Joined December 2021
3,099 Photos and videos
Imagine you move to a foreign country, you then attempt to force that country to adapt its laws to fit in with your own personal dislike of the sex you were born as. Just imagine what an extreme narcissist that would make you. bbc.com/news/articles/cyve4m…
1
18
1,130
The more TRAs deny biology, ignore clinical evidence, push themselves into women’s sports, put vulnerable children at risk, play semantic games, abuse people and lie, the more society will turn against trans people. You are better at being TERFs than the TERFs. Well done!
2
2
16
1,169
I wonder if @guardian or @ArwaM would care to comment. Why is your reporting in this area so biased and anti-scientific? I suppose they won't answer. I did note @ArwaM is set to private. I'd probably do the same if I had written that article.
26 Jan 2025
🧵1/2 The Guardian columnist who wrote yesterday's op-ed about Trump's executive order reached out to me Friday morning for some "expert commentary." TLDR: I provided her with plenty of scientific evidence/argument/detailed commentary in answer to her questions about Trump's executive order (YES it is scientifically sound) and the idea that everyone starts out female (UNsound). All of that was ignored, which is not unusual. (She did say that she would follow up next week with a more comprehensive piece that might include my perspective...we'll see!) Given how extensive our communications were, I did expect that some of my perspective would be included. But it was the opposite. Here's a sample quote from her piece: "Most scientists now reject the idea that sex is strictly binary. The likes of Nature, possibly one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, has noted that 'the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female'." I know that my expectations were misplaced. I sill need to learn my lesson. I'm sharing some of our correspondence, below, so that you can have some insight into how journalists can select some "experts" over others. Here are her original questions (be sure to read her Guardian article): "Hello, I'm writing a column for the Guardian that touches on Trump's executive order around gender issued on Monday: whitehouse.gov/presidential-… There has been commentary suggesting that the wording of this order technically classifies everyone as a woman. See: "Basically, the early, default configuration of a human foetus is female. If we were to assign a sex at conception as per Trump's executive order, all of them would be female." mashable.com/article/trump-e… I was hoping to get some expert commentary from you on whether 1) that assessment that the EO technically classifies everyone as female is correct. 2) the scientific merits of the EO more generally."
1
15
1,322
Shock! Hannibal Lector defends cannibalism. The Women & Equalities Select Committee held an evidence session regarding the evidence base of puberty suppression for children presenting with gender dysphoria. The session included doctors who were involved in the prescription of these treatments for children over many years. What is most shocking about this is that it is a one-off session. No further evidence sessions will be held. If only there was someone who had spent the last four years investigating this issue from an independent and unbiased perspective(!) In addition, aside from one exception, this evidence session seemed to be filled with MPs who haven’t even bothered to read the Cass Review, given their lack of robust challenge of the witnesses. Where have they been over the last four years! Select Committees are a crucial component of our Parliamentary system, but this was a total wet lettuce. parliamentlive.tv/event/inde…

1
4
604
Even though the constant barrage of dishonest rejection of common sense and scientific understanding from a small minority of extremist TRAs on social media can be profoundly frustrating, it is good to see the population at large appears to reject giving vulnerable children experimental treatments and understands the problem with allowing people born male to compete against people born female in most sports. The damage these extremists have been allowed to perpetuate on children, women and transgender people is scandalous.
2
1
16
588
Let’s do this one more time… The Cass Review wasn’t a study; it wasn’t scholarly research meant for publishing in an academic journal. It was a public policy review. Of course it didn’t go through peer review. Only people who don’t understand what peer review is, or are being incredibly dishonest, make this claim. Importantly, Cass commissioned multiple systematic reviews which did go through peer review and were published in an academic journal. It was the findings of these studies which provided information used to inform the recommendations of the review. When Cass undertook the review, she was a retired well-respected paediatrician who had never worked in gender health care. This meant she was well versed in the healthcare of children, but also completely independent of organisations impacted by the context of the review. Cass had no conflict of interests. It remains remarkable that so much dishonest rhetoric is employed by people who seem desperate to provide children with experimental and potentially risky treatment. One must look at the people that do so with a very careful eye and ask one very simple question… Why?
Cass did a literature review where she and the authors of the literature have massive conflicts of interest. To be taken seriously, literature reviews are customarily published as research in a reputable, peer-reviewed academic journal. That's not the case, rendering her document as no more credible than a blog post. Presumably, Cass knew that her doc could never survive peer-review. Other research that she has done is peer-reviewed, so she knows the system and the implications of not submitting the work to referees.
3
6
28
1,218
Not only is this deeply offensive and dehumanising to people with the conditions Diane has appropriated for her ideological nonsense, it is also a grossly pseudoscientific piffle likely borrowed from the blog of an asset manager. 1/2
The six biological sexes: X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s ) XX – Most common form of female XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter) XY – Most common form of male XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
5
11
930
For the slow ones at the back of the class, shall we recap why only two sexes have evolved? Before the sexes had come into existence sexual reproduction occurred through the syngamy of gametes of similar morphology and function, we call this isogamy. Some unicellular and extremely simple organisms still sexually reproduce through this method. Gamete dimorphism defines sexes, so gametes that are all the same aren’t sexes. Instead, they have mating types. Larger organisms need larger fertilised eggs to store nutrients for early development. The production of larger gametes is expensive, so although it benefits the zygote it also limits the number of gametes an organism can produce. To maximise reproduction, one "mating type" evolved to produce many small gametes that compete to fertilise the larger gametes. The other mating type adapted to produce fewer, nutrient-rich gametes, investing in the quality rather than quantity of offspring. Evolution favours specialisation in gamete sizes, as intermediate-sized gametes (neither small enough to compete effectively nor large enough to nourish the zygote) are less fit which leads to a system with only the small and large gametes – we call these individual strategies male and female, the two sexes. Small gametes compete with other small gametes to fertilise large gametes; the quicker, more efficient, and more quantitative they are they more likely they are to cause fertilisation and establish a new organism. The more energy and nutrients large gametes can contain the more fit they are. Adding a third gamete size/type would face competition from both established types, making it evolutionarily unstable. An intermediate gamete would be simply selected out due to its inability to compete with the large and small gametes. This is about as scientifically nailed on as the existence of gravity or the Copernican model of the universe. academic.oup.com/molehr/arti…
2
1
8
454
For clarity - this was referenced in a thread with Diane today, which is the only reason I was aware of it. I cannot see Diane acknowledging that this is incorrect. x.com/WinnowingWind/status/1…

5
323
Although the phrase “if you have a Y you are a guy” is typically accurate, the process of sex determination in mammals is extremely complicated. Here is an example of a research paper published last month which explores particular genetic elements involved. The Znrf3 gene acts as a regulator in the balance of signals that determine whether the gonads develop into testes or ovaries - it supresses WNT signalling. WNT signalling is part of an active genetic process which leads to ovarian development. In this paper, mice without effective Znrf3 function were compared with genetically normal mice. Those with a loss of Znrf3 had significant disruption to the development of gonadal tissue leading to varying levels of atypicality. journals.biologists.com/dev/…
5
10
667
Cam, which 'intersex' condition do you have?
2
4
499
I am pretty sure the answer is: none.
1
4
484
This makes me feel rather sad.
2
3
579
No one's story should be censored. Some children who present with gender dysphoria will grow up to identify as transgender, but many will not. Some will go down a path they are too young to understand; they shouldn't be subject to unevidenced & risky clinical treatments.
5
427
Sale and supply of puberty blockers via private prescriptions for the treatment of gender dysphoria and gender incongruence to be banned indefinitely in UK for under-18s. It follows a targeted consultation and advice on patient safety from the independent Commission on Human Medicines and Cass Review. Government and NHS continue to improve children’s gender services to provide all-round holistic support Legislation will be updated today to make the order indefinite and will be reviewed in 2027 gov.uk/government/news/ban-o…

1
2
14
626
Ministerial Statement by @wesstreeting and the relevant debate in the House of Commons can be watched here. parliamentlive.tv/event/inde…

1
361
Anyone who disparages the recommendations of the Cass Review is playing a part in the biggest medical scandal of our generation. Dr Olsen-Kennedy (who is currently being investigated by the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability for trying to hide study conclusions which didn’t fit her ideological views on gender affirming care) is facing a medical negligence lawsuit relating to treatment of a vulnerable young child who presented with gender dysphoria. The allegations are almost a paint by numbers of the concerns raised by the Cass Review (which medical practitioners, like Olsen-Kennedy, have tried to disavow). The allegations include: 1. Lack of psychological assessment prior to treatment 2. Premature use of experimental puberty blockers 3. Early prescription of hormones and surgical referrals 4. Failure to address underlying trauma and mental health 5. Mismanagement of the patient’s mental health during treatment 6. Lack of evidence supporting suicide prevention claims This has led to lasting physical and emotional consequences for the vulnerable child who was subject to these disgraceful and abusive treatments. Every single medical practitioner involved in this nefarious activity must be held to account. economist.com/united-states/…

4
5
19
939