Critics claim trans people ‘defy biology’. New research suggests otherwise

Public debate surrounding transgender and gender diverse (trans) people often centres on one fundamental question: what makes someone trans?

Most of us would agree that our gender is not a choice, but a core part of who we are. When our gender aligns with the sex listed on our birth certificate, it’s rarely ever questioned. Instead, it’s treated as a biological reality.

However, when it comes to trans people, an alternate explanation is frequently floated: that trans identities and gender diversity are the result of environmental influences, such as social trends or peer pressure.

This framing treats a trans identity as a choice that can – and, implicitly, should – be unlearned.

Such messaging is increasingly being used to deny the existence of trans people, restrict access to medically necessary health care, and fuel discrimination.

Our study of twins challenges this idea and shows the likelihood of being trans is influenced by your genes.

The power of twin studies

Twin studies are a powerful tool in research. Identical twins share 100% of their genes, whereas non-identical twins share 50% on average – the same as non-twin siblings.

By comparing these two types of twins, we can explore the extent to which genetics and the environment contribute to human traits.

If genes are involved, we expect identical twins to share traits (for example, both identifying as trans) more often than non-identical twins, simply due to their higher degree of genetic similarity.

Conversely, if genes aren’t involved, we expect to see similar rates of shared traits among identical and non-identical pairs.

Our research examined data from 463 twin pairs where at least one was trans – the most comprehensive analysis on this topic to date.

After determining whether twin pairs were identical or non-identical, we measured how often both twins were trans, compared to instances where only one was trans.

What we found

Our results showed that among identical twins, if one was trans, the likelihood that the other was also trans was 21.2%.

For non-identical twins, this rate was significantly lower, at 8.7% – though this was still well above the 1–2% prevalence of trans identities in the general population.

Non-twin siblings weren’t included in our research, but we’d expect their rate would be similar to that seen among non-identical twins.

If being trans were purely a social phenomenon, we would not see this step-wise difference where the chance of being trans goes up with increasing genetic similarity.

Our data thus provide strong evidence that genes are involved.

More than just genes

It’s also important to highlight another finding in our data – that most twin pairs, even among those who are identical, are not both trans.

This comes as no surprise to researchers who study twins, who have documented similar patterns for many other human traits.

Almost all human traits, such as personality characteristics, height, and sexuality, are shaped by both genetic and environmental factors.

It’s likely that gender identity is the same.

Interplay of genetics and the environment

Genes and the environment do not act independently, and the influence of genetics on any complex human trait does not stem from variations in a single gene.

Rather, hundreds or even thousands of genes work alongside and react to environmental influences to form an enormous range of human characteristics.

Environmental factors can affect the activity of our genes throughout the course of our lives. Such environmental influences encompass the full breadth of human experiences, all the way back to conception.

Both identical and non-identical twins share environmental experiences, especially within the womb and as children raised together in the same family.

But each twin also has unique experiences that contribute to their individual differences. So, it really is a complex interplay between genes and the environment.

Why this matters for public understanding

Many anti-trans arguments rely on a belief that gender diversity is entirely socially determined.

This myth is frequently weaponised to frame trans identities as optional or reversible. Too often, this becomes a justification for hostile public attitudes and for stripping basic legal protections from trans people.

The belief that being trans is purely a social phenomenon also provides a rationale for harmful identity change and suppression practices (also known as conversion therapy).

Every major Australian and United States medical association has condemned these practices.

However, a recent US Supreme Court case and other national and state policy developments in the US in particular are increasingly providing cover for those performing these harmful practices.
A complex and enduring human trait

Our findings provide a crucial correction to this harmful public discourse. They confirm that genes and their related biological pathways play a role in shaping gender identity.

Fears of trans identities being a social trend or response to peer pressure – and related shifts in policies to restrict trans people’s basic rights – are at odds with the scientific evidence.

Gender diversity has existed across millennia and is an inherent part of human diversity. It’s time law and society caught up.

https://theconversation.com/critics-claim-trans-people-defy-biology-new-research-suggests-otherwise-283982

https://i.imgflip.com/b1cojo.jpg

Why won't you even read the article, Scrappy Doo?

What are you so afraid of?

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 8:36am:

Why won't you even read the article, Scrappy Doo? What are you so afraid of?

Hi Methra,
I don't want to know.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 8:39am:

mothra wrote on Sep 18th, 2026 at 8:36am: Why won't you even read the article, Scrappy Doo? What are you so afraid of? Hi Methra, I don't want to know.

You just want to judge from a position of utter ignorance.

Willfully.

See Scrappy Doo? That's a large part of why people call you an idiot.

Mothra sounds like John Smith - calling people idiots.    ::)

Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem?

forgiven

namaste

The article and the researchers deliberately misrepresent 'transgenderism' as if it was ALSO biological, genetic.
This is a vary poor ruse.  For years such activists were insisting on gender being SEPARATE from biology and so chromosomes (biology) was not the determinator of gender.

Now that various bodies, courts and the like (UK Supreme Court etc) ruled that sex ( man, woman) refer strictly to biological sex, NOT gender the activism shifts to trying to make transgenderism biological. But it is not and cannot be.

Gender is first a linguistic category (in some language, but not all). It covers the social, cultural, historical OUTWARD dislay of male or female characteristics. That is why you can disguise yourself as ther other sex - which is what transvestites have been doing for ages.  But putting on a wig, a frock, heels and lippy doesn't turn you into a biological woman. Even if you then take the extra medical and surgical steps of hormones and mutilation, you will still not be a woman. You will be a mutilated man in a frock. You may think you have confirmed to social STEREOPYPES of youf own imaginings of what a woman is but you are still a tragic man.




(Btw, they said during the gay marriage debate that it was not a slippery slope and after marriage equality,  tgerd woukd be no more normalising and vlorising of other sexual deviances. But soon came the transgender epidemic. Nor will it be the last on the slippery slope.)

Didn't read the article, did you fruitbat.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 9:09am:

Mothra sounds like John Smith - calling people idiots.    ::) Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem? forgiven namaste

What would you call someone who sits in harsh judgment but refuses willfully to be informed on the subject?

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 9:16am:

Didn't read the article, did you fruitbat.

I did. That is why I said that the ruse of making transgenderism biological, genetic, is a poor one.

To add:
Iddntical twins do not share just their genes. They are brought up dressed and treated identically - ie socialised and acculturated identically. Their emotional, mental affinities to each other are stronged than those of other siblings.*

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 9:17am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 18th, 2026 at 9:09am: Mothra sounds like John Smith - calling people idiots.    ::) Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem? forgiven namaste What would you call someone who sits in harsh judgment but refuses willfully to be informed on the subject?

https://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

ad hominem

"You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong."

An ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is a personal attack. It is by far the most common logical fallacy encountered in online forums. It carries the assumption that by discrediting your opponent, you are also discrediting their argument. However, this would lead to the absurd situation that an argument is correct if one person uses it, and false if another uses it. Inexperienced debaters often fall for this and feel the need to defend their reputation against a troll, otherwise it will invalidate the point they are trying to make in the eyes of others.

An ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy. For example, if someone claims that their point of view on a technical issue carries more weight because they are a scientist then it would be reasonable to point out that they did not complete their PhD. It would not be reasonable to point out that they are divorced, or a socialist.

Merely insulting someone is not technically an ad hominem unless it is done in a way that discredits their argument – however, it is still inappropriate.

The opposite fallacy to ad hominem is ‘appeal to authority,’ claiming that the good qualities of a person making an argument support that argument.

Scrappy Doo, what would you call someone who sits in harsh judgment but refuses willfully to be informed on the subject?

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 9:27am:

Scrappy Doo, what would you call someone who sits in harsh judgment but refuses willfully to be informed on the subject?

I don't want to know about poofters -  OK?      ::)

Bobby. wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 9:31am:

mothra wrote on Sep 18th, 2026 at 9:27am: Scrappy Doo, what would you call someone who sits in harsh judgment but refuses willfully to be informed on the subject? I don't want to know about poofters -  OK?      ::)

So you want to sit in harsh judgment out of a position of willful ignorance.

That's what i said.

That makes you an idiot. A willful idiot.

What would Jesus say?

Never a more true headline.  It's just the increasing borderline thinking of so many these days - steeped as they are in the faux education system with all of its side dead ends in philosophy and reality, the rise and rise of Hollowood and the fantasy worlds of film, television and online - and of course the internet... not to mention the reality that governments of the West have over-reached themselves with their ideas of what they can control and legislate to cover - and this while themselves internally over-populated - especially these days with the preference for the mentally disabled - by the very same kind of fantasists.

It's nothing for some Dr Strangemind qualified under the modern teaching syndrome to come up with - for example, the idea that a destroyer of the landscape can 'scape the lash for the dire outcomes .... by offsetting the very real harm they are doing by 'paying for' some form of mythical credit.... those credits being obtained by paying for the death of wildlife....

The world of the Western mind has gone mad - no wonder so many Outlanders think we are weak... and no wonder the strangest ideas are given pure oxygen...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 10:19am:

Never a more true headline.  It's just the increasing borderline thinking of so many these days - steeped as they are in the faux education system with all of its side dead ends in philosophy and reality, the rise and rise of Hollowood and the fantasy worlds of film, television and online - and of course the internet... not to mention the reality that governments of the West have over-reached themselves with their ideas of what they can control and legislate to cover - and this while themselves internally over-populated - especially these days with the preference for the mentally disabled - by the very same kind of fantasists. It's nothing for some Dr Strangemind qualified under the modern teaching syndrome to come up with - for example, the idea that a destroyer of the landscape can 'scape the lash for the dire outcomes .... by offsetting the very real harm they are doing by 'paying for' some form of mythical credit.... those credits being obtained by paying for the death of wildlife.... The world of the Western mind has gone mad - no wonder so many Outlanders think we are weak... and no wonder the strangest ideas are given pure oxygen...

Just ... wow.

That is some seriously unintelligible stuff.

Hey Crappler, did you read the article? We're 0 for 2 so far. Shall we make it 3?

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1643097630582408

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 10:31am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 18th, 2026 at 10:19am: Never a more true headline.  It's just the increasing borderline thinking of so many these days - steeped as they are in the faux education system with all of its side dead ends in philosophy and reality, the rise and rise of Hollowood and the fantasy worlds of film, television and online - and of course the internet... not to mention the reality that governments of the West have over-reached themselves with their ideas of what they can control and legislate to cover - and this while themselves internally over-populated - especially these days with the preference for the mentally disabled - by the very same kind of fantasists. It's nothing for some Dr Strangemind qualified under the modern teaching syndrome to come up with - for example, the idea that a destroyer of the landscape can 'scape the lash for the dire outcomes .... by offsetting the very real harm they are doing by 'paying for' some form of mythical credit.... those credits being obtained by paying for the death of wildlife.... The world of the Western mind has gone mad - no wonder so many Outlanders think we are weak... and no wonder the strangest ideas are given pure oxygen... Just ... wow. That is some seriously unintelligible stuff. Hey Crappler, did you read the article? We're 0 for 2 so far. Shall we make it 3?

Your 'reasoning' steeped in ideology is the unintelligible stuff.  Your MIND still refuses to accept it Morbius.....

The trouble with you, dear mothra, is your sheer inability to encompass the full range and sweep of issues assailing the West at this time - and your rather sad approach of trying to lock yourself tightly within a small ideological defensive box which you think provides all the answers, while actually providing only words that sound right. 

Rather than that tight and frankly self strangling (Clancy) ideological box being the answers to all issues - it is your intellectual and even moral coffin.without strength - a cardboard coffin of the human mind and soul.

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 8:29am:

Gender diversity has existed across millennia and is an inherent part of human diversity. It’s time law and society caught up.

There have been people that think that they are in the wrong gender since time began. The legislative issues regarding transexuals have been amended such a long time ago that these days, anyone who even looks sideways at a transexual is going to cop an earful of abuse from the LGTB community.

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 9:27am:

Scrappy Doo, what would you call someone who sits in harsh judgment but refuses willfully to be informed on the subject?

What makes you think your article is actually informed or informative?

It sounds like the same defence as for homosexuals.

But even homosexuals are either XX or XY.

And no matter what is going on inside their heads, self belief wise, that's what their DNA will always say.

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 8:29am:

Gender diversity has existed across millennia and is an inherent part of human diversity. It’s time law and society caught up.

Bollocks.

John Money invented the concept in the 1950s, Robert Stroller coined 'gender identity' in the '60s. Then feminists seized on the idea to explicitly separate sex roles from biology in the 70s.

And now the transvestites turned the feminist idea against women, calling feminists TERFs if they don't accept trannies as real women.
Ideologues - radical feminists - have been hoist by their own petard, once again.

John Cleese: "Woke turned me into a Newt." 😣

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 8:30am:

https://theconversation.com/critics-claim-trans-people-defy-biology-new-research-suggests-otherwise-283982

Nonsense.



Where Did Gender Identity Come From?
A new book offers a concise and compelling history.

Advocates claim that transgender people have always existed, but the notion that humans have a “gender identity” and that this identity is both real and worthy of social validation is quite new. So is the pseudoscientific idea that sex is “assigned at birth” and that there are more than two sexes. Gender identity originates in 1960s niche psychology, where, Brubaker reminds us, it was “relevant only in rare and expressly pathological cases [i.e., disorders of sex developments and transsexualism]. Nobody then imagined that gender identity would become a universally applicable and bitterly contested category.”

As MIT philosopher Alex Byrne has explained, Robert Stoller and Ralph Greenson, both psychologists at UCLA, coined the term “gender identity” in 1963. They defined it as “the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs, that is, the awareness ‘I am a male’ or ‘I am a female.’” On this understanding, everyone has a gender identity, which emerges in early childhood and accords with one’s sex. In rare cases, children develop feelings of belonging to the other sex, and the question becomes how to understand this and how to help them.

The most notorious use of gender identity in the clinical setting was that of John Money, a sexologist at Johns Hopkins University from the early 1950s until his death in 2006. Money argued that a child’s gender identity is socially acquired and that, if conditions are right, children can be successfully reared into the opposite sex. Money tested his theory on David Reimer, whose penis had been burnt off as an infant in a botched circumcision. The experiment ended in failure, with Reimer unable to live as a woman and later committing suicide.

Despite Money’s failure with Reimer, the notion that humans have a gender identity that, through social validation, can functionally override their sex “escaped the clinic.” A concept initially used by clinical “gatekeepers” to screen patients and decide who is eligible for medical interventions was soon “deployed and controlled by patients themselves . . . [I]t became a category deployed against gatekeepers and gate keeping,” writes Brubaker. “This new understanding of gender identity as a patient-controlled, patient-empowering category was codified in the paradigm of ‘gender-affirming care.’”

The rest is here:

https://www.city-journal.org/article/gender-identity-the-career-of-a-category-rogers-brubaker

Frank wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 9:11am:

(Btw, they said during the gay marriage debate that it was not a slippery slope and after marriage equality,  tgerd woukd be no more normalising and vlorising of other sexual deviances. But soon came the transgender epidemic. Nor will it be the last on the slippery slope.)

SAN ANGELO, TX — During a recent prayer group meeting at New Covenant Church, local man Steve Farmer expressed longing for the good old days when all the obscene smut out in the world was heterosexual.

For Christians, especially Christian men, a lot of emphasis is placed on guarding one's eyes and heart against obscene images and other smut. But, according to Farmer, the smut at least used to not be so gay.

"The world is already bad enough without being so gay," Farmer reportedly lamented. "I miss the good old days when all I had to worry about was graphic heterosexual imagery."

According to sources, several men nodded in agreement that the world had definitely gotten way too gay. A few women in the group, however, thought this was an inappropriate time and place to bring up such matters.

"I just want to pray for my Aunt Janice," Sheila Keel said, trying to change the subject. "She's not gay. She just has the gout."

According to smut experts, it used to be that a man could walk down the street and not see anything gay. "Everything used to be strictly heterosexual, but now even the adult bookstores have a homosexual section," said Dr. Evan Jacobs, a professor of smut at Harvard. "It's disgusting."

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 8:29am:

Gender diversity has existed across millennia and is an inherent part of human diversity. It’s time law and society caught up.

The Grauniad Headline:
Mar 8


Earth |  Fossil records show that some species of Dinosaurs were almost certainly trans-identifying

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 12:09pm:

The trouble with you, dear mothra, is your sheer inability to encompass the full range and sweep of issues assailing the West at this time - and your rather sad approach of trying to lock yourself tightly within a small ideological defensive box which you think provides all the answers, while actually providing only words that sound right.  Rather than that tight and frankly self strangling (Clancy) ideological box being the answers to all issues - it is your intellectual and even moral coffin.without strength - a cardboard coffin of the human mind and soul.

Maybe Mothra is a lezzo?   :-/

Bobby, it is not for us to judge mothra, even if she was a "lezzo".

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 19^th, 2026 at 1:08pm:

Bobby, it is not for us to judge mothra, even if she was a "lezzo".

True - Jesus said -
judge not lest ye be judged.

Matthew 7:1-3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUTLd0tNTE

mothra wrote on Sep 18^th, 2026 at 8:29am:

Critics claim trans people ‘defy biology’. New research suggests otherwise Public debate surrounding transgender and gender diverse (trans) people often centres on one fundamental question: what makes someone trans? Most of us would agree that our gender is not a choice, but a core part of who we are. When our gender aligns with the sex listed on our birth certificate, it’s rarely ever questioned. Instead, it’s treated as a biological reality. This framing treats a trans identity as a choice that can – and, implicitly, should – be unlearned. Our study of twins challenges this idea and shows the likelihood of being trans is influenced by your genes. Gender diversity has existed across millennia and is an inherent part of human diversity. It’s time law and society caught up.

It's biology if you have XX chromosomes you are female

If you have XY you are male you can't change the Y.

Putting a dress and lipstick on even getting fake tits doesn't make you female.

It seems the only people who want to deny biology are the men in dresses.

---

If this has not been posted yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEN_f9hp_sI

"...human biology does not lie".

DSDs = differences in sex development


Quote:

A number of DSDs are caused by changes in the machinery that responds to hormonal signals from the gonads and other glands. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, or CAIS, for example, arises when a person's cells are deaf to male sex hormones, usually because the receptors that respond to the hormones are not working. People with CAIS have Y chromosomes and internal testes, but their external genitalia are female, and they develop as females at puberty. Conditions such as these meet the medical definition of DSDs, in which an individual's anatomical sex seems to be at odds with their chromosomal or gonadal sex. But they are rare—affecting about 1 in 4,500 people. Some researchers now say that the definition should be widened to include subtle variations of anatomy such as mild hypospadias, in which a man's urethral opening is on the underside of his penis rather than at the tip. The most inclusive definitions point to the figure of 1 in 100 people having some form of DSD, says Vilain. But beyond this, there could be even more variation. Since the 1990s, researchers have identified more than 25 genes involved in DSDs, and next-generation DNA sequencing in the past few years has uncovered a wide range of variations in these genes that have mild effects on individuals, rather than causing DSDs. “Biologically, it's a spectrum,” says Vilain.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 19^th, 2026 at 1:08pm:

Bobby, it is not for us to judge mothra, even if she was a "lezzo".

True - Jesus said -
judge not lest ye be judged.

Matthew 7:1-3

Setanta wrote on Sep 19^th, 2026 at 10:19pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUTLd0tNTE

You really have to ask when you hear someone like this stating the scientific facts, the reality of what is & isn't the truth -

"How did we get to these levels of stupidity"?

And we have a proponent of this utter bullshyte who made the OP on this forum. ::)

Setanta wrote on Sep 19^th, 2026 at 10:19pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUTLd0tNTE

I've watched her whole talk.

It is actually sickening to think how anyone can call what's happening here in medicine progressive.

The same bullshyte is used to push the "climate science alarmism".

Gnads wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 11:58am:

Setanta wrote on Sep 19th, 2026 at 10:19pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUTLd0tNTE You really have to ask when you hear someone like this stating the scientific facts, the reality of what is & isn't the truth - "How did we get to these levels of stupidity"? And we have a proponent of this utter bullshyte who made the OP on this forum. ::)

The OP in this thread, which you've utterly failed to comment on is the latest science.

The above which you watched the whole way through is the views of an anti-trans activist from a gob-bothering institution.

Here, a little about Miriam Grossman:

Miriam Grossman is an American psychiatrist and activist aligned with anti-LGBT and conservative advocacy organizations. She is an opponent of gender affirming medical care for transgender people,[1] and opposes sex education in schools, which she describes as a "Marxist approach to human development".[2]

Grossman is currently a senior fellow of Do No Harm, an organization known for its support of bans on transgender healthcare,[4][5] and a psychiatric consultant for the American College of Pediatricians,[6][4] an organization known for its opposition to abortion, gender-affirming care, and marriage equality and support of conversion therapy.[4]

Grossman has endorsed conversion therapy for gay people.[7][8] In 2013, she spoke at a religious World Congress of Families conference in Australia in opposition to same-sex marriage.[8]

In 2024, she attended a conference hosted by the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (formerly the "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality").[9]

Grossman opposes gender-affirming care for transgender people.[5] She has been involved in amicus briefs arguing against gender affirming policies.[1] Grossman wrote an affidavit in support of a Canadian father's attempt to block his teenage transgender son from taking testosterone; the court ruled in favor of the child.[1] Grossman co-authored amicus briefs and commentaries with members of ACPeds and worked with them and members of the Catholic Medical Association to support Florida's ban on Medicaid coverage for gender affirming care.[4][10]

Grossman is an opponent of sexual education in schools, which she describes as a "Marxist approach to human development".[2] In 2013, she was commissioned by a New Zealand conservative lobby group, Family First, to author a report which condemned sex education in the country.[11] Critics argued that sex education aims to reduce high-risk behavior and improve sexual health and safety of young people.[11]

Grossman appeared in Matt Walsh's 2022 film What is a Woman?.[12][1] In 2023, Grossman participated in the detransition media project Identity Crisis, which was founded by the Independent Women's Forum.[10]

In 2023, Grossman promoted a false claim that the CDC endorsed drugs to allow transgender women to breastfeed.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Grossman



You may agree with her because it feeds your prejudice, but it's not science and it's not unbiased ... as the OP was.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 3:46pm:

The OP in this thread, which you've utterly failed to comment on is the latest science.

The OP is NOT A SCIENTIFIC article.  It is an advocacy piece citing some stats from a twins study.

I did comment on it but you ignored it because you have no understanding beyond your own prejudice in favour. You have not provided any comment of your own besides slagging off any dissent.

Frank wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 4:08pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 3:46pm: The OP in this thread, which you've utterly failed to comment on is the latest science. The OP is NOT A SCIENTIFIC article.  It is an advocacy piece citing some stats from a twins study. I did comment on it but you ignored it because you have no understanding beyond your own prejudice in favour. You have not provided any comment of your own besides slagging off any dissent.

It is not an advocacy piece you hysteric. It's the report on a recent study. It's by The Conversation, hardly an agenda ridden group.

As for commenting on it in any way that addressed the findings, i must have missed where you did it amongst your ubiquitous spittle and hair flying ... your relentless wailing that not everybody in the world is like you enough.

Would you care to repeat yourself?

Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP:


Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities


Abstract

Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6

https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/37/37/1d/37371d904990b122d1caa0a401c546e2.jpg

https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/ab/c6/86/abc68635f9bdf6862947b6f6cd051901.jpg

As my co-author (and husband) Drew Hutton and I became involved in the issue of transgender ideology, we were repeatedly struck by the number of men and women who told us the issue just did not affect them. They did not have young children or grandchildren and many were retired or self-employed so did not have to be concerned about using pronouns in the workplace. There was also obvious discomfort. People who did not have a good grasp of the issue nonetheless knew that this was a risky topic and that they could commit the “sin” of speaking politically incorrectly at any moment.

Sadly, it does indeed affect everybody. Gender ideology seeks to replace our sexual being with the superficial idea of a so-called gender identity. The stereotypical ideas about femininity and masculinity that second-wave feminists fought fiercely to abolish, and that they referred to as “gender”, have now been given recognition and standing in law. The first-wave women’s movement of over a century ago fought relentlessly for women-only spaces to safeguard women and girls from rampant sexual harassment and assault; now any man who says he identifies as a woman has the right to enter women’s spaces.
...


“Gender identity” is a person’s own belief in stereotypical ideas of sex and gender. Many trans activists staunchly defend its significance with some arguing it is an essence or a “soul”, a sexed soul that is different to its owner’s sexed body. Thus, it cannot be proven to exist. We must take the word of those who promote its existence even though it is not fixed. Queer theory asserts that sex is not only not limited to male and female but that it is fluid. A person’s gender identity can thus change throughout their lifetime. Consequently in some Australian states a birth certificate can be amended annually in line with a person’s feelings about their gender.

This changeable belief became a protected identity in Australian law when Julia Gillard’s government amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013. Unlike the Turnbull government’s reforms to recognise same-sex marriage, which were preceded by a nationwide postal plebiscite that was debated over the airwaves and in public meetings and finally gained overwhelming support, these amendments were passed with little fanfare. Feminists who pointed out that women’s rights would be adversely affected were quietly dismissed. There was no opportunity for the community to learn about the queer theory that drives many trans campaigns; and no public consideration of the impacts on children.

Not surprisingly, this artful method of changing the law resulted in poor law. The amendments to the SDA protect a person’s identity “appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not) with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth”. A person’s gender identity has become whatever that person says it is.
...

Jasmine Sussex, a breastfeeding counsellor at the Australian Breastfeeding Association, has been taken to court for vilification, discrimination and harassment by Jennifer Buckley, a trans person. Sussex publicly stated that lactation by trans people who were born male is experimental and potentially dangerous for infants. This week, the court case against Sussex had a small win on a technical point. She can appeal against the original decision but has to still argue that her words did not constitute vilification. Other than The Australian, to date this case has been given minimal coverage in mainstream media.

There is a rapid social transformation taking place. The under-reported censoring and harassment of feminist academics in Australian and British universities indicate the groupthink and authoritarian tenor of the times.

...
Mature women know that sexuality is much more than these body parts and recognise the insult that this attempt to diminish the integrity of their lives is. This is the context though in which many younger women now prefer to deny their biological sex – after all, trans people are welcome and respected everywhere – while femaleness is reduced to a caricature of bodily functions.

Government departments claim they are being inclusive when they use non-gendered language such as a “pregnant person” but the reality is that they are erasing biological women. In four decades society has shifted from pride in the achievements of women to again hiding and denying women’s contributions. Everyone’s sexed body is denied so that people who want to deny their biological sex may feel comfortable.

This is an edited extract from Over the Rainbow: A Challenge to Cancel Culture, edited by Drew Hutton and Libby Connors, Spinifex Press, out this week.



Roxane Tickle or Jennifer Buckley and all the trans-sexual men are NOTHING LIKE YOUR MUM. They ard not women. They are blokes playing at being 'women'.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 4:34pm:

Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6

A very stupid article.

Why?

Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is.

transgender in Ottoman Empire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZPeOBYs43k

Frank wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 5:40pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is.

It's not an "article", fruitbat. It's a peer reviewed study published in Nature.

Nature doesn't publish stupid studies.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 6:59pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 5:40pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is. It's not an "article", fruitbat. It's a peer reviewed study published in Nature. Nature doesn't publish stupid studies.

It does.  And it IS a stupid article. Very.

Gender is not genetic, sex is.

That is the ENTIRE basis of feminism, gay lib, tranny agit prop: separating gender from sex.

But now some idiots want to intrude into genetics like 'women' with penises want to intrude into women's spaces.


You, a mindless frightbat who cannot think but will always be swayed by the latest agit-prop, wxnt along with gender is not biological for years.
Now that courts ruled that sex is binary, mongs like you are onto the new band wagon of gender being genetic.

Daft twattery is correct.

Frank wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 7:10pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 6:59pm: Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 5:40pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is. It's not an "article", fruitbat. It's a peer reviewed study published in Nature. Nature doesn't publish stupid studies. It does.  And it IS a stupid article. Very. Gender is not genetic, sex is. That is the ENTIRE basis of feminism, gay lib, tranny agit prop: separating gender from sex. But now some idiots want to intrude into genetics like 'women' with penises want to intrude into women's spaces. You, a mindless frightbat who cannot think but will always be swayed by the latest agit-prop, wxnt along with gender is not biological for years. Now that courts ruled that sex is binary, mongs like you are onto the new band wagon of gender being genetic. Daft twattery is correct.

Would you like to go away and think about it for a while? See if you can get your head around it?

It's not that hard but you do appear to be struggling inordinately.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 7:14pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 7:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 6:59pm: Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 5:40pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is. It's not an "article", fruitbat. It's a peer reviewed study published in Nature. Nature doesn't publish stupid studies. It does.  And it IS a stupid article. Very. Gender is not genetic, sex is. That is the ENTIRE basis of feminism, gay lib, tranny agit prop: separating gender from sex. But now some idiots want to intrude into genetics like 'women' with penises want to intrude into women's spaces. You, a mindless frightbat who cannot think but will always be swayed by the latest agit-prop, wxnt along with gender is not biological for years. Now that courts ruled that sex is binary, mongs like you are onto the new band wagon of gender being genetic. Daft twattery is correct. Would you like to go away and think about it for a while? See if you can get your head around it? It's not that hard but you do appear to be struggling inordinately.

A very stupid article.

Why?

Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is.



Address it, bint. Dont run, dont yeah-but. Face it, address it.

Gender and gender identity are two different things.... you can identify as anything you want, but you cannot change your gender.

Enough of the perverts trying to influence kids - ban them on the internet.... boot them out of schools - let them be in safe spaces in their own spaces...  (aaargh)..

Frank wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 9:31pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 7:14pm: Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 7:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 6:59pm: Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 5:40pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is. It's not an "article", fruitbat. It's a peer reviewed study published in Nature. Nature doesn't publish stupid studies. It does.  And it IS a stupid article. Very. Gender is not genetic, sex is. That is the ENTIRE basis of feminism, gay lib, tranny agit prop: separating gender from sex. But now some idiots want to intrude into genetics like 'women' with penises want to intrude into women's spaces. You, a mindless frightbat who cannot think but will always be swayed by the latest agit-prop, wxnt along with gender is not biological for years. Now that courts ruled that sex is binary, mongs like you are onto the new band wagon of gender being genetic. Daft twattery is correct. Would you like to go away and think about it for a while? See if you can get your head around it? It's not that hard but you do appear to be struggling inordinately. A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is. Address it, bint. Dont run, dont yeah-but. Face it, address it.

Well done, fruitbat. You actually know something. Not a lot ... and you don't understand it very well but credit where credit is due.

Now focus, as gender exists on a spectrum, so do does biological sex. You really should know that if you're to dip your oar into these waters lest you make a fool of yourself.

Gender, as you concede, a social construct and it has many definitions according to when and where it is assigned. In some places, there is or was no such thing as gender at all; in others more than two genders have been documented.

Now people with body dysphoria do not feel as though their biological sex matches with the gender they have been ascribed at birth. Scientific and medical findings over decades have verified the legitimacy of this condition. Science is finding more physiological and genetic evidence to corroborate this all the time. This study is yet another example.

That's all there is to it.

And you lot just lose your ever-loving minds anyway.

Quote:

Now focus, as gender exists on a spectrum, so do does biological sex. You really should know that if you're to dip your oar into these waters lest you make a fool of yourself.

Biological sex is not on the spectrum. It is either XX or XY. There is no spectrum.

That there are a great variety of personalities and body types is obvious.

Quote:

Gender, as you concede, a social construct and it has many definitions according to when and where it is assigned. In some places, there is or was no such thing as gender at all; in others more than two genders have been documented.

  Gender is not assigned.

Quote:

Now people with body dysphoria do not feel as though their biological sex matches with the gender they have been ascribed at birth.

  you are not assibned anyghing at birth. You are born a girl or a boy. A new born baby has ZERO social constructed characteristic simply becausd it fasnt been in society for such characteristics to emerge.

Quote:

Scientific and medical findings over decades have verified the legitimacy of this condition. Science is finding more physiological and genetic evidence to corroborate this all the time. This study is yet another example.

  Science is not finding more genetic evidebce since sex, as noted, is not on.a spectrum, being eother XX or XY. There is no geadual variation betwen thesd two binaries.
As for psychological evidence - gended identity being a self-reported psychological state, and people being of a great many types and variations, with ever more mania for self-differentiation and pseudo-individuality. it is not surprising that therx is an ever-increasing number of 'genders'.
A woman can now choose to become a man, and then a "pregnant man." A man can choose to become a woman. A man can choose to get halfway to becoming a woman, and then decide it's more fun to "live in the grey area." Biologically, eveyone, wighout exception, has a mother and a father. Nobody has two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father.
The "pregnant man" is pregnant but not a man; those who live in "the spectrum ov the grey area" are in reality eithed men or women, according to "the facts of life."
They may play act, they may have hormone and surgical alteration but the 'facts of life' are unalterable and impervious to psychological wishes.

CHATTANOOGA, TN — Local fatty Mark Thompson spent all of lunch today explaining to family members how obesity is actually a disease.

As he polished off an appetizer of a dozen fried sticks of cheese covered in queso, Thompson expounded on how the latest science showed that obesity was no different from measles.

"Oh yeah, it's a real disease with doctors and everything," Thompson announced, descending on a plate of hot wings and ranch. "It's just like any other disease you might catch. You can pick up obesity anywhere, you know. Like, someone sneezes, and you breathe in that air, and then — WHAM! You caught the obesity. Next thing you know, you're palms-deep in a tub of Crisco, and the buttons are popping right off your pants."

Thompson's family agreed that there probably were hormonal factors at play, but suggested that a person's choices might also be contributory. "Uh, no one chooses tuberculosis, okay? It's the exact same thing," replied Thompson, face buried in a pecan pie. "You wouldn't ask a guy with tuberculosis why he chose to cough up his lungs, right? So, you shouldn't — burp — ask an obese guy why he's double-fisting sticks of butter. It's all part of the disease."

Why do the right want to spend 60% of their time being unreasonable to 0.2% of the population that are doing absolutely nothing to impact them ?

I don't think I have even met a Trans person in the last 40 years but would be happy to treat one the same as anyone else. They are just people living their life the best they can same as all of us..

I don't see anything to be frighted of.

Maybe in the case of the right its their own sexuality ?

Dnarever wrote on Sep 21^st, 2026 at 12:00pm:

Why do the right want to spend 60% of their time being unreasonable to 0.2% of the population that are doing absolutely nothing to impact them ? I don't think I have even met a Trans person in the last 40 years but would be happy to treat one the same as anyone else. They are just people living their life the best they can same as all of us.. I don't see anything to be frighted of. Maybe in the case of the right its their own sexuality ?

Wake up from your dumb twattery, duckwit.


Sadly, it does indeed affect everybody. Gender ideology seeks to replace our sexual being with the superficial idea of a so-called gender identity. The stereotypical ideas about femininity and masculinity that second-wave feminists fought fiercely to abolish, and that they referred to as “gender”, have now been given recognition and standing in law. The first-wave women’s movement of over a century ago fought relentlessly for women-only spaces to safeguard women and girls from rampant sexual harassment and assault; now any man who says he identifies as a woman has the right to enter women’s spaces.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1789684191/43#43

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 3:46pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 11:58am: Setanta wrote on Sep 19th, 2026 at 10:19pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUTLd0tNTE You really have to ask when you hear someone like this stating the scientific facts, the reality of what is & isn't the truth - "How did we get to these levels of stupidity"? And we have a proponent of this utter bullshyte who made the OP on this forum. ::) The OP in this thread, which you've utterly failed to comment on is the latest science. The above which you watched the whole way through is the views of an anti-trans activist from a gob-bothering institution. Here, a little about Miriam Grossman: Miriam Grossman is an American psychiatrist and activist aligned with anti-LGBT and conservative advocacy organizations. She is an opponent of gender affirming medical care for transgender people,[1] and opposes sex education in schools, which she describes as a "Marxist approach to human development".[2] Grossman is currently a senior fellow of Do No Harm, an organization known for its support of bans on transgender healthcare,[4][5] and a psychiatric consultant for the American College of Pediatricians,[6][4] an organization known for its opposition to abortion, gender-affirming care, and marriage equality and support of conversion therapy.[4] Grossman has endorsed conversion therapy for gay people.[7][8] In 2013, she spoke at a religious World Congress of Families conference in Australia in opposition to same-sex marriage.[8] In 2024, she attended a conference hosted by the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (formerly the "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality").[9] Grossman opposes gender-affirming care for transgender people.[5] She has been involved in amicus briefs arguing against gender affirming policies.[1] Grossman wrote an affidavit in support of a Canadian father's attempt to block his teenage transgender son from taking testosterone; the court ruled in favor of the child.[1] Grossman co-authored amicus briefs and commentaries with members of ACPeds and worked with them and members of the Catholic Medical Association to support Florida's ban on Medicaid coverage for gender affirming care.[4][10] Grossman is an opponent of sexual education in schools, which she describes as a "Marxist approach to human development".[2] In 2013, she was commissioned by a New Zealand conservative lobby group, Family First, to author a report which condemned sex education in the country.[11] Critics argued that sex education aims to reduce high-risk behavior and improve sexual health and safety of young people.[11] Grossman appeared in Matt Walsh's 2022 film What is a Woman?.[12][1] In 2023, Grossman participated in the detransition media project Identity Crisis, which was founded by the Independent Women's Forum.[10] In 2023, Grossman promoted a false claim that the CDC endorsed drugs to allow transgender women to breastfeed.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Grossman You may agree with her because it feeds your prejudice, but it's not science and it's not unbiased ... as the OP was.

It's not science - it's agenda driven ideology - as that US Doctor stated.

It is still based on old Dutch studies that are flawed & even the Dutch researchers are amazed that the US & Canada are going down that path.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 3:46pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 11:58am: Setanta wrote on Sep 19th, 2026 at 10:19pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUTLd0tNTE You really have to ask when you hear someone like this stating the scientific facts, the reality of what is & isn't the truth - "How did we get to these levels of stupidity"? And we have a proponent of this utter bullshyte who made the OP on this forum. ::) The OP in this thread, which you've utterly failed to comment on is the latest science. The above which you watched the whole way through is the views of an anti-trans activist from a gob-bothering institution. Here, a little about Miriam Grossman: Miriam Grossman is an American psychiatrist and activist aligned with anti-LGBT and conservative advocacy organizations. She is an opponent of gender affirming medical care for transgender people,[1] and opposes sex education in schools, which she describes as a "Marxist approach to human development".[2] Grossman is currently a senior fellow of Do No Harm, an organization known for its support of bans on transgender healthcare,[4][5] and a psychiatric consultant for the American College of Pediatricians,[6][4] an organization known for its opposition to abortion, gender-affirming care, and marriage equality and support of conversion therapy.[4] Grossman has endorsed conversion therapy for gay people.[7][8] In 2013, she spoke at a religious World Congress of Families conference in Australia in opposition to same-sex marriage.[8] In 2024, she attended a conference hosted by the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (formerly the "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality").[9] Grossman opposes gender-affirming care for transgender people.[5] She has been involved in amicus briefs arguing against gender affirming policies.[1] Grossman wrote an affidavit in support of a Canadian father's attempt to block his teenage transgender son from taking testosterone; the court ruled in favor of the child.[1] Grossman co-authored amicus briefs and commentaries with members of ACPeds and worked with them and members of the Catholic Medical Association to support Florida's ban on Medicaid coverage for gender affirming care.[4][10] Grossman is an opponent of sexual education in schools, which she describes as a "Marxist approach to human development".[2] In 2013, she was commissioned by a New Zealand conservative lobby group, Family First, to author a report which condemned sex education in the country.[11] Critics argued that sex education aims to reduce high-risk behavior and improve sexual health and safety of young people.[11] Grossman appeared in Matt Walsh's 2022 film What is a Woman?.[12][1] In 2023, Grossman participated in the detransition media project Identity Crisis, which was founded by the Independent Women's Forum.[10] In 2023, Grossman promoted a false claim that the CDC endorsed drugs to allow transgender women to breastfeed.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Grossman You may agree with her because it feeds your prejudice, but it's not science and it's not unbiased ... as the OP was.

What the problem is is that you swallow all the trans - activist prejudice - it is not scientific fact - there has been no follow up research to the Old Dutch research done before 2010 & the medical institutions pushing this nonsense have been infiltrated by these ideologues who spout bs and claim it's science.
They are trying to rewrite scientific fact which defies logic.

And yes all Medicos basic oath requires that they "DO NO HARM".

Chemical & surgical castration of minors is Doing Harm.

Frank wrote on Sep 21^st, 2026 at 12:14pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 21st, 2026 at 12:00pm: Why do the right want to spend 60% of their time being unreasonable to 0.2% of the population that are doing absolutely nothing to impact them ? I don't think I have even met a Trans person in the last 40 years but would be happy to treat one the same as anyone else. They are just people living their life the best they can same as all of us.. I don't see anything to be frighted of. Maybe in the case of the right its their own sexuality ? Wake up from your dumb twattery, duckwit. Sadly, it does indeed affect everybody. Gender ideology seeks to replace our sexual being with the superficial idea of a so-called gender identity. The stereotypical ideas about femininity and masculinity that second-wave feminists fought fiercely to abolish, and that they referred to as “gender”, have now been given recognition and standing in law. The first-wave women’s movement of over a century ago fought relentlessly for women-only spaces to safeguard women and girls from rampant sexual harassment and assault; now any man who says he identifies as a woman has the right to enter women’s spaces. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1789684191/43#43

Do you read what you type ? I hope not it would be a waste of time.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 21^st, 2026 at 12:00pm:

Why do the right want to spend 60% of their time being unreasonable to 0.2% of the population that are doing absolutely nothing to impact them ? I don't think I have even met a Trans person in the last 40 years but would be happy to treat one the same as anyone else. They are just people living their life the best they can same as all of us.. I don't see anything to be frighted of. Maybe in the case of the right its their own sexuality ?

You're delusional Duckwit.

It impacts lots of others because the agendas are being driven in associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, The Endocrine Society & the American Psychiatric Association & their counterparts in other countries.

It impacts the families - the mothers, fathers, brothers sisters & extended family.

And when it involves activists having power over policy in the afore mentioned associations it is having impacts far beyond the individual trans person.

Love the way the proponents of the monstrosity imagine that simply saying that some speaker is 'against gender treatment' is somehow sufficient to deny credibility to the views expressed.. amazing - shows how far the human mind has sunk under modern medical malpractice - the same medicine that permits idiots to exist in numbers and with all the mental illnesses rampant through DNA and low infant mortality etc.  Bring on the hare-lips....

Hey - I even get clowns trying to lambast a simple statement that the MIND and the BRAIN are different structures - one is the hardware - the other PARTIALLY the software as inputted through various means throughout life..

Yes - biology has nothing to do with this - talk about a delusional state - men and women are just artificial constructs - nothing artificial about the construction here:-

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a7/8d/e6/a78de6be7c1f97acc82e848e8e71e530.jpg

Dnarever wrote on Sep 21^st, 2026 at 12:36pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 21st, 2026 at 12:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 21st, 2026 at 12:00pm: Why do the right want to spend 60% of their time being unreasonable to 0.2% of the population that are doing absolutely nothing to impact them ? I don't think I have even met a Trans person in the last 40 years but would be happy to treat one the same as anyone else. They are just people living their life the best they can same as all of us.. I don't see anything to be frighted of. Maybe in the case of the right its their own sexuality ? Wake up from your dumb twattery, duckwit. Sadly, it does indeed affect everybody. Gender ideology seeks to replace our sexual being with the superficial idea of a so-called gender identity. The stereotypical ideas about femininity and masculinity that second-wave feminists fought fiercely to abolish, and that they referred to as “gender”, have now been given recognition and standing in law. The first-wave women’s movement of over a century ago fought relentlessly for women-only spaces to safeguard women and girls from rampant sexual harassment and assault; now any man who says he identifies as a woman has the right to enter women’s spaces. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1789684191/43#43 Do you read what you type ? I hope not it would be a waste of time.

:D :D

Carry the flag for dumb twattery.  Gender politics is ANOTHER area where unletterd, ignorant duckwittery flounders.

Have mo' peas, duckwit, that's your mental forte. 

"A landmark Finnish study has found a sharp rise in psychiatric illness among adolescents following sex-alteration procedures.

The peer-reviewed study, published in Acta Paediatrica, tracked every young person under 23 who contacted Finland's gender clinics between 1996 and 2019.

A total 2,083 individuals were studied, with 16,643 matched controls. They were followed for up to 25 years.

Finland's health registers are mandatory, which means no one opts out — this is the complete national picture.

The numbers: psychiatric morbidity rose from 9.8% to 60.7% in adolescents who underwent feminising reassignment, and from 21.6% to 54.5% in masculinising reassignment.

Even after adjusting for prior psychiatric history, gender-referred adolescents faced five times the risk of male population controls, and three times the risk of female controls.

"Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment," the authors concluded.

Referrals after 2010 arrived sicker. 47.9% had already needed psychiatric treatment before their first clinic visit, against 15.3% among controls.

The authors' read: for some adolescents, gender distress may be secondary to other mental health challenges.

The evidence keeps mounting. The silencing continues anyway.

How many more adolescents will be told this is "care"?

Kurt Mahlburg"

Biology is merely XX or XY chromosomes.  That is the science. Anything outside that is not science it is interpretation 8-).

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2026 at 6:59pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 5:40pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is. It's not an "article", fruitbat. It's a peer reviewed study published in Nature.

Did you have to be a Tranny to qualify as a peer to review that rubbish?

These democrats have XY chromosomes they're males they have Autogynephilia

---

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2026 at 12:08am:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 6:59pm: Frank wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 5:40pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2026 at 4:34pm: Here's the study itself, linked to in the OP: Using twin data to examine heritable and intrauterine hormonal influences on transgender and gender diverse identities Abstract Previous reports have suggested genetic and prenatal hormonal contributions to gender diversity, albeit using small datasets. To further examine this issue, we recruited 27 twin pairs from two Australian specialist gender clinics, and obtained details of zygosity and self-reported gender identity. To increase the power of our analysis, we pooled our observations with previously published twin data that used comparable methods to ours. The pooled sample of 463 twin pairs comprised 47/222 (21.2%) MZ and 21/241 (8.7%) DZ concordant pairs. Based on a 1% population prevalence estimate, the estimated relative risk ratios for transgender concordance were 21.2 for MZ pairs (95%CI 16.4–27.3), and 8.7 for DZ pairs (95%CI 5.8–13.1). These findings suggest a substantial genetic contribution to gender diversity. In contrast, the combined results for concordance among same and opposite sex DZ pairs were 12/131 (9.2%) and 9/110 (8.2%) respectively, and did not support a role for prenatal sex hormones in the occurrence of gender diversity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 A very stupid article. Why? Because gender is not genetic, not biological. Sex is. It's not an "article", fruitbat. It's a peer reviewed study published in Nature. Did you have to be a Tranny to qualify as a peer to review that rubbish? These democrats have XY chromosomes they're males they have Autogynephilia

Aren't they are absolutely a pair of delusional ugly phukkers.

And they put these people in positions of authority over others. ::)

Another one for the "Oh, FFS!!" File :



An Episcopal priest in New York City declared that Jesus is “transgender” and told the congregation that if they deny this, they are denying the “divinity” of Christ.

Reverend Flourish Klink, who considers herself a transgender nonbinary individual, made the outlandish assertions during a recent sermon at Christ & St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church.




And Mohammed was a trans lesbian. Every Muslim knows that.

Maybe ghe is try or tri-binary xxy    :0

I had the opinion that Jesus was gay. No relationship with women. Hangs around guys. A bit effeminent. I see no issue with a priest saying that he is a transgender. The fact that Jesus is fiction just furthers the issue of his sexuality into obscurity and irrelevance.

Queer Theory, the Ultimate Hypocrisy
Sandra Pertot, Sep 28 2026

What is gender? The High Court has decided that by relying on the definition that a woman is an adult female human, Sall Grover discriminated against a transwoman who is not an adult female but is a woman because he says he is.
This makes it clear that under the Australian Sex Discrimination Act, a person’s self-declared gender is a protected characteristic, but a person’s biological sex isn’t: translated, this means that a trait that can be observed and agreed upon by individuals with even a limited biological knowledge isn’t accepted as a fact, while a person’s unobservable “internal sense” of their gender becomes the only criteria needed to claim legal protection from any perceived discrimination.

Note: my internal sense of being a woman because I am an adult female human prohibits me from referring to a person born male as “she” or “her”, to have to do so would cause me significant distress.

Roxannne Tickle’s claim to be a woman is just one of a long list of newly created gender identities. Apart from transwoman and transman, these are the most common gender identities:

♦ Non-Binary Individuals whose gender identity does not fit strictly into the binary of solely “man” or “woman”. This group comprises about a third of the adult transgender community, with the choice “sub identities”.

♦ Genderfluid: People whose gender expression or identity shifts and changes over time rather than staying fixed.

♦ Agender: People who feel they have no specific gender or describe themselves as gender-neutral.

♦ Bigender: People who experience two distinct gender identities, either at the same time or alternating

Overall there are, apparently, upward of 70 separate gender identities to choose from. One of my favourites is

Ambigender:Having two specific gender identities simultaneously without any fluidity or fluctuations.

How did we get here?

The cynic in me speculates that as female issues of inequality were addressed and largely resolved in the Western world by second wave feminism of the 1960-70s, the academics who service the departments of Gender Studies in tertiary institutions were left with nothing controversial to trade on, so they had to come up with a new area related to gender and/or sexuality to justify their existence.

The malleability of gender roles provided the perfect solution. Throughout history there have been individuals, female and male, who for one reason or another wanted to live in the gender role of the other sex. Importantly, from my work with male to female transsexuals in past decades, it is clear that these individuals did not believe they literally became the other sex/gender, despite sex-reassignment surgery. Disregarding  this historical evidence, Gender Studies departments have been revitalised by promoting the new theory of intersectional feminism which includes the position that any man who claims to be a woman is a woman.

The author of Transgender History, Susan Stryker, a professor emerita of gender and women’s studies at the University of Arizona, outlines the shift in academic direction to issues of gender rather than sex discrimination, and gives a clue to how modern gender theory became so influential.
There rest is here.

Although the power and influence of gender ideology across many sections of society took most of us by surprise, the takeover had been a long time in the planning.
Since the 1990s, queer theory has become increasingly influential in reshaping the meaning of sex, sexual orientation and gender. Queer theory evolved out of the works of philosopher Michel Foucault, who argued that gender and sexual identities are not biologically determined, but are the result of the social constructs that shape our understanding of society and culture:

Queer theory is a critical theory that examines and critiques society’s definitions of gender and sexuality, with the goal of revealing the social and power structures at play in our everyday lives. In particular, queer theory can serve as a lens to examine subjects outside the boundaries of traditional gender and sexuality binaries that assume that heterosexuality and cisgender* are “the norm.”

(*Cisgender is a contested term which describes a person whose gender identity matches their sex.)

Further, David M. Halperin, an American sociologist, has this to say:

Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm.

Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant.  There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.

Until recent times, the general population has been largely unaware of the cultural shift reshaping society. Influence was spread from universities by embedding trans ideology across faculties of health and education whose graduates then acted as missionaries. They spread the word by weaponizing the claim that gender confused adults and children were a vulnerable, marginalised group and any challenge to this was akin to murdering them because of an unsupported claim that they would self-harm if not “affirmed”.  https://newdiscourses.com/books/

Judith Butler is an American intersectional feminist, queer philosopher, and gender studies scholar whose work has been strongly influential the fields of feminist and queer theory, and has provided a theoretical foundation for transgender advocacy. Butler is best known for the book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity

Queer theorists, like ,Butler, use a lot of pseudoscientific beliefs and ideas couched in dense word salads to support the idea that gender and sex is anything you want it to be:

"Biological sex is also a social construction—gender subsumes sex. According to this view, then, the social construction of the natural presupposes the cancellation of the natural by the social. Insofar as it relies on this construal, the sex/gender distinction founders … if gender is the social significance that sex assumes within a given culture … then what, if anything, is left of ‘sex’ once it has assumed its social character as gender? … If gender consists of the social meanings that sex assumes, then sex does not accrue social meanings as additive properties, but rather is replaced by the social meanings it takes on; sex is relinquished in the course of that assumption, and gender emerges, not as a term in a continued relationship of opposition to sex, but as the term which absorbs and displaces ‘sex’."

To translate, her argument runs like this: gender is performative, therefore women are defined (only) as a woman by how they behave, so anyone who performs as a woman is a woman, and because of this sex must also be a social construct, which means that gender replaces sex, and since social constructs change over time, it is possible for a person to change sex. One of her claims to fame is the discovery of “the female penis”, the intact genitals of a male who identifies as a woman.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/sexual-politics/queer-theory-the-ultimate-hypocrisy/

Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2026 at 9:23am:

Queer Theory, the Ultimate Hypocrisy Sandra Pertot, Sep 28 2026 What is gender? The High Court has decided that by relying on the definition that a woman is an adult female human, Sall Grover discriminated against a transwoman who is not an adult female but is a woman because he says he is. This makes it clear that under the Australian Sex Discrimination Act, a person’s self-declared gender is a protected characteristic, but a person’s biological sex isn’t: translated, this means that a trait that can be observed and agreed upon by individuals with even a limited biological knowledge isn’t accepted as a fact, while a person’s unobservable “internal sense” of their gender becomes the only criteria needed to claim legal protection from any perceived discrimination. Note: my internal sense of being a woman because I am an adult female human prohibits me from referring to a person born male as “she” or “her”, to have to do so would cause me significant distress. Roxannne Tickle’s claim to be a woman is just one of a long list of newly created gender identities. Apart from transwoman and transman, these are the most common gender identities: ♦ Non-Binary Individuals whose gender identity does not fit strictly into the binary of solely “man” or “woman”. This group comprises about a third of the adult transgender community, with the choice “sub identities”. ♦ Genderfluid: People whose gender expression or identity shifts and changes over time rather than staying fixed. ♦ Agender: People who feel they have no specific gender or describe themselves as gender-neutral. ♦ Bigender: People who experience two distinct gender identities, either at the same time or alternating Overall there are, apparently, upward of 70 separate gender identities to choose from. One of my favourites is Ambigender:Having two specific gender identities simultaneously without any fluidity or fluctuations. How did we get here? The cynic in me speculates that as female issues of inequality were addressed and largely resolved in the Western world by second wave feminism of the 1960-70s, the academics who service the departments of Gender Studies in tertiary institutions were left with nothing controversial to trade on, so they had to come up with a new area related to gender and/or sexuality to justify their existence. The malleability of gender roles provided the perfect solution. Throughout history there have been individuals, female and male, who for one reason or another wanted to live in the gender role of the other sex. Importantly, from my work with male to female transsexuals in past decades, it is clear that these individuals did not believe they literally became the other sex/gender, despite sex-reassignment surgery. Disregarding  this historical evidence, Gender Studies departments have been revitalised by promoting the new theory of intersectional feminism which includes the position that any man who claims to be a woman is a woman. The author of Transgender History, Susan Stryker, a professor emerita of gender and women’s studies at the University of Arizona, outlines the shift in academic direction to issues of gender rather than sex discrimination, and gives a clue to how modern gender theory became so influential. There rest is here.

Some of those clowns change gender identity hourly or daily.


They truly don't know if they're Arthur or Martha.

Further cements in my opinion that they all have mental issues.