But evil no?

I mean how dare you, you cis male scum..

haha! classic Caligula!

Quotes from her in an interview here are below. The trans section is at the bottom. Reading these, I know I solidly disagree with her. The term, again, is gender dysphoria. It is a medical condition and its symptoms, which include DEPRESSION, DRUG ABUSE, HIGH RISK SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, SUICIDE, AND TO BE A VICTIM OF HOMICIDE, are well treated with current pharmologic therapy.

She cites evolutionary biology as a moral argument against treating a condition that basically is ending lives, were it not for the treatments offered to them.

Her allies apparently are literal conspiracy theorists who advance notions that the pharmaceutical industry has a secret mission to spread a "transgender-mania" to make more profit off their hormones.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/jonathan-v-last/camille-paglia- on-trump-democrats-transgenderism-and-islamist-terror


"Although I describe myself as transgender (I was donning flamboyant male costumes from early childhood on), I am highly skeptical about the current transgender wave, which I think has been produced by far more complicated psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse allows. Furthermore, I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights. "

...

The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one's birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births.

In a democracy, everyone, no matter how nonconformist or eccentric, should be free from harassment and abuse. But at the same time, no one deserves special rights, protections, or privileges on the basis of their eccentricity. The categories "trans-man" and "trans-woman" are highly accurate and deserving of respect. But like Germaine Greer and Sheila Jeffreys, I reject state-sponsored coercion to call someone a "woman" or a "man" simply on the basis of his or her subjective feeling about it. We may well take the path of good will and defer to courtesy on such occasions, but it is our choice alone. "

"...are well treated with current pharmologic therapy."

Show me you evidence for that claim please.

>>>Show me you evidence for that claim please.

I have it right here, in my pants.

Fuck you. Gender reassignment has been established medical practice since the 1950s. That's longer than heart transplants, and almost as long as chemotherapy. I don't know a lot about this, but here's what I know:

Camille Paglia is not a medical professional. She's a literary critic. This deserves about as much serious consideration as if she had made a video that was anti-vaccine, or pro-laetrile

That's not how evidence works. You need to take a look at some sort of controlled trial or pseudo-experiment in the real world and carefully check outcomes.

Intervening with hormones and surgery for superficial similarity seems like a really invasive idea. The best evidence we have is consistent with the notion that most children that identify as trans/suffer from gender dysphoria do not want to transition in adulthood. That's a relief, and a good sign that they ought to not be given any drugs.

Go out and look for the evidence in adults on outcomes, you'll find it to be quite sparse.

>>>That's not how evidence works. You need to take a look at some sort of controlled trial or pseudo-experiment in the real world and carefully check outcomes.

I choose not to pretend that's something that can happen in the comments for a youtube video by a literary critic.

As some people know, I have a son who is a transmale. The anecdotal evidence I have to share is that he is so much happier now. You just can't miss it. It's anecdotal, which is why I have refrained from mentioning it up to now.

>>>Go out and look for the evidence in adults on outcomes, you'll find it to be quite sparse.

It's a known fact that conservatives groups are always looking for research studies that might validate gay lifestyles in order to put political pressure on their funding, so if data is sparse for transgender therapies, I'm not surprised.

What else do you have? Without really knowing, I'd bet five dollars that the real-world evidence of positive outcomes for gender reassignment is more substantial than for anything else. I haven't looked, but I promise you that the youtube comments section
for this video is replete with people talking about "mental illness". That's because the mind is intangible. the body is tangible, and some people can't grasp that the tangible body is easier to manipulate than the intangible mind. It's counterintuitive, but it's the truth at this time.

Ironically, some people don't want other people to change their bodies, because they don't want to change their thinking.

To continue discussion, can you clarify the status of your child (no worries if you don't want to). Are they happier after identifying as trans? After changing their name, dress, hormones or surgery? Did they suffer from gender dysphoria?

Just a few bullet points

* Camille Paglia is not a total idiot but she is completely talking out of her ass here. I think her point of view is valuable on other subjects but she really invalidates herself and causes a ton of horse shit to fall out of her mouth when she conflates the fall of civilization with transgenderism. Talk to Jared Diamond about that subject. He's the expert. Not you.

* I do agree that putting a boy in a dress at any age before puberty is completely inappropriate and it does constitute child abuse. Look at that fucking drag kid who has been in the news. Videos of him mimicking snorting lines of coke and his mother is having him hang out with ex murderer Michael Alig. Not to mention gyrating in front of men on a stripper pole. Or that fucking evil cunt who started dressing up her son in a dress at the age of 3 and told everyone he was transgender and he wants to dress up as Marvel heroes and wear boys clothes when he's with his dad. She's going to chemically castrate him and the courts are helping her because she's a pediatrician. A completely motherfucking insane one, but who cares about that detail. Let's sterilize children. That's a good idea.

* Fuck scapegoating transgendered people but let's not kid ourselves. This shit has never happened before in the history of mankind. People have never done this shit to their bodies before. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. I have no idea why it's fucking happening but I know it's not natural. i think hormone disrupting chemicals have been causing chaos in our bodies because of pesticides and plastics and that is all scientifically documented. So why shouldn't we try and find out why people might possibly be affected in the womb by all these same chemicals instead of just screaming at people to get over it.

* I have a lesbian friend who proudly touted her 15 year old nephew was going to become her niece. I told her that her nephew should wait a few years before starting treatment because there are many misdiagnosis and some guys wind up changing their minds or have regrets and she screamed at me that I was an inhuman monster who wanted to kill her nephew. Or niece. But she accused me of trying to endanger him/her.

In short, I hate everyone. I hate the left for being volatile and about as malleable as a fucking rock when it comes to any subject and I hate the dismissal of the right. None of you are logical. You're all horrible.

"Fuck scapegoating transgendered people but let's not kid ourselves. This shit has never happened before in the history of mankind."

That's not true at all. Many cultures have had well established roles for people that are neither completely male nor completely female; they're both. Sometimes the roles are rigid (e.g. some North American native tribes had a type of shaman that was explicitly neither male nor female) while others were truly gender fluid. (I believe Ancient Persia had this set-up. Which is weird, since their religion, Zoroastrianism, was *very* dualistic.)

The only thing unique about our society is that we're the first that's able to make the physiological changes along with the cultural ones.

Having said all that, I'm not clear why gender reassignment is the preferred treatment rather than hormone therapy. (i.e. Why change the gender rather than the dysphoria?) But hey... I'll bow to the doctors & transgendered people; they're the experts. And they seem to say that gender reassignment is usually the best treatment.

>>This shit has never happened before in the history of mankind. People have never done this shit to their bodies before. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. I have no idea why it's fucking happening but I know it's not natural.

Everybody sing it with me:

This is new so it must be bad.

This is new so it must be bad.

This is new so it must be bad.

Anax:
There is no good evidence that hormones and surgery are an effective treatment for gender dysphoria. There are certainly risks and the benefits are not clear at all. Consider the best evidence we have in children:
http://www.sexologytoday.org/2017/12/faulty-statistics-on-how- many-trans.html?m=1

Someone asked for some medical/scientific evidence of the efficacy of hormone treatments. Well, here you go, a reputable endocrinology journal with guidelines regarding their safe and effective use.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/94/9/3132/2596324

But do more than look at the society guidelines that recommend treating with hormones, read the introduction. Learn a bit about the history of addressing this long-running issue and the evidence behind it. It comes

Also, I will concede some points that are true: yes, not all pre-pubertal children with gender dysphoria progress to become transsexual, however the endocrinology society guidelines continue to recommend the use of puberty delaying drugs, BECAUSE THE PHYSIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF UNWANTED HORMONES ARE SO PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING TO TRANS PEOPLE. If you don't understand this, you need so much education on gender dysphoria I suggest you just read a book.

Those points are in the guidelines as well. It's a good read

I've read those Endocrinology Guidelines critically and any proponent of science based medicine would be frightened by their reasoning. If you have the background (you need to be able to describes what GWAS is), read this paper critically and see if the claims are justified (that gender has some underlying durable biological element):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25140398

As for overall outcomes, we just don't have very good evidence and we may never. It's really quite difficult to recruit a lot of people, observe for long terms and we can't assign randomized control groups that we would need. Nonetheless there are definitely concerns and long term studies show increased risks in mortality and morbidity, hard to tease these apart from where these individuals start.


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.p one.0016885
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822482/
http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2687653/cross-sex-hormo nes-acute-cardiovascular-events-transgender-persons-cohort-study

There are plenty of stories of people who come to grips with reality find themselves in better shape:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/03/experienc e-i-regret-transitioning
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/16/transitio n-caused-more-problems-than-it-solved

Focusing on non-invasive methods to resolve dysphoria and being critical of the notion of gender seems like a much more promising route than invasive induction of superficial similarity.

Mainstream medicine has always had elements of irrationalism associated with it (that's why we have to try so hard to advocate for "science-based" medicine). History will find that embracing gender identity ideology will have been one of them.

Yeah, well, Gloria Steinem is a literal nazi who worked for the CIA and went around snitching on other activists.

When I say "this shit has never happened before in the history of mankind" I am being literal.

At no other point in human history were humans able to chop their body parts off and additionally take artificial hormones from the opposite sex. That has only been done for a few decades. You cannot tout chopping off body parts and taking artificial hormones as a naturally occurring phenomenon and this whole movement to ignore any kind of biological facts is like something out of a farcical novel. I don't hate transgendered people but fuck, you can't have it all. You can't biologically be identical to the opposite gender. It just isn't possible. Stop trying to get that label.

I realize I'm over 50 and from a generation where we were not exposed to this shit because it hadn't taken off yet but I don't get it. I don't understand why this is being embraced as some kind of healing empowerment. I think it's madness. I also say that with compassion. I don't say it out of hatred.

"however the endocrinology society guidelines continue to recommend the use of puberty delaying drugs, BECAUSE THE PHYSIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF UNWANTED HORMONES ARE SO PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING TO TRANS PEOPLE. If you don't understand this, you need so much education on gender dysphoria I suggest you just read a book."

If you don't think sterilizing children is a good thing, you must be illiterate!

Except that it's inherently EVIL and any study this insane movement pays for to convince you that PERMANENTLY ALTERING CHILDREN SO THEY DON'T DEVELOP NORMALLY IS FUCKING INEXCUSABLE AND IS FULL OF HORSESHIT.

8 year olds can't make life changing decisions for themselves and most of the 8 year old boys who want to wear dressed grow out of it. This movement is brainwashing children, whether or not you want to admit that or not.

Puberty blockers should be illegal and anyone who uses them on a pre-pubescent child should be put in prison for child abuse.

the surgery and drugs don't do shit to stop them from killing themselves btw.

Do you think transwomen are women? Who did you learn the meaning of the term "woman" from?

you mean they don't get the womb transplants too?

poseurs

And there it is.

So much of the pushback seems to be about defending "the meaning of the term 'woman'". The opposition to same sex marriage is pretty similar, so often lighting on THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. People are expected to arrange their lives so as not to disturb traditional semantics.

What happens if the word "woman", like so many other words in the dictionary, came to have more than one definition? Would there really be a problem with that? Would you not be able to get an erection any more with CIS women? Would there really be CULTURAL COLLAPSE?

I honestly think some people aren't aware that gender reassignment has been going on since the 1950s. This idea that it's some kind of a fad is just nonsense.

It's a medical issue, and Camille Paglia isn't a medical doctor. DID NOT WATCH.

You don't need to.

She shakes her head side to side an awful lot. It's weird and distracting (also she's pure evil).

I'm not qualified to diagnose shit, but I smell mental disorder in her very body language.

Gmol thanks for telling me what a women is, my female brain couldn't possibly comprehend this complex issue!

All joking aside, I'm literally a biologist, not a human biologist, or even a eukaryote biologist, but I learned all about gender and sex and all the ins and outs in histology and related hellish coursework.

Even by conservative standards, you can't define a gender by gentalia, because many women get histerectomies and the like. You can't define gender by chromosomes because there are people with sets other than just XX or XY. You cant define gender by even things like hormones because men and women all have different levels of the same hormomes (women have testosterone, men have estrogen!).

One interesting paper we discussed in histology was basically an attempt to see if gender has any root in the brain. Male zerba finches had their brains transfered into the bodies of females, and vice versa. The trans bodied birds would have the mating rituals of the brain sex and not the body.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unique-bird-sheds-l ight-o/

(reposting as reply)

Zoot,

"...you can't define a gender by gentalia..."

I know you can't, but for >>99% of the the constitutive presence of a Y chromosome makes your *sex* male. You are conflating gender and sex in the sentence I've quoted from you. Have you done research in animals? If you did anything funded by the NIH that got published anywhere you would need to sex balance anything you did in mice or in humans and factor along *sex*. You also must've used "male" and "female" as your dichotomous categories. Even if you just worked in tissue culture, if any of your work happened in the last few years, you must've reported the sex of those cells. Sexual reproduction is presumably familiar to you, there is an entire theory on sexual *di*mophrism (tell me, what does "di" mean there?).


Let's start from these awfully sensible definitions from the NIH's Institute for Research On *Women's* Health. Who do you think the NIH means by *women* in the title of the institute?

https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/SexGenderInfogra phic_11x17_508.pdf


Why does the NIH go to all this trouble? Because sex differences are pervasive and essential to assessing clinical outcomes in humans as well as interpreting preclinical work.

No need to play silly word games to claim we can't define "sex" since there is variance and there are exceptions to most plainly worded definitions. You'll have the same trouble with "species", still biologists have a clear conceptual basis for the differences between zebras, humans, gorillas and e. coli and how they relate to each other in terms of the history of evolution. We all know the differences between males (men) and females (women).



Sex really isn't that complicated essentially all of us (>>99%) are either male or female. Gender is something else, a vague and nebulous psychosocial notion that doesn't seem to have a compelling way of being measured, let alone utility.

ADDED:
The study on the zebrafinch gynandromorph is neat. Human brains are much more plastic, indeed, we don't see compelling sex differences in human brain when we look at human brain structure or function; if they do exist they are awfully small. "Ladybrain" is the premise of a lot of dubious reasoning (women can't be pilots etc.). Look at Daphna Joel's talks on youtube to understand this better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYpDU040yzc

"So much of the pushback seems to be about defending "the meaning of the term 'woman'". The opposition to same sex marriage is pretty similar, so often lighting on THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. People are expected to arrange their lives so as not to disturb traditional semantics. "


You are right, there is a link here. A lot of careful thinking people were disappointed in changing the definition of marriage. Because they were religious zealots? No. They knew the institution of marriage has long been a matter of managing women as property. Rather than extending its definition, this would have been a good time to abolish marriage's special legal status and just let people take care of each other in the ways they want:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/16/gay-marri age-equality-women-lesbian-couples-conservative-institution

The last line from the article is a good one:

"Marriage is a great institution – if you like living in institutions."

>>>A lot of careful thinking people were disappointed in changing the definition of marriage. Because they were religious zealots? No.

By "No", you don't actually mean "never", do you? Some of them are always talking about "the biblical definition of marriage"

The intersection of careful thinkers and those who would use the biblical definition of marriage as a basis for reasoning about serious matters is the empty set. Read what Bindel has to stay and some history of the institution of marriage...insightful stuff.

Oh, so you're giving me homework?

Is that you, Evil Homer?

Uh ok, you asked about people who believe in the biblical definition of marriage, and I replied by telling you about the people I am referring to ("careful thinkers") have nothing to do with those people. I provided a short article that describes the perspective of the people I am referring to that you might be able to understand that perspective better. That's a fairly normal way that people discuss things, you seem averse to it.

I said I'm not even a biologists who studies eukaryotes. That means I don't study multicellular life. The organisms I study are all genderless and sexless.

You are moving your goalposts by bringing up the difference between sex and gender. I didn't bring this up originally because I thought it was really getting into the nitty-gritty and unnecessary. By acknowledging the difference you are acknowledging that trans women are indeed women by their gender.

If you think that sex as defined by chromosomes is such a big deal than what do you think of animals that can change their sex depending on the environment like many fishes and some birds?

Don't even get me started on the whole species game. That might have clear definitions to you but in microbiology the differences are so arbitrary that whole papers have been written, disregarded, re-written, etc. Just like how the the issues of intersex people do not matter to you.

Why would I presume that because you aren't working with eukaryotes currently that you would have not worked with them in the past? Researchers don't confine their entire careers to a single organism or even domain.

There are no goal posts being moved, you have to be precise and clear on what you mean by sex and gender. There are consensus meanings for those words in science that you've been provided clear sources for. What do you mean by your quoted sentence? What do you use to measure gender, what sorts of values does it take?

What do sex changes in birds and fish have to do with humans who don't have wings, gills or dormant gonads? What in the world suggests that I do not care about people with DSD? You are bringing DSD into a discussion that started with the assertion that trans identified males are not females?

gmol you said
Do you think transwomen are women? Who did you learn the meaning of the term "woman" from?

that is passive aggressively implying that trans women are not women.

I've already addressed the point you are bringing up once again between gender and sex, I'm not going to go in circles for you.

I've never researched anything with any kind of gender. It just dosen't happen in anything I've researched. I've taken some medical courses where sex and gender were discussed but nobody and nobody would deny trans people their gender identity just because of chromosomes.

You aren't really addressing my questions. You knowledge the findings in finches were interesting but now say that sex changes in other vertebrates are not.

Your slurry of questions are just attempts to obfuscate things. You damn well know what I mean by 'sex" "gender" etc, and linked to scientific resources which acknowledge the commonly held definitions of the sex and gender. If you have anything other than more pretentious word games than do bring it up because you are on very shaky ground right now.

"that is passive aggressively implying that trans women are not women."

Transwomen are not women. Women are adult females. Transwomen are males. You don't need to take much biology to understand that. Look up the definitions of all the relevant words in that statement in any credible source, the sentence is plainly true.

You haven't acknowledged anything of what I've explained to you at the Office of Research Women's Health, sexual *di*moprhism etc. You seem to not understand that humans do not undergo anything like what happens in birds and fishes because we are an entirely different species, that also cannot breath underwater, grow feathers or fly. Sex changes in birds and fish have nothing to with human biology.

You are conflating sex and gender again. Try writing out the meanings of both of those words in your next post to demonstrate you understand what they mean. This sentence is nonsense:

"I've taken some medical courses where sex and gender were discussed but nobody and nobody would deny trans people their gender identity just because of chromosomes."

A Y chromosome is essentially what makes every male male. What is gender identity? People who are male cannot in any way identify as female any more than they can identify as a bird or fish.

gmol if you believe that studies in birds and fishes have no relavance to humans but you said yourself that many organisms have sexes in common with each other.

Sex is more than just chromosomes, it is a complex mix of chromosomes, hormones, brain wiring, genetics, etc. Gender is a social thing and I'm not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

You need to get the idea that sex things are more than just simple chromosomes, its a very common misunderstanding of sex many people have. The NIH uses chromosomal sex as a base guide and it isn't supposed to be taken as bible truth.

If you think that sex is something that has to be defined by chromosomes than do you think that something like humanity is chromosome only as well? One very basic definition of a human is a primate with 23 chromosomes, are people with more or less than that not human? You would of course say "no, its more complicated than that." Sex is exactly like that.

You clearly know nothing about what the NIH is saying. Chromosomal sex is not a "base guide" (what does that even mean?). The constitutive presence of a Y chromosome makes one male, because of role that chromosome plays in development. Read a book on developmental biology to understand how this works and why someone with, say, an XXXXXY genotype is male:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/


Sex genotypes are either male or female. Sex phenotypes are either male or female. For essentially all of us, these are consonant, that's why we just say "sex". That's why every column labelled sex in a table in a scientific paper or clinical trial involving organisms like mice and humans has a dichotomous categorization: "male" and "female". There are no other sex categories than those.

It is true that a tiny percentage of the human population is neither male nor female, a subset of people from the population of those with Disorders of Sexual Development. What percentage of the population do you think is does not have consonant sex across genotype/phenotype or has a genotype/phenotype that cannot be categorized as male or female? Google is your friend here.

Chromosomes are what define sex in all of us, that's because they dictate how the process of development. There are as many genomes as there are people, but the simple rule "if you have a Y chromosome you are male, else you are female" works for almost all of us. Again, what percentage of the population do you think that rule doesn't work for? What does that population have to do with trans identification?

You are terribly confused about the example of the gynandromorph zebrafinch, please do watch the Joel video on human brain biology that I've already provided the link for.

Unless gmol is advocating calling someone by a pronoun they disagree with, or being referred to as the gender they don't identify as, I'm not sure why he's being targeted. Pretty sterile stuff.

It sucks that those with agendas driven by gender bias tend to try and fall back on the same facts, but that shouldn't taint the facts themselves, just the motivations of the people using them. Is your motivation pure, gmol? I'm not getting a transphobe vibe, just a stickler for specifics vibe.

I'm definitely all for careful thinking if that is what you are implying by "stickler for specifics". The idea of specifics doesn't do justice to the fact that we should be really careful about doubleplus good speak like "transwomen are women". Being a stickler is one thing, undeestanding why nonsense ideas are dangerous is another.

No idea what sort purity test you are trying to administer.

Uh ok, you asked about people who believe in the biblical definition of marriage, and I replied by telling you about the people I am referring to ("careful thinkers") have nothing to do with those people. I provided a short article that describes the perspective of the people I am referring to that you might be able to understand that perspective better. That's a fairly normal way that people discuss things, you seem averse to it.

I knew I read through all this shit for something, thank you !

Try picking up a biology textbook sometime, you may find it informative.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/

What can you infer about the meanings of male and female with respect to chromosomes from that text?

Gmol's paternalistic views are no different from gay conversion therapy, just that a belief that chromosomes and biology overrule human suffering and humanistic efforts to help people who will literally beg their doctors for treatment.

History will look back on this backlash of psychotic "scientific" "arguments" against treating gender dysphoria as no different from Phrenology.

Leave the transgender community alone, stuff your inferences about a serious condition completely up your ass and take your bullshit to reddit. Let medical professionals do what they do best: use available scientific evidence (which they themselves admit has weaknesses) to do their best to provide a humanistic and compassionate treatment to people who really do increase their high risk behavior if their gender dysphoria is ignored.

This has been proven, by the way, in many cases and studies showing that transgender people who are refused treatment will be more likely to miss appropriate screening for or prevention prophylaxis for STDs and cancer and therefore have higher rates of STDs, HIV and so on. They get better care when their doctors actually respect their gender identity and prescribe gender affirming treatments

The hysteria about regret, prevention of babby making is also completely ignoring the widespread evidence that birth rates are falling in most developed countries regardless of gender identity, and no this does not mean societal collapse, it means there is societal awareness of real economic and ecologic pressure on us to decrease family size

No. People that care about other people use evidence and science to come to treatments that are effective and safe. People like me don't think that make believe does anyone any good.

You are making up facts. Please provide the link to the study that "proves" transgender people who are refused treatment (what treatment?) are have higher STD rates etc. We can discuss that conclusion critically with the study in front of us.

"forward thinking scientific concepts"

You mean like...permanently sterilizing children? Is that forward thinking?

No, it isn't. It's wish fulfillment and social engineering and it's madness.

"What can you infer about the meanings of male and female with respect to chromosomes from that text?"

That you are confusing sex and gender AGAIN, hillbilly pissbitch

I know exactly what they mean. You are very confused about biology.

You don't even read your own links, spazzock.

You remain confused. Read about science. It will help you in life. Here is a good link for definitions I'll post yet again:

https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/SexGenderInfogra phic_11x17_508.p

You are really eager to prove my point. Thank you, truly.

From when you posted that link earlier:

"Who do you think the NIH means by *women* in the title of the institute?"

Answer: Both cisgender women and transgender women.

https://orwh.od.nih.gov/about/newsroom/events/womens-health-se minar-series

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-18-676.html

The first link is a visiting speaker. Have you ever spent any time at a research institute? Speakers come in all the time to talk about different subjects. Visiting speakers are not representative of the institute's views. Got to 9:40 in the video, the doctor unfortunately describes well known DSD cases but omits prevalence (and the fact that it has nothing to do with trans identification). The speakers seems to have embraced gender identity ideology, but her use of "sex" and "gender" (expression) is consistent with the infographic. She stays away from using the word 'sex' and the sex categories 'male' and 'female'. I think the 'genderbread' diagram is pretty silly and obfuscates clear and simple ideas.

As for the second link I can only see instances of 'transgender'. Females identify as transgender. I do not see a single instance of 'transwoman' or 'transwomen'. What is your point with that link?

Sure. The NIH Office of Research on Women's Health and the NIH Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office accidentally committed millions to research into transwomen's health issues. And they invited a speaker to present non-controversial research as "not representative of the institute's views." Why, just listen to all those hostile questions at the end!

Well, I mean, you clearly didn't, having only gotten 10 minutes into a 93-minute video. But I'm sure the other 83 minutes didn't have anything you claim was "missing" from it.

As to my point, it is, as always, that you're dumb as shit and being obtuse about terms you just googled and clearly don't understand isn't a particularly effective deflection strategy. So, thank you for complying once again.

You asked what the NIH might accept as a definition of *women.* The answer is clear. Moving goalposts to "female" and trying to draw arbitrary, and incorrect, distinctions between the terms that simply do not reflect either how scientists use them, or their use in the landscape of this debate, is nothing more than a transparent rhetorical device.

It also sets you up for immediate failure when you don't bother to watch ~90% of a thing.

Show us the Office of Research on Women's Heath grant hat focuses on transwomen:

https://orwh.od.nih.gov/research/funded-research-and-programs/ funding-opportunities-announcements

You don't think it is the least bit incongruent for an office, that was founded on women's reproductive health, that champions "sex as a biological variable'. Search their website:

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=orwh&qu ery=transgender

The only link you find is the one visiting talk you provided, I presume you just did the search above. There no salient mention of transwomen any where in their public facing documents that describe the office in detail, look here:

https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_StrategicPl an2020_Vol1.pdf

There is a single instance of *transgender* that is a title for a poster. Look at what the office does focus on: female health, pregnancy, menopause etc.

Are you daft?

5 for you.. and five for me for the shitstorm I started and didn't even know happened Jesus