@convert – Points 1 and 2, bang on, and 3, I have seen a ted talk like video on that same topic. Was very informative.

@drac Can you provide the evidence it’s false, I mean you must have scientific proof.

You cannot prove a negative. Do I need to quote Russell?
(I know you know this, I think you are just pissing about?)

You cannot prove a negative.

Oh really?

Two positives don’t make a negative?
Yeah right?

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

Now I can’t decide if you deliberately being obtuse, thick or trolling.

Ah! Now you’ve used Wikipedia as your source.

The fact that you would dare to say this means you have not bothered to comprehend a single thing I have written, it show either ridiculous bias for your concept or intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, I understand alright.

Let me put this to you then: What would it take to change your mind?

Oh, I understand alright.

So this doesn’t sound like you have made your mind up in advance at all.

Ah! Now you’ve used Wikipedia as your source.

Not source, as a reference, it is easier than finding out your address and sending a google maps link to your local library. If think you can oppose the last 500 years of thought by proving a negative, go ahead. I’m not going to bother entering into a discussion about it. You are going up against Sagan, Russell, and everything before.

Oh dear me.

Go on then, prove a negative.

If you’re using Russell at least use him in full context. His theory actually goes against your beliefs that it’s not possible. His theory is if we’d been historically told something then we don’t change our minds.

Unicorns don’t exist. No one has ever seen one, there is no physical evidence of them existing. There you go.

Unicorns don’t exist. No one has ever seen one, there is no physical evidence of them existing. There you go.

TBF that doesn’t actually prove anything. But neither does it need to, “Unicorns don’t exist” is the null hypothesis and the onus is to prove that unicorns do exist. That’s my understanding anyway…

TBF that doesn’t actually prove anything. But neither does it need to, “Unicorns don’t exist” is the null hypothesis and the onus is to prove that unicorns do exist. That’s my understanding anyway…

Exactly.

Not at all. They don’t exist and there is no evidence they ever have. Even if there’s many stories telling us they do and did, they simply don’t.

Not at all. They don’t exist and there is no evidence they ever have. Even if there’s many stories telling us they do and did, they simply don’t.

Exactly, to prove a negative, people will ask you to prove unicorns do not exist, there is no evidence that they do not exist (because there is no evidence full stop, you cant show evidence of the non-unicorn).
You have not proven a negative, you have just shown that there is no evidence for the positive (yet).

The same as there is no evidence that you can be born in the wrong body (yet).

You asked

Can you provide the evidence it’s false, I mean you must have scientific proof.

The answer is no, because there is no evidence that it is true. Same as unicorns.

The answer is no, because there is no evidence that it is true. Same as unicorns.

Based on old beliefs of if you have vag you’re a girl and if you have a willy you’re a boy. Then there’s the outdated X and Y gene theory too. Like Russell says you’re basing it on what you’ve always been told and believed. You have evidence that you’re right.

No, that is your assumption about what I think is the state of knowledge.
Also you are unclear about if you refer to bio sex or “born in the wrong body”, you had answered to my statement about born in the wrong body but now it seems you are rereferring to bio sex.

there is no evidence that you can be born in the wrong body.

define evidence?

Is my son’s absolute, deeprooted unhappiness with his AFAB identity, and his slow but daily improvement as the treatments he is now on to masculinise his body start to have an effect – not evidence of some sort? If not then what are we seeing, how do you characterise what is happening?

Yeah definitely trolling.

Is my son’s absolute, deeprooted unhappiness with his AFAB identity, and his slow but daily improvement as the treatments he is now on to masculinise his body start to have an effect – not evidence of some sort? If not then what are we seeing, how do you characterise what is happening?

You seem to think that your sons existence and experience are being denied.
I don’t deny it at all.

Where’s the OP gone? I want to hear more stories about folk changing into their little barista outfits and playing rock/paper/scissors.

Is disappoint.

Getting away from the delightful pedantry of a language discussion for a minute:

I am called a terf because I have yet to see evidence that you can be “born in the wrong body”.

Have you addressed Guevedoces? Surely that must come under the definition of being born in the wrong body?

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

Of course, arguably, most were born in the right body as the majority live out their lives as men but some choose to ‘become’ women.

This is just one example of just how complicated biology can be and how little we still understand of it.

I know you are going to come up with an explanation of how this doesn’t meet your criteria for ‘evidence’ but I am interested in hearing just how you are going to justify disregarding it.

The problem with this issue is that we can’t discuss it without people making accusations of hate or prejudice etc. when in fact many, me included are very interested in the phenomena of gender dysphoria and want to understand it as much as anyone.

Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?

So this doesn’t sound like you have made your mind up in advance at all.

Well done in picking up on the trivial bit of that post and completely ignoring the actual point. Here it is again:

Let me put this to you then: What would it take to change your mind?

 men but some choose to ‘become’ women.

Can they be both or neither? Or some other definition? Do we need to define them at all?

Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?

It’s a medical condition whereby the body doesn’t produce the hormones the brain requires in order to function normally leading to life-threatening symptoms such as depression, dissociation, etc. This can cause severe social problems and sometimes ends with suicide.

I can’t describe what it must feel like because I have absolutely no idea. However, just because I have no idea what someone else feels doesn’t mean I disregard those feelings.

Are unicorns the new black swans?

Can they be both or neither? Or some other definition? Do we need to define them at all?

I have no idea what you are talking about now.

Do Guevedoces fit your definition of being born in the wrong body or not. If not, why not?

Two positives don’t make a negative?

2 wrongs don’t make a right.

But 3 lefts do.

That’s just roundaboutery.

Are unicorns the new black swans?

No, they both are rather well defined, and those definitions are rather different.

Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?

It’s a medical condition whereby the body doesn’t produce the hormones the brain requires in order to function normally leading to life-threatening symptoms such as depression, dissociation, etc. This can cause severe social problems and sometimes ends with suicide.

Do all people who have whatever hormonal condition you’re referring to tend to gender dysphoria and depression etc? Or just some? Do all people who tend to gender dysphoria have whatever hormonal condition? Or just some? Answer: just some. So can we take the “medical condition” bit out of it? It might be some people will benefit from medical treatment for dysphoria and fair enough, but many others can happily self identify and be accepted without this. What works best – ie makes people happier with their lives – can be investigated empirically and that’s what matters, not endocrine whatever.

Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?

Not easily – no; in fact in some ways as a phrase when unpicked it’s actually unhelpful. Because he only has one body and so how can it be the wrong one? In fact, ‘rejection’ of that body (which does happen, believe me) leads to further psychological damage. But the reality – that the identity assigned to the external characteristics of that body (breasts, genitalia, periods, etc.) do not match the identity of the whole spiritual being – all of us are far more than our external / physical presence. That’s very real.

So it’s a phrase that is kind of shorthand for the whole manifestations of gender dysphoria in all its glory rather than a precise medical definition. And one that is increasingly falling out of favour in the TG community.

So can we take the “medical condition” bit out of it?

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition.

Being born in the wrong body isn’t. However, it’s a phrase commonly used by people with gender dysphoria to describe their condition.

If there is some other definition you want to use for ‘being born in the wrong body’ then go ahead but for us to discuss it you’ll have to define exactly what you mean by it.

Cougar

Full Member

That’s just roundaboutery.

👏👏👏

Not easily – no; in fact in some ways as a phrase when unpicked it’s actually unhelpful. Because he only has one body and so how can it be the wrong one? In fact, ‘rejection’ of that body (which does happen, believe me) leads to further psychological damage. But the reality – that the identity assigned to the external characteristics of that body (breasts, genitalia, periods, etc.) do not match the identity of the whole spiritual being – all of us are far more than our external / physical presence. That’s very real.

So it’s a phrase that is kind of shorthand for the whole manifestations of gender dysphoria in all its glory rather than a precise medical definition. And one that is increasingly falling out of favour in the TG community.

Ok this makes the most sense, I think I 100% agree with this.. And is what I have wanted to drag out since the beginning.
Hence my original statement, one cannot be born in the wrong body, feels right, because, the statement actually has no meaning. Hence no evidence.

But – one can reject the idea of a gendered body and appearance etc. There is loads of evidence for this i.e. all the people who have gender dysphoria and other associated conditions. Do we all agree about that?

@brucewee – I can’t define it, I don’t think it is definable, hence why I have been rejecting it all along.

t might be some people will benefit from medical treatment for dysphoria and fair enough, but many others can happily self identify and be accepted without this. What works best – ie makes people happier with their lives – can be investigated empirically and that’s what matters, not endocrine whatever.

Johnx agree also.

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition

It’s a “term to describe a sense of unease”

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/#:~:text=Gender%20dysphoria%20is%20a%20term,harmful%20impact%20on%20daily%20life.

It’s a “term to describe a sense of unease”

It has diagnosis criteria. It has medical treatment. Left untreated it can lead to people killing themselves so I’m comfortable calling it a medical condition.

Up until 2013 it was called gender identity disorder but that was changed because of the stigma attached to the word disorder.

It seems that by trying to reduce the stigma that has made it a non-disease in your eyes. Trans people just can’t catch a break, can they?

Anyway, I don’t think anyone wanted ‘being born in the wrong body’ to be rigidly classed and defined. It’s just a way for people suffering from gender dysphoria to try to describe what it feels like.

However, since it’s being weaponised by transphobes I can see why many transgender people are no longer using it.

However, since it’s being weaponised by transphobes I can see why many transgender people are no longer using it.

It has been weaponised by everyone, hence why I want it to be sorted out. It has always had a nonsense value and I don’t think it serves the people who experience gender dysphoria.

It has been weaponised by everyone,

No, it started as a way for people with gender dysphoria to explain the condition in a way that non-sufferers could relate to.

Then the demands came to ‘define’ it rather than just try to understand it. From there it was used as a way to try to discredit gender dysphoria in general.

If you can explain how both sides weaponised the term I’d be interested in hearing how, exactly.

It seems impossible to talk about anything on here without you lot getting irritated.
You just seem to think I am “anti trans” or even a “transphobe” just because I am interested in understanding it.