Shit like this always cracks me up. I have a fairly robust set of biology quals (up to phd in genetics), and watching these loons butcher the field is a hoot. Even with relatively simply traits our understanding of the mechanistic processes that generate them is still in its infancy. Heck we still aren't entirely sure how human height comes about beyond knowing that probably 500-800 genes are involved, after the guts of 200 years of study.
The casual nature with which they draw on biological processes to support arguments is stunningly naive. You can't just regurgitate buzz phrases from cell signalling, epigenetics etc and suddenly will knowledge into existence. This can only happen with study which won't happen for three primary reasons I think. Firstly no sane researcher in their right mind would touch this with a twenty foot pole... it is too niche and affects too few people; secondly to produce reliable results would require a longitudinal study the like of which would be unthinkably expensive given the base rate of troonism; thirdly can anyone serious suggest a mechanism for how this might come about outside of social conditioning? isn't it obvious given that it only really occurs in humans.
Take something like the EPICN, which was a study involving 500,000 people, the conclusions drawn are not half a certain as our deluded troon and that's with actual data. Or even look at the molecular mechanism of type II diabetes... we certainly know the gross causation, but the mode of action is by no means known in the conventional sense of the word, certainly not enough to make robust predictions on a case by case basis. It is still a hotly researched topic, no doubt in part due to the huge benefits that occur once it is resolved and more effective drugs can be developed.
That a single hormone can have such broad ranging only positive effects, when not 10 years ago we were (and still are) deeply concerned about the distinctly known negative effects that endrocrine disruption has on healthy bodies.
I know these folk are more likely to have comorbidities of ASD, ADHD, NPD etc, but can we through Dunning-Kruger into the mix too?
The funny thing is, the tranny making that post completely fucked up their argument in the third part. Let's put aside their non-sequitur of "hormone signalling activating female phenotypes in DNA" (as if that changes you having a
male karyotype in that same DNA) and deconstruct the last part:
if trans women are not women bc we are assigned male at birth, then are women who are forced into an upbringing they did not want against their will less women? if a cis woman was forced to undergo a testosterone puberty that she dreaded and forced to behave as a man which she resented, would she be less of a woman?
Firstly, calling sex "assigned" is misleading because it's an immutable trait of humans. It doesn't change. A woman entering menopause and needing estrogen supplements is still a woman by virtue of sex. A man who has testicular cancer, has both testes removed and needs supplemental testosterone is still male in terms of sex. If somebody is born outside a hospital with no doctor to "assign" their sex they will still be male or female. It is ultimately a fixed trait we are born with.
I know trans communities like to say "assigned gender", but considering this dude is talking about "phenotypes" which are inherently sex-specific, I'll wager this is not about the vague concept of "gender", but sex.
Secondly, what exactly is this point supposed to prove? A woman is still a woman despite getting cross-sex hormones and behaving like a man? No shit! It's almost like messing with your endocrine system and inauthentic behaviour isn't going to change your biology. Was he trying to prove his own point wrong?
Thirdly, I'm gonna make the assumption that he was trying to save his ass with the "against their will" and "forced" parts. Like there's any difference between the two. Newsflash: whether you self-ID as the other sex or not, you're not going to magically transform into it from hormones and behaviour. Whether a woman dreads taking testosterone or not, it won't change the act of taking it into anything more. A Gayden is still as much a woman as a female athlete practicing doping.
So yeah, he couldn't even make his story straight. His first two points are also bullshit and need not even be mentioned, but this one is just funny. A woman forced into what he described is not less of a woman, much like he is not any less of a man for fucking up his hormonal balance, behaving as a sexist stereotype or (possibly) getting a bunch of futile elective surgeries. YWNBAW.
