Experts confirm gender identity is biological

[IceAgeComing]

There's also the fact that the XX=Female XY=Male has been known to be an incredibly simplified way of looking at things since at least the mid 70s - although generally XX Males or XY Females are incredibly rare.  The study in the OP seems to have strong evidence to support the gendered brains theory that's been around for a few years; but we can't be 100% because one study says something; we'll have to wait and see if these conclusions are supported by later studies.

As well as the fact that there are countless modern studies proving what I'd argue the more important issue than the OP is: there are countless modern studies that prove that transitioning is generally very effective and makes trans people healthier and happier - indeed, there have been a fair few studies that have shown that there are no significant differences between the physical and mental health of trans people post-transition when compared to cis people, which isn't the case for trans people pre-transition.  Even if you take the essentialist position on gender stuff; the science on trans healthcare for an incredibly long time has been that transition is the right way to correct gender dysphoria - and indeed, the only way that actually works.

Also its hardly a new thing created by the SJW CONSPIRACY or whatever - and those who think it is ought to look up people like Sophie Wilson, one of the most important people in tech history, or Angela Morley.  I'm not even going to dignify the "WHY CAN'T I BE A TREE!!!!" thing with a response since quite frankly, it doesn't need one as anyone with a brain should see the stupidity of that argument and its an incredibly intellectually dishonest way to approach the issue.

[IceAgeComing]

I like your comparison.  Yes depression is like transgenderism.  It is real and it is considered a mental illness, just like transgenderism is a mental illness.   To treat depression, do you make the word around the depressed person all gloomy so it matches their mental outlook?  Of course not!  You try to treat their depression.  Same with transgenderism.  You shouldn't try to cut up and drug their body to make it look more like the gender they imagine, you try to cure the transgenderism itself and make them content with the body they've got.  My message to trans people is, you are perfect just the way you are!  Your body is the way its supposed to be!  You just need to change how you view it.  That is the true, inspiring message trans people need to hear. 

For someone that claims to have an IQ of 140 (firstly hahahahahahaha secondly IQ isn't actually a particularly useful test for... anything, really) this is an incredibly stupid way of examining the problem.

To build on Crabcake's post above (and mine from earlier that you elected to ignore for some reason), the body of evidence proves that the only way to treat gender dysphoria is transitioning.  To cite only a few; there was a 2013 study in Canada that showed that 27% of the group of trans people had had not begun transitioning yet had attempted suicide; which dramatically fell to 1% of those that had completed transitioning. There was another American study of 50 trans women who'd received bottom surgery that found no significant difference in their mental or physical health from control samples of cis women.  And there was also a 2010 meta-analysis of 28 earlier studies which found that the vast majority of trans people showed significant improvement in psychiatric health; to the point where they concluded that the mental health of trans people after transitioning was broadly similar to that on the general population and much lower than pre-transition trans people.

I hate medicalising the whole issue because I don't see it as being a medical issue but one of basic rights, but the facts are very clear that transitioning works, and is the only way that does when dealing with gender dysphoria.  All of the other things that they've historically tried failed; including the joke of trying to treat it with the wrong hormones which actually only worsened the problem significantly.  But I mean, if your feelings matter more than the facts do; feel free to carry on believing that - however, using science when all of the science is against you is the height of ignorance.

[IceAgeComing]

My issue is that transgenderism is a mental illness and I personally feel that people should not mutilate their bodies to make themselves look more like the opposite sex.[...]

"Facts don't care about your feelings."

-Ben Shapiro

[IceAgeComing]

Said "facts", well, aren't if you look at the body of evidence available - such as I laid out above.

Unless we're apparently meant to consider the opinion of.. some guy as being equal to that of medical professionals who've studied this area for decades..

[IceAgeComing]

Figured you'd post that.  Paul McHugh was in charge of John Hopkins from 1975 to 2001 and was instrumental in the closing of the gender clinic there in 1979.

This was the study used to justify that closure.  There are a few things that we have to consider - firstly its a single study from 1979 and considering that the body of more recent work shows that transition related care is effective, that raises questions about this study.  When you look at it there are clear methodological flaws to it.

Basically the authors construct a single "adjustment score" on an individual based on certain measures, with points being added or deducted based on interactions with law enforcement, employment status, interactions with psychiatric services and intimate relationships.  However many of the criteria that they use are hardly objective criteria but more subjective value judgements: one example is that when considering marriage and cohabitation one point was deducted for "nongender-appropriate cohabitation" and two for "nongender-appropriate marriage", which effectively means that they considered trans people in long term same sex relationships up to four points "less adjusted" than others - which basically means that rather than measuring ones health, its a measure of heterosexuality.

They also deducted points for any contact with psychiatric services - one point for general contact, two for outpatient treatment, three for hospitalisation.  Firstly, contact with psychiatric services is not inherently a bad thing - indeed modern standards of care stress the importance of follow-up care even for people who have competed transitioning - but also this is an incredibly simplified measure that ignores severity of symptoms or their diagnosis or the duration of any treatment.  For example on this measure, a hypothetical schizophrenic who saw their doctor once would be rated as more "adjusted" than a person with depression who had regular therapy sessions.

The criteria on contact with law enforcement was also equally vague - one point for arrest, two for being arrested and jailed.  These criteria do not consider whether the charge was substantiated, what the charge was, or how long a suspect was jailed.  There is also the fact that many communities in the 1980s retained laws against "crossdressing" which would criminalise trans people just for presenting as their gender in public, and that trans people have historically faced discrimination from police, even to the present day.  This is hardly a measure of "adjustment"; but of ones ability to avoid being noticed by law enforcement.

There's also significant methodological problems in terms of compiling this score; in that all of the "adjustments" could only ever score -7; yet some subjects scored as low as -18 which suggests either the addition of unknown, undisclosed measures or the counting of certain measures twice which makes any conclusions significantly less useful.  Also consider some of the ridiculous conclusions that this thing comes up with - for example, being married to a person of the same sex is considered as much of a maladjustment as being sent to jail.  Indeed; all of the above was noted in this study - a reply to the Meyer and Reter article published a year afterwards.  Holding up a single study that's the best part of 40 years old, with serious methodological flaws and which is 100% contary to modern medical evidence on the issue - I cited a few studies in my earlier post that you seem to have dismissed out of hand without reading them and stating your disagreements with them - and saying that that is the REAL TRUTH and that modern investigations are all wrong is the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Indeed, if you want a few more to look at; I can do that for you.

Also, lets consider the words of Dr McHugh.  This is a piece called "Psychiatric Misadventures", written by Dr McHugh.  It contains the following quote:

"…Johns Hopkins was one of the places in the United States where this practice [gender reassignment surgery] was given its start. It was part of my intention, when I arrived in Baltimore in 1975, to help end it."

Note several things.  Firstly, he arrived at John Hopkins in 1975; four years before the publication of the study that he cites to this day as being the proof that transition does not work; and two years before the piece was initially presented.  He went there with the clear written intent to close the gender clinic, regardless of whatever evidence existed as to the efficacy of transition to treat gender dysphoria.  Personally; I do not think that someone who goes somewhere with a clear aim to do something before even the most tenuous evidence for it emerges as being someone who's an entirely trustworthy source on the subject.

There is also the fact that medical science moves incredibly quickly; and doctors always need to be aware of new developments in their field.  You get a doctor in any field in 1975 and drop them in today and they'd be lost: not just because of the emergence of new technologies but because of the new procedures and discoveries that we have made.  Dr McHugh clearly has ulterior motives in his anti-trans crusade - especially since he refuses to comment on the new evidence that has emerged, and still clings to the 1979 study that he claims to have used to justify the gender clinics closure.  However; John Hopkins reopened their Gender Clinic in 2016, and explained that they did this because of the overwhelming about of medical evidence in favour of that decision.  Doctors are an incredibly conservative group of people when it comes to things like this and will only ever do something when they believe 100% that it is in the best interest of their patient: the fact that there is this overwhelming consensus in favour of gender reassignment and transitioning and that the vast majority of medical institutions either have a gender clinic or will refer people to gender clinics suggests that they are very, very sure about the medical evidence on it.

[IceAgeComing]

Have transgenders taken over Atlas forums?  I am literally the only person here on the opposing side.  There are other conservatives on atlas, I guess they are not interested.

man I didn't realise that I was trans, I'm sure that a few people will be happy that i've joined the team

Also you are literally the only person who claimed that the modern science on this is somehow wrong and that Dr McHugh is somehow the only correct person on this.  I mean, please feel free to counter the points that I have made: I think it is rather revealing that you've elected not to.

[IceAgeComing]

Have transgenders taken over Atlas forums?  I am literally the only person here on the opposing side.  There are other conservatives on atlas, I guess they are not interested.

man I didn't realise that I was trans, I'm sure that a few people will be happy that i've joined the team

Also you are literally the only person who claimed that the modern science on this is somehow wrong and that Dr McHugh is somehow the only correct person on this.  I mean, please feel free to counter the points that I have made: I think it is rather revealing that you've elected not to.

I have countered your points over and over again, you just deny the facts.  The scientists are forced to cooperate with the transgender agenda or they are bigots, don't you get  that?  I have evaluated both sides and have found that my side makes more sense.  You have come up with the opposite conclusion.  I think I am right, you think you are.  I would say that my opinion is valid and your is crazy and affirming mental illness.  You would say my opinion is bigoted against people that have no control over what they feel.  Go ahead, I really don't care if you chop your penis off.

Have you, though?  Your contestation was that trans people are "mentally ill", that they needed effectively conversion therapy rather than transitioning.  I provided a range of primary sources (and actually linking to the bloody things, since I have way too much time on my hands) from reputable medical journals to present my argument, that the body of the medical evidence clearly demonstrates that the best way of dealing with gender dysphoria is for the person to transition, and that the medical outcomes of that are incredibly positive.  You then brought up Dr McHugh and his statements to the Washington Post as being the Medical Professional that you listen to: and I shared some facts about him: the fact that he went to John Hopkins with the intent from the beginning to close the gender clinic and that the evidence that he used to backup that claim is critically flawed and was seen as such even at the time.  You then proceeded to moan about the trans takeover of Atlas (I mean firstly lots of the Atlas trans-posters have been here a hell of a lot longer than you and are widely considered to be great posters; while you are just... a guy) and then heavily imply that I'm trans - which might be an attempt at an insult but I'm secure in my manliness so I don't care, and if something changes or I come to a realisation in the future about things then hey, I only hope that I'm open minded enough to accept myself very quickly).

What facts have I denied?  I've dismissed Dr McHugh as being a credible source but that was very much based on the facts.  Only, naturally, you go down the route that all people who come to the realisation that this factual base for their beliefs goes down: that the evidence is wrong because of some conspiracy theory.  Firstly; the idea that trans people and their supporters have enough pull to end the careers of researchers that present findings that they don't like is silly really, and only comes from a strong misunderstanding of the academic process.  I mean this "agenda" certainly wasn't present in 1980 when Fleming, Steinman and Bocknek presenting their paper demonstrating the methodological problems in the study that McHugh always holds up.  I mean there are still researchers around who try to present (incredibly flawed) research that attempts to debunk Climate Change; and there's certainly more chance of an institutional backlash against those people than the (incredibly small) number of researchers.  And hell; if this agenda exists; you should find it easy to go through the above studies and find methodological flaws and biases that disprove their claims right?  After all; managing to reveal to the world this mega conspiracy that Doctors have used to, in your eyes, hurt people would be a big news story, wouldn't it?  Unless you wish to claim that the doctors and researchers involved just totally made up their findings and never actually researched anything, which is an incredibly bold accusation to make, and certainly one that requires proof. 

You know what though; its OK to be scared of the unknown.  Its OK to not quite understand things that are new, and sometimes a person's reaction can be to refuse to accept it; to accept what you have always known.  I remember when my Mum first explained the concept of trans people to be like fifteen years ago when I was nine (pretty sure it had to do with someone on Big Brother or some similar awful TV show that my Mum watched) I had a load of questions and the whole idea just seemed a little silly to my nine year old brain (although my attitude always was something along the lines of 'people should do what they want and no one should be nasty towards them about it' which is a radical concept, apparently) - after all, its something totally new.  That explains why some people probably have a backlash against it because they see it as being something new and scary even though its been something that's existed throughout history in some sort or another: its just that we've discovered ways to better diagnose and deal with it.  What isn't as OK is to construct a false scientific facade and use that to justify your feelings; especially when its against the body of scientific evidence - and claiming that literally all modern science is somehow wrong because of the TRANSGENDER AGENDA or some crap is as intellectually dishonest as you can get.

And you know what: you go back to your favourite Shapiro quote: that's a load of nonsense.  Feelings matter and they guide the way that everyone looks at the world.  You made a judgement about how I perceive your opinion (which is slightly wrong) based on your feelings and internal biases, and being aware of those biases is very useful for a few reasons: mostly because your actions change and become more positive when you realise that you might be doing something that isn't very nice entirely based on bias and can make sure that you try not to do it, because rather than being subconscious its a more conscious thing.  And also most of politics is based on feelings; how a person feels about the society that they live in and what sort of place that they'd like to live in in the future.  Pure technocratic politics never works because it always produces incredibly unsatisfactory governments to the majority of people for that reason - also because there are no single policies that work for everyone.  You ought to accept that feelings are what are guiding you here rather than facts - indeed that is the case for everyone here: the reason why I'm so in favour of trans rights isn't from some technocratic position about THE FACTS or whatever: its because I'm a strong believer in human rights and equality, and that putting obstacles in a persons way to prevent them from doing something that truly makes them much much happier while harming no one is a bad thing to do.  The fact that there's a factual base for that only strengthens those feelings and the importance of them to me...

[IceAgeComing]

Uh, yes, transracial is a thing.

Yes, transracial is just as valid as transgender.

Bold statement, sure you'll be able to back it up with some proof?

[IceAgeComing]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

[IceAgeComing]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

[IceAgeComing]

no, its not.

you provided an article about Dr McHugh; a person who's credibility on this issue is effectively nil, and vague references to "Biology textbooks" - I can only assume that you're talking about the type given to high school students that intentionally simplify certain things in order to teach the basics that you need: they certainly do that in High School Physics with the characterisation of electricity and the like.

Again I never stated that Ms Jones is this totally unbiased impartial person - no one is, and no source is truly unbiased - but she makes an argument that I agree with in a very good manner with supporting information, therefore as a source on that its very good.  In the Social Sciences (which this stuff is veering very close to) you'll find that every writer has some kind of notable bias in favour of one field or another, or bases their arguments about one of many contesting models of things: and therefore there isn't any truly unbiased sources...

[IceAgeComing]

That's an interesting theory and it'd be interesting to see if it's held up through time - not something that I've ever studied seriously though (closest I got was ethnopolitics in the Baltic States and Ukraine which are very interesting; wrote my dissertation on the former) so I'm not an expert on the area bar the absolute basics that you pick up in some corners of the Internet...