Not wholly sure I believe this

An academic study in the Netherlands found that roughly 5% of the population falls under the “transgender” umbrella, comprising 1% who are assigned male at birth identifying as girls/women, and vice versa; and 4% whose identities are between or outside the gender binary, that is “non-binary” individuals, who often use the pronoun “they’’; and “non-gender” people who may use the pronoun “per”.

I have a feeling that we’re getting tied up in definitions here. Stonewall used to say that 10% of the population is gay on the basis that that’s about the number who have had a same sex sexual experience. Once. Gay as in overwhelming preference for same sex activity is more like 1-2%.

When we say trans do we mean someone having the (or “a” given the variety possibly) op, our friend Mark who knows but regards the surgery as barbaric, or the rugby club dressing up as Japanese schoolgirls on the pub crawl?

39 comments on “Not wholly sure I believe this

  1. I assert the right to self-identify as a squirrel. And to have that identity celebrated!

    Unite against sciuridophobia!

  2. I once dressed up as Robert Smith for a party with a wig and lipstick. I daresay I’m probably really transgender 🙂

  3. Its lying leftist propaganda bullshit.

    “I’m not sure I believe it “. Come on Tim–you know very well it is leftshite.

  4. More like the 1%. Also, not everyone who is on the Trans spectrum wants to transition. It’s a pretty extreme option, having to undergo invasive surgery and loss of fertility and a lifetime of hormones and for MtF having to use a stent on a regular basis to keep the artificial vagina from closing up.

    They are widening the definition here to include feminine males and masculine females who do not necessarily identify as Trans. Also, crossdressers do not necessarily identify as trans either.

  5. I’m not sure that noisily and falsely claiming large numbers is in their best interest. Most of us just roll our eyes and think: here’s another group wanting to curtail our freedoms in some way and dip in to our wallets to pay for their lifestyle.

    Much better, imo, to claim small numbers who want to be part of society but need some help. If it isn’t seen as costing much its more likely to be met with a bit of sympathy, or maybe just a shrug, and at least get a hearing.

  6. I guess if they’re counting anyone who’s ever been jealous of the light summer clothes the ladies wear in the summer while they’re sweltering in a suit or “smart casual”, then maybe……

  7. I guess the phrase “we are the 99%” isn’t so politlcally correct here.

  8. Squirrel in Germany – “I guess the phrase “we are the 99%” isn’t so politlcally correct here.”

    More like the 99.99%. The number of British transsexuals is in the low thousands.

    Although quite why the majority should be berated and humiliated to support the delusions of that tiny number escapes me. If transsexuals have a problem with society I can think of various solutions that put the appropriate weight on the right numbers.

  9. It’s bullshit of course and like so much of this bullshit is designed simply to part stupid governments from their money.

    If there’s a handful of trans people, then there’s no justification for grants and jollies but pretend millions of trannies means real millions of cash.

    The solution is of course to refuse to talk about gender in relation to human beings – the whole concept is social science nonsense.

  10. “We were all ‘GAY’ in 1966”

    We (Sgts Mess) dined out a Brigadier who was retiring in 1986. His speech went something like:
    I grew up in a time when gay meant happy and [aids] were something Generals had.

  11. This is actually bigger and more important than it seems.

    It is also being used by the post-modernists to create another victim group to fight against oppression.

    Across the pond it is being used to fight ‘normality, heteros, the ‘patriarchy’ and everything else. The destruction of Western society being the final objective. (Watch Jordan Peterson).

    The numbers are not real and a large proportion (of a very small number) of trans-people are not happy with the intrumentalisation that is being made of them by their self-appointed ‘representatives’.

  12. Re: “I guess the phrase “we are the 99%” isn’t so politlcally correct here.”

    Corbyn keeps banging on about “for the many, not the few”

    Does that mean he’s against minorities?

  13. It’s bullshit of course and like so much of this bullshit is designed simply to part stupid governments from their money

    It’s bullshit of course and like so much of this bullshit is designed simply to part indifferent governments from our money.

  14. It’s still not easy being a trans child. This is what schools can do to help.

    They can stop pandering to kids’ every whim, for a start.

    One striking fact in recent surveys of self-reported otherness is that the rates are much higher amongst the under-25s than in the rest of the population. Normally we’d expect fewer under-25s to be other: many LGBT people only come out later in life. Unless there’s a serious problem with oestrogen-mimicking chemicals in the environment, the rate of otherness amonst the young should be lower than that of the rest of the population.

  15. “Gay as in overwhelming preference for same sex activity is more like 1-2%.”

    Supporting data please.

  16. Jeisus….hormone blockers for kids? I’d need strong evidence that this is better for the kid than a pretty stern this is how it’s going to be until you’re 18 kid, when you’re 18 do what you like.

  17. There is much confusion in matters concerning sex (not least the widespread incorrect use of ‘gender’ to mean ‘sex’).

    You have only to visit the tuberous thread that Tim referenced yesterday to see a glaring example.

    Someone (from here no doubt) has posted as Punam Christay which transliterates as:

    “Murphy is a cant”

    – which, if true, is nothing more or less than what many have always suspected.

  18. When I was a teenager, I regularly had homosexual experiences. Every Saturday evening, we’d watch Larry Grayson in the Generation Game-

  19. @JohnB: I don’t know Tim’s source for sure, but it may well be from the ONS.
    @Hallowed Be: Hormone blockers for kids is child abuse.

  20. Hormone blockers? One state in Canada will now remove your children if you do not agree to castration.

  21. Just taking a step back for a second, what is the margin of error on this data? Currently, there is around a 10% gap between the highest and lowest reported likely margin of victory in the UK election on Thursday, depending on which polling firm you ask.
    This is comparative easy data to get out of people, and yet the range of uncertainty is such as to make the data almost useless. Apply the same 10% margin of error to this data, and it’s basically telling us that between 0-10% of the population are transsexuals (which isn’t exactly going to be news).

  22. “Murphy is a cant”

    @TMB thanks for that. I had it as Satanic Murphy which didn’t quite fit in the usual mold.

  23. the rugby club dressing up as Japanese schoolgirls on the pub crawl?

    You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. I have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar of my desk.

  24. Classic chapter heading in the ONS document PeteC references:

    Males are more likely to identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than females

    I wonder how many males identify as lesbian?

  25. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468

    Sex/gender differences in the brain are of high social interest because their presence is typically assumed to prove that humans belong to two distinct categories not only in terms of their genitalia, and thus justify differential treatment of males and females. Here we show that, although there are sex/gender differences in brain and behavior, humans and human brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our results demonstrate that regardless of the cause of observed sex/gender differences in brain and behavior (nature or nurture), human brains cannot be categorized into two distinct classes: male brain/female brain.

    They say in the body of the paper “Thirty-five percent of brains showed substantial variability, and only 6% of brains were internally consistent (see Table 1 for more details).” That implies that 94% of brains had at least some features more commonly associated with the opposite sex.

    I find it constantly fascinating how people, on being shown data that contradicts their beliefs, conclude that their beliefs were obviously right all along and the data can only be the result of a Communist Plot.

    Principled scepticism about surprising data is a good thing, of course, but if there is literally nothing that can change your mind, that makes your beliefs unfalsifiable. In the philosophy of science, that’s a Bad Thing.

    As Cromwell said to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

  26. Of course it’s a matter of definition, and by any reasonable definition of gender-adjectives like masculine and feminine, none of us (perhaps barring the very occasional extreme outlier*) are wholly one or the other.

    [*Anyone who’s 100% hypermasculine is going to be gay, right? Even Hafpor Bjornsson likes watching Disney films with his daughter…]

    Having a face bare of hair is a feminine attribute. Every man who shaves is being slightly feminine in that sense. Musculature is a masculine attribute. Every woman with more than the very minimum of muscle structure needed to hold herself upright is somewhat masculine.

    Frankly, the concepts are nonsense.

  27. @ Dave
    NOT by any reasonable definition – only by an UNreasonable definition.

    PS women have eyebrows; having a *chest* bare of hair is a feminine characteristic; I am not being feminine when I shave – I am being neat, tidy and hygienic.Tidiness is not a feminine characteristic.

  28. NiV – “I find it constantly fascinating how people, on being shown data that contradicts their beliefs, conclude that their beliefs were obviously right all along and the data can only be the result of a Communist Plot.”

    Some of us can recognise the limits of science and scientists’ knowledge when we see it. Others peer through the glass darkly and because it agrees with their prejudices think it is Holy Writ.

    This is clearly Scientific Bullsh!t of the first order. They have invented some classifications of a poor understood science in order to further their agenda. They may be right. They may be wrong. They are probably full of it. Either way, it would take strong evidence to over-ride the every day lived experience of 7 billion people. They and you do not have it.

  29. “They say in the body of the paper “Thirty-five percent of brains showed substantial variability, and only 6% of brains were internally consistent (see Table 1 for more details).” That implies that 94% of brains had at least some features more commonly associated with the opposite sex.”

    What that’s telling me is the classifications they’re using to differentiate between male & female brains don’t reflect reality. And wouldn’t be the first time somebody’s thesis turned out to be bollocks.

  30. “What that’s telling me is the classifications they’re using to differentiate between male & female brains don’t reflect reality.”

    What aspect of reality don’t they reflect, and what’s your evidence for it?

    What they did was to identify a number of anatomical features, and pick out those that occurred in one sex more than the other significantly more than chance could explain. If a feature occurs in 90% of females and 5% of males, it’s clearly a sex-linked feature. But if you find 20 such features, then the odds of a female having all of them will be only 0.9^20 = 12%, and the odds of a male having none of them will be 0.95^20 = 35%.

    The point is that sex-linked anatomical features are not perfectly implemented, but have a 1%-10% failure rate.

    Anyone who has worked in a factory knows there is always a non-zero defect rate, because it’s simply not worth the from-99%-to-100% improvement in output to implement the sort of expensive measures you’d need to achieve it. It’s far cheaper to throw away a few defects than to introduce super-expensive NASA-style SIL-4 safety-critical quality control measures.

    The same economics applies to biology, too. Why is this so surprising?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.