fffs

It's because this is a fundamental redefinition of the difference between women and men, one which seriously disadvantages women. When this ideological stance of "trans women are women" is enacted into law and imposed as policy, it has the effect of eradicating female-only spaces, forcing women to accept any man who purports to be a woman in these spaces. This is good enough reason to oppose it.

This doesn't really address the criticism, for several reasons:

1. Males who identify as women are a heterogenous group that mostly consist of those who have not undergone the 'whole transition' (by which I assume you mean the cosmetic surgery on their genitals, alongside long-term hormonal intervention), with a significant proportion having no intention of doing so. Notably this group includes many males who do not pass as women at all, and who do not seem to put much effort into achieving that aim. Yet still insist that they should have access to women's single-sex spaces based on their 'gender identity'.

2. Women's bathrooms aren't the only single-sex space that males who identify as women desire to enter. Others include: prisons, locker rooms, refuges from domestic abuse and sexual violence, nude spas, sports competitions, support groups for issues that only apply to the female body like pregnancy, menstruation and menopause. Essentially any single-sex space may be coveted by these males.

3. It isn't sufficient to consider this issue only from the perspective of these males and the fulfillment of their desires. The women who these single-sex spaces are actually intended for, and who need these spaces for various reasons including safety, dignity and privacy, must be recognised too, and really should be the group centred in any discussion of this.

Also regarding the objection to 'misgendering': this is another example of how women's spaces are imposed upon by these males. In this case, attempting to occupy the same linguistic space, and by doing so, removing language that may be used to distinguish them in discussions such as this.

> And trans people, why do people feel the need to criticize them? Let them be who they are, they're not harming anyone.

The criticism is this: a woman's right to a single-sex spaces cannot co-exist with the desire of a male to enter these spaces based on his claims of 'gender identity'. When the desires of the latter are prioritised above the needs of the former, this causes actual harm.

Indeed, I feel especially honoured that you laboured over so many paragraphs, in all their verbosity, to dismiss an opinion that means almost nothing to you.

I found your response very amusing, though perhaps not in a way you would appreciate. Thank you for taking the time to write all that out for my enjoyment.

Okay then, if you've read her work - which by that I assume you mean her book on this topic, and perhaps some of her articles as well - which aspects of it do you consider pseudo-scientific, and why?

I placed it in quotes because I see it as a disputed concept that not everyone considers to be valid, and which doesn't even have a consistent definition amongst those who do. The main problem being that it conflates knowledge of one's own sex with a desire to be the opposite sex.

The brain scan research, like the paper you cited, seeks neural correlates for a very strong desire to be the opposite sex, such a strong desire that the subject seeks medical treatment to change their appearance - which isn't really the same thing as having a 'gender identity'. Interestingly, homosexuality is also linked to sex-atypical brain structures, and in studies where this factor is controlled for, the structural differences seen in brains of gender dysphorics all but disappear. Curiously, what is seen instead are alterations in brain networks that mediate body perception, somewhat like what is seen in anorexics (though, by contrast, we don't label them as having a dissonant 'size identity' or anything like that).

I see women's rights as being distinct from and in conflict with 'trans rights', and don't really understand what you mean when you say they are the same on an ideological and philosophical level - could you explain further please?

If you're going to comment critically on her work, maybe it would be best for you to read it yourself and form your own evaluation? Seems rather odd for you to be expressing this incuriously critical opinion from such a position of ignorance.

She's not stating anything pseudoscientific, nor anything that has been debunked. Quite the opposite really. Her work is meticulously well researched and she takes a satisfyingly rational and critical approach in elucidating her viewpoints.

That commenter above that you refer to is quite simply incorrect. I suspect he's not read any of her work and is speaking only from artefacts of his own imagination.

She's said a fair bit on the topic of DSDs, for example these tweets:

- https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1488064619428122625

- https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1496033865047150593

- https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1659205823565008897

And in her book, mostly relating to category eligibility policy in competitive sports. Also in some interviews, along the same lines as the above.

> Is your point that you alone can stare down medical science and proclaim that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and aromatase deficiency don't exist?

That's not what she is saying at all.