face of such a backlash, particularly since a null result is quite possible.
 
You can do some psychology on newborn infants, before any culture can possibly take root.

Some, but it's of limited conclusiveness if they can't even tell you why they have that reaction. Like, there was this study waay back to show that yeah, we're pre-programmed to like women with big breasts, so they noted babies reactions. Made me laugh, because my first thought was, "you sure they're not just looking for their next meal?" :p

And toddlers are pretty stupid, they haven't absorbed much culture because they aren't even aware of much culture.

I'm not talking "culture" as in high arts, but in how people learn to function together. And toddlers most definitely have already started to learn some of that from their parents.
 
Last edited:
Unrelated, here's a possible chimaera: The Soviets actually recovered Hitler's skull and some of the blood. (Stalin really wanted to make sure he's dead.) The skull DNA was that of a woman, while the blood was of a man.

Sure didn't make the dude act particularly girly, if anyone asks me :p
 
I'm pretty sure the wrong body argument is based on the presumption that there can be such a thing as a female brain in a male body. Appealing to a soul is not required.

If I understand you correctly, I'm with you on this. Being male or female is a bodily characteristic intelligibly attributable only to the person, not to any body part of the person.
 
The whole 'wrong body' argument relies on the existence of a soul, and we all know that there is no soul.


There is no right body or wrong body for us to inhabit, because there is no 'us' outside of the meat.

I suspect that the difficulty is not belief in a soul but a muddling of numerical and qualitative identity. To be the one and only person that you are just is to have the one and only body that you have — from smooth-skinned child to wrinkled pensioner.

The TRA cry that trans women ( or trans men) are who they say they are is off the point. The point is that they are not and, human bodies being what they are, could not be what they say they are.
 
genderideology.jpg
 
Hint to Orphia Nay, "gender reassignment surgery" is a nonsense phrase. Gender identity is not assigned or reassigned. Too, decoupled from sex it's functionally meaningless. Call it "cross-sex simulation surgery".

Actually these days gender can be assigned or reassigned, but the chopping off or adding on of non-functional sex organs isn't required.
 
Last edited:
Wow, the UN doing something decent for a change. Even the title is eye catching “Violence against women and girls in sport”.

Some highlights

7. Female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are opened to males,9 as documented in disciplines such as in volleyball, basketball and soccer. Instances have been reported where adult males have been included in teams of underage girls. Injuries have included knocked-out teeth, concussions resulting in neural impairment, broken legs and skull fractures. According to scientific studies, males have certain performance advantages in sports. One study asserts that, even in non-elite sport, “the least powerful man produced more power than the most powerful woman” and states that, where men and women have roughly the same levels of fitness, males’ average punching power has been measured as 162 per cent greater than females.

Really... they're just finding this stuff out?

12. Male athletes have specific attributes considered advantageous in certain sports, such as strength and testosterone levels that are higher than those of the average range for females, even before puberty,30 thereby resulting in the loss of fair opportunity. Some sports federations mandate testosterone suppression for athletes in order to qualify for female categories in elite sports. However, pharmaceutical testosterone suppression for genetically male athletes – irrespective of how they identify – will not eliminate the set of comparative performance advantages they have already acquired. This approach may not only harm the health of the athlete concerned, but it also fails to achieve its stated objective. Therefore, the testosterone levels deemed acceptable by any sporting body are, at best, not evidence-based, arbitrary and asymmetrically favour males. Females are usually tested randomly to ensure that they are not using performance-enhancing drugs, while males are often not monitored to ensure that they are taking testosterone suppression drugs. To avoid the loss of a fair opportunity, males must not compete in the female categories of sport.

Well gee whizz.... whoulda thought!

32. There has been increased encroachment on female-only spaces in sports. Barring a few exceptions, sport has globally been separated into male and female categories because of male performance advantage. Sports have functioned on the universally recognized principle that a separate category for females is needed to ensure equal, fair and safe opportunities in sports.

33. Multiple studies offer evidence that athletes born male have proven performance advantages in sport throughout their lives, although this is most apparent after puberty. Historically, the sex difference in performance is larger than that explained by physiological and anatomical differences between males and females, in particular among lower-ranked athletes. These physiological advantages are not undone by testosterone suppression. Undermining the eligibility criteria for single-sex sports results in unfair, unlawful and extreme forms of discrimination against female athletes on the basis of sex. Given this reality, several international and national federations, such as World Aquatics, World Athletics, World Rugby, the International Cycling Union and others,90 have reinforced female-only categories while ensuring that all athletes can participate, including those with differences of sex development or gender identities other than the sex they were observed to have at birth.​

It seems the sleeping giant is finally awakening!

The tide continues to turn against the madness of allowing biological males to compete in female sports.

 
It would be somewhat ungentlemanly for the heavyweight. Fenix needs to find a more well-matched opponent, such as the Flying Bats Women's Soccer Club, a team with several players who were male at birth.

Presumably those players are still male, given that humans are not at all hermaphroditic.
 
Interesting article from a publication Fast Company I never heard of, until a member posted a link on another thread.

"When asked about the role of trans women in the future of women’s sports, Robertson’s response was resoundingly clear. “Trans women belong in sports. There are no scientific studies that prove that there is significant physical advantage,” she says. "

https://www.fastcompany.com/9088188...ports-how-leaders-taking-future-womens-sports

Worth reading for another perspective.
 
Interesting article from a publication Fast Company I never heard of, until a member posted a link on another thread.

"When asked about the role of trans women in the future of women’s sports, Robertson’s response was resoundingly clear. “Trans women belong in sports. There are no scientific studies that prove that there is significant physical advantage,” she says. "

https://www.fastcompany.com/9088188...ports-how-leaders-taking-future-womens-sports

Worth reading for another perspective.

No it wasn’t worth reading. Stating that transwomen do not have an advantage over women is ******** in the extreme.
 
No it wasn’t worth reading. Stating that transwomen do not have an advantage over women is ******** in the extreme.
I posted the link because the journal is cited on another thread.

I call the quote above flagrant lies.
 
Interesting article from a publication Fast Company I never heard of, until a member posted a link on another thread.

"When asked about the role of trans women in the future of women’s sports, Robertson’s response was resoundingly clear. “Trans women belong in sports. There are no scientific studies that prove that there is significant physical advantage,” she says. "

https://www.fastcompany.com/9088188...ports-how-leaders-taking-future-womens-sports

Worth reading for another perspective.

Is there anyone against trans identified men playing in men's sport? :confused:
 
Is there anyone against trans identified men playing in men's sport? :confused:

I don't think so, at least not anyone here. We're generally pretty content to allow males to compete with other males. Similarly, I think we're pretty content to allow transgender identified females to compete with females, provided they aren't taking testosterone.

Sports is about sex, not about clothing or presentation or gendery-soul-feels.
 
I don't think so, at least not anyone here. We're generally pretty content to allow males to compete with other males. Similarly, I think we're pretty content to allow transgender identified females to compete with females, provided they aren't taking testosterone.

Sports is about sex, not about clothing or presentation or gendery-soul-feels.


Personally, I'm of the belief that "any man is better than all women at everything," is illogical. I know some women who could kick the crap out of some NHL and NFL players.


-
 
Personally, I'm of the belief that "any man is better than all women at everything," is illogical. I know some women who could kick the crap out of some NHL and NFL players.


-

:confused:

1) Nobody said anything even remotely like that and
2) I sincerely doubt you know any actual female human beings who could kick the crap out of professional male hockey or football players - not in real life.
 
Even if there were some exception, there is plenty of evidence that in sports, YES, women are at a disadvantage against men. E.g., men's swimming record times across ALL styles and distances are consistently 10% lower than women's. Meaning conversely that women consistently swim 10% slower. The bell curve really is shifted that consistently in the favour of men.

Even if some one-in-ten-billion woman existed that can overcome those odds -- and none existed yet -- that's not something other girls getting into sports have a realistic hope to do.

Which is my problem with it. Nobody gets into sports as a kid just to lose to someone with an unfair advantage. Even boys play football because they dream of someday being some superstar like <insert football superstar>. If they had to compete against and virtually certainly lose to a three legged Undine (from ST Voyager) in that career, they'd find something else to do.


Does that mean "everything." Well, no. If you want to be a guy in a dress as an accountant, knock yourself out. But that's not the same as sports.

Does that mean "any man". No, just one putting the same amount of training into a particular sport. Which is enough. As, say, a swimmer, you're competing against other people who trained in swimming, not against the asthmatic couch potato watching the event with a beer in one hand and his dick in the other. That you could still out-swim the latter isn't really going to mean anything.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm of the belief that "any man is better than all women at everything," is illogical.

That would be ridiculous. I don't remember anyone here saying this.

I know some women who could kick the crap out of some NHL and NFL players.

I doubt this is as probable as you think, but even if true, not really relevant in the case of athletes of similar stature in similar sports. A 180 lb woman athlete is not going to beat up a same-sized male athlete at the top level.
 
Personally, I'm of the belief that "any man is better than all women at everything," is illogical.

1) Nobody said anything even remotely like that.

That would be ridiculous. I don't remember anyone here saying this.


This isn't the only forum or comment's section in the world.

Awhile back, I started a thread here on why can't women play in MLB, and guess what the biggest arguement was?

This may not be exactly what I'm referring to, but here's an example of what I mean:

Even if there were some exception, there is plenty of evidence that in sports, YES, women are at a disadvantage against men. E.g., men's swimming record times across ALL styles and distances are consistently 10% lower than women's. Meaning conversely that women consistently swim 10% slower. The bell curve really is shifted that consistently in the favour of men.


At least Hans qualified it with, "Even if there were some exception...".


-
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm of the belief that "any man is better than all women at everything," is illogical.

It's also a straw man.

I know some women who could kick the crap out of some NHL and NFL players.

That's conceivable. Combat is a skill, it can be trained, and even though strength is extremely important in combat sports, skill matters too. So I find it plausible that a top-ranked heavyweight women's MMA fighter could take on a lighter weight male NFL player who had no combat training.

But so what? The top ranked women's MMA fighters cannot take on even mid-ranked men's MMA fighters in a fight. They aren't stronger than the NHL and NFL players, and they aren't stronger than the men at similar weight classes. And no woman can compete at a professional level in hockey or football against male competitors in those sports. Which is why they don't play professionally in any leagues against men.

I remember one female football player at the collegiate level in football. She was a kicker, which makes sense because that's the only position where she didn't risk getting literally run over. She dreamed of going pro in the NFL. It didn't happen. Not because of sexism, but because even in this sheltered role, she couldn't actually compete.
 
@AmyStrange
Look, seriously, we're talking about a bell curve shifted by about 10% compared to another bell curve. Is there going to be a male couch potato that's in worse shape than the female school swimming champion? Yes, sure. Been there myself. But that's not who she'll be competing against. So that's such weak sauce for defending trans-women in women's sports, it might as well be water.

Also, "Really, so how many women do you know?" is literally the dumbest counter possible. We're talking about actual sports statistics. If you even think that a valid counter is your own wild guesses based on some women you know, and your showing no qualifications to make that judgment, then you're not even qualified to be having this talk.

I mean, there's the "the plural of anecdote isn't data" level of failing logic, and then there's your not even having any anecdote to support your argumentum ex rectum. DID any of the women you know actually beat an actual NHL or NFL player? (As in, actual member of either.) Name and game, and link supporting it, please. No, I'm just supposed to believe you THINK that they could.

I mean, fer fork's sake, 6% of guys think they could win a barehand fight to the death against a grizzly bear. Doesn't mean they actually could :p

And even that's an actual statistic, as opposed to "how many guys do you know" nonsense :p

Support that claim or, really, GTHO
 
Last edited:
Really, so how many women do you know?


-

What a strange and irrelevant question. I know lot of female human beings, several of whom are athletes. I've also got reference to over a hundred years worth of olympics stats, collegiate stats, and various other sports stats reported on the basis of sex.

What about you?
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm of the belief that "any man is better than all women at everything," is illogical. I know some women who could kick the crap out of some NHL and NFL players.


-

Oh, I'm sure... no, I'm absolutely certain, that Ronda Rousey would kick the ever-living crap out of me. I'm 69 years old and not a trained fighter. But that is not who she would be competing against - that would be someone such as my distant cousin, fellow Kiwi Israel Adesanya.

Against someone like him (or pretty much ANY male, professional MMA fighter) she would not stand an ice-cube-in-hell's chance. Pound-for-pound, at similar fitness levels, males have a punching power advantage over women of more than 160%

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm

To test their hypothesis the researchers had to measure punching strength, but carefully. If participants directly punched a bag or other surface, they risked hand injury. Instead, the researchers rigged up a hand crank that would mimic the motions of a punch.

Twenty men and 19 women participated. "We had them fill out an activity questionnaire," Morris says, "and they had to score in the 'active' range. So, we weren't getting couch potatoes, we were getting people that were very fit and active."

But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males' average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females', with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman. Such a distinction between genders, Carrier says, develops with time and with purpose.


That is not 162% OF.... its 162% MORE... i.e. over 2½ times the punching power. Trans-women will retain that punching power no matter how many testosterone reducing drugs they take. The advantage is in-built as part of male puberty... its a bell that can NEVER be unrung.
 
Last edited:
I obviously know a lot more women than you.


-

I guarantee you don't know any women who have challenged a pro NFL or NHL athlete to a fair fight, let alone won such a fight. Nor do you know any women who could compete in the NHL or the NFL.

In fact I doubt you know any women at all, that have distinguished themselves in the top tiers of professional women's sports.
 
It's also a straw man.


Sigh, I can see that no matter what I say, a majority of the folks will think and say that I'm wrong. I'm sorry now that I even tried to defend women in this thread or anywhere on this forum. It almost feels like I've slipped back into the 1800s.

Y'all win for now, at least in the ISF anyway.


-
 
Sigh, I can see that no matter what I say, a majority of the folks will think and say that I'm wrong.

Oh, I'm sure a lot of us wouldn't think that if you actually logically supported your claims. But apparently you choose to play poor persecuted victim instead. I guess you do what you can do :p

But please do come back when you learn some elementary logic. Like at a bare minimum knowing when you've done a strawman, as opposed to being a victim. Or what a sound logical argument is and how to actually make one :p

Because, so far, yeeah, you're not slipping back to the 1800s, you're slipping back to 500 BC before logic was invented :p
 
Last edited:
Oh, I'm sure a lot of us wouldn't think that if you actually logically supported your claims. But apparently you choose to play poor persecuted victim instead. I guess you do what you can do :p

But please do come back when you learn some elementary logic :p


Yup, that's probably how a lot of men view women, as poor persecuted victims.

There's no point in coming back until you've talked to EVERY woman on this planet, because blanket statements are usually (if not always) false and some of them here are antiquated beyond belief.

I'm sure members of the taliban would be so proud.


-
 
Last edited:
Yup, that's probably how a lot of men view women, as poor persecuted victims.

There's no point coming back until you've talked to EVERY woman on this planet, because blanket statements are usually (if not always) false and some of them here are antiquated beyond belief.

I'm sure members of the taliban would be so proud.


-

You should try reading the thread and participating in the discussion, rather than imagining it. You'd probably find it isn't what you think it is. You might even be surprised to discover that women are indeed persecuted victims of trans rights activism.
 
Back
Top Bottom