243·
24 days agois there a way to de-paywall 404media.co?
foxglove (she/her)
alt of dandelion
- 0 Posts
- 12 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: May 14th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
don’t forget: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/14544266
so you’re saying you picked a transphobic username as a cis man, then kept it when you transitioned less than a year ago?
And no, I make a terrible ally 😉
I feel like an average guy and I met my wife on a dating app
trans women don’t usually call themselves “an average guy”, it shows you identify as a “guy” and not a gal, for example.
Are you saying you’re a trans woman?
🤣
screenshot
I would name my child Fatalitee.
1·1 month agojust wondering if you could expand on this for me a bit
21·1 month agonot debunked, just made more complicated - the evidence still points to gender identity being biological, fixed (not subject to social or psychological influences), and the result of the early development of the brain, but … it’s not like we have some clear “gender essence” in the way that some people wrongly assume, that is there are no clear “female” and “male” brains, instead all people (cis and trans) seem to have complex sexually dimorphic brain structures that don’t fit neatly into that kind of categorization.
maybe read this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31509086/
The autopsy studies were done by Dick Swaab, and repeated, here’s one of his articles from 2008 (I’m sure you can find the rest on your own):
for a video overview on the science I recommend this overview by Julia Serano: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZymYiwoRoC0
This video overview on the variability of sex is also highly recommended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQplt7Chos
there were some MRI studies by Joel et al. that disrupted the overly simple findings of the autopsy studies:
and for a more up to date article with a collab between Joel & Swaab, I would check-out:
also worth reading:
Ainsworth, C. Sex redefined. Nature 518, 288–291 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a
and finally this systematic literature review on the clinical outcomes of trans gender-affirming healthcare:
2·1 month agofipto is using the same talking points anti-trans activists (like Matt Walsh) use to argue that intersex people aren’t real or legitimate - “hermaphroditism” in humans historically referred to when genitals are ambiguous or there is a combination of sex organs, including true hermaphroditism where the body develops ovaries and testes.
fipto’s point is only that in a narrow sense we haven’t yet recorded a case where an individual like this has produced a mature egg as well as viable sperm at the same time, though I think that may be false, since there is a recorded case of a true hermaphrodite who ovulated and successfully fathered a child (produced both eggs and sperm). This is rather rare, even for true hermaphrodites, though. (@massacre@lemmy.world you may care to see this too.)
As an aside about terminology: “hermaphrodite” is an outdated term, and the term “intersex” replaced it. Already a new term has begun to replace intersex in many contexts: “differences in sexual development” (DSD).
fipto’s point is somewhat irrelevant, though - there are humans who are true hermaphrodites and fipto’s motivations in making her point here are questionable.
The reality is that there is no great controversy among scientists on this, and the scientists themselves were happy to refer to people with ambiguous genitals as “hermaphrodites”, and the scarcity of people producing both eggs and sperm don’t undermine anything about the existence or reality of intersex individuals, because someone’s sex and gender is much more complicated than just which gamete they produce.
For fipto, however, who probably believes someone’s sex is based on the gamete they produce (a common lie peddled by anti-trans and anti-intersex activists), the lack of individuals with both eggs and sperm proves to them that intersex individuals do not actually exist. They probably think each of those intersex individuals can be actually classified with the binary sex system that the evidence does not support, and which scientists have moved on from. The main motivations to hold onto a view like this are, like for anti-vaxxers and creationists, social and political rather than based in evidence.
recommended follow-up:
- the video Sex & Sensibility by a biologist who debunks and responds to anti-science content by creationists, and in this case anti-trans and anti-intersex activists like fipto
- the Nature article Sex Redefined covers a lot of the same territory about how science has now moved on from thinking in terms of a strictly binary sex for humans
- for more about the overlap between other anti-science movements and the anti-trans movement, this review of Matt Walsh’s What is a Woman is worthwhile
- the 2023 documentary Every Body might be of interest (was very interesting learning about Alisha Weigel, for example - and it was eye-opening to learn the anti-trans movement are the ones advocating child mutilation, through non-consensual surgeries on intersex children).
Yet they don’t revoke the use of puberty blockers for cis children with precocious puberty, they only are concerned about the lack of data for trans kids - it’s motivated by transphobia, not actual clinical concerns.
Trans kids aren’t having poor outcomes from gender affirming care, quite the opposite actually - and the “we don’t have enough data” argument is a false concern used to plausibly deny a more than sufficiently demonstrated clinically safe and effective treatment.
EDIT: might be interested in reading: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
We should be clear, the medical establishment is not woke (quite the contrary, actually) nor is every single major medical association recommending gender affirming care for trans youth on ideological grounds or because they have been forced to by some LGBT+ lobbying, but because the evidence we have points to that care being life saving and effective while also being low risk and in the case of puberty blockers even reversible.
EDIT2: you should also know the Cass Review has been found to be biased in its recommendations, e.g. this demand for high evidence in the case of trans care but not other areas of care have been pointed out as motivated by prejudice, might be worth reading more about the criticisms of the Cass Review:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review#Reception_by_academics_and_researchers
Forcing trans kids to undergo the wrong puberty under the demands double-blind trials is as wrong as forcing a cis child to undergo the wrong puberty for the same purpose (like David Reimer was forced to), it’s an unreasonable expectation given the clinical context of the treatment being so low risk and the outcomes being so positive.