From a commentator called Dunno:
Sex determination in humans is complicated. Most of our 20,000 genes have switches on them that allow them to work in ‘male’ and ‘female’ modes, in response to chemical signals. The idea is that a Y chromosome triggers the development of testes, which release hydroxytestosterone in the womb, which triggers the release of more sex hormones, signalling proteins, structural changes, which changes what signals those organs produce, and so on in a tree-like cascade throughout the body. Each bit of the body plan is switched to one design or the other, from bone growth to hair follicles to genital structure to brown fat deposits to brain structure. For example, which sex you are attracted to is obviously a sex-linked function of the brain that is hardwired in. And there are plenty of others. Personality traits. Talents. Introversion/extroversion. Risk-taking. Nurturing. Promiscuity. The ability to read a map. The ability to ask for directions. As our bodies are different, so are our brains. The brain is just another organ, after all.
But nature is messy and imperfect. So a lot of those ‘switches’ are broken. They’re jammed ‘on’, or jammed ‘off’, or missing entirely, or mutated to do something different and not have the intended effect. A lot of the time this doesn’t matter. So the sex-linking of gene activity and anatomical structure is statistical. Some features appear in 99.99% of one sex and 0.01% of the other. Some features appear in 99%, or 90%, or 70%, or some similar number. They’re clearly sex-linked, but there are an awful lot of people with the ‘wrong’ version. Like – men are taller than women, but there are short men and tall women and the distributions overlap. And even for the 99% sex-linked genes, about 1% of them occur in the ‘wrong’ version. With 10,000 genes, it’s pretty much certain that everyone has a mixture, and some small fraction of the population are more of a mixture than most.
So, the theory is that homosexuality, for example, isn’t a mental illness/delusion, but a case of the ‘wrong’ sexual attraction module in the brain being installed. Males get the female version, or vice versa. It’s not a matter of opinion or belief – you’re hardwired to be attracted to a particular sex, you don’t have a choice, you can’t be persuaded otherwise, and it’s biologically normal for this sort of thing to happen. To evolution, a 99% success rate is good enough. Perfection is expensive, so it’s better to make them cheap and throw the rejects away than implement an extremely expensive manufacturing process with fewer rejects.
It’s biologically entirely possible for the effect to be asymmetric. You can get a characteristic appear in 99% of males and 5% of females, for example.
It’s also possible that the difference is social. There’s a lot of social pressure to conform, and that pressure may be stronger on one sex than the other. It used to be that women with short hair wearing trousers and going to work were seen to be as aberrant as men with long hair in dresses and doing housework. Women had a revolution, and men didn’t. It could be that girls feel more able to express a male-like social persona in public than boys do vice versa because of that.
And of course it’s also possible for people to pretend to have medical conditions they don’t, because it’s fashionable, or it gets them sympathy and support, or it’s more socially privileged, or to claim welfare and other advantages. I’ve noticed it’s currently fashionable to claim to be on the autism ‘spectrum’. That doesn’t mean autism isn’t a thing, biologically speaking. But a lot of people are clearly not, and are just making excuses for personal advantage.
So it should be entirely legitimate to question whether any particular person or group of people have a particular medical condition, without necessarily denying that the condition exists.
The basic problem is intolerance. People used to be intolerant of homosexuality. Then we were persuaded that it was biologically natural and shouldn’t be persecuted. So we switched to being intolerant of ‘homophobes’ and persecuting them instead. The particular issue we’re being intolerant about is irrelevant – race, sex, gender, religion, nationality, football team, geekiness, whatever – some people just feel the need to define what other people are allowed to be and do and believe and enforce their opinions by unlimited nastiness. Fashions in what is enforced change, but human nature remains the same. ‘Wokeness’ and ‘political incorrectness’ are just the same tribal intolerances they’re supposedly trying to eliminate, rebranded. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.
It’s the general, abstract “tyranny of the majority” that you have to fight. We don’t care about the reason. We need to learn to let other people get on with their own lives, without feeling the need to interfere, or tell them what they are required to or not allowed to believe or do. If women want to go around in trousers – it does no harm to anyone else. If people want to express their opinion that women should not be bifurcated in public – it does no harm to anyone else. So what if other people don’t agree or don’t like it? It’s a free country.
Remarkably sensible. So, everyone should see it, not just those following that comment stream.
“We need to learn to let other people get on with their own lives, without feeling the need to interfere, or tell them what they are required to or not allowed to believe or do.”
Most of learned to do this years ago. This is why I thought that the trans lobby was pushing at an open door. If you want to live your life pretending to be the opposite sex, most people are totallly indifferent, they really don’t care. But no, that’s not enough, you are expected to state hand on heart that you believe that trans women are really women and trans men are really men, nothing less is acceptable. Of course, if this were actually true, the word trans in this case would be redundant.
I like to go to the expert on tranny business, Our Carrie:
the leading lights of the UK anti-trans mob and their pet journalists are celebrating the inauguration of Trump and downplaying or making jokes about copying Elon Musk’s nazi salutes. In particular they’re celebrating the newly signed executive order designed to drive trans people out of society
How unfathomably based. Ave, Musky.
The executive order is a mess, of course, bigoted, and often horrendously unscientific.
Men who dress up as their estranged wife are experts on science.
That’s not an accident. It’s because the people writing Trump’s policy are also coming for abortion and contraception and women’s rights, like they’ve been promising they would for the best part of a decade now, like we’ve been trying to tell you for the same period of time.
Oh well, Kamala lost.
Chase Strangio, writing in TIME:
Chase Stranglio (lol) is a woman pretending to be a man, who named herself after a character on Paw Patrol. It’s mental, this stuff:
It might be easy for people to dismiss the impacts of sweeping anti-transgender policies since, despite this outsized fixation we provoke in our opponents, we only represent .6% of the U.S. population.
The Tranny Clown nose: Trans Rights are Human Rights, so you better redefine the entire basis of society itself RIGHT NOW or else go to prison for discrimination and trannyphobia, bigots, BUUUT….
As soon as they’re losing – clown nose off – they’re just a tiny minority and why are you OBSESSED with them, bigots?
However, none of these rhetorical, political, or legal attacks on transgender people will ultimately end with us. The anti-trans rhetoric that fueled the 2024 elections was accompanied by a larger message about how men and women are supposed to act, live, and raise families.
This is a woman, pretending to be a man, pretending to know how families are raised.
Anyway, the tranny will always tell you what happened to him. But he’ll never tell you why.
Rape, Murder, Leprosy and AIDS are entirely natural; does that mean we should tolerate them too?
We need to learn to let other people get on with their own lives, without feeling the need to interfere, or tell them what they are required to or not allowed to believe or do.
To an extent.
However there have to be limits for the good of both the individual and society.
We don’t encourage and tolerate people with anorexia or bulemia.
“You go girl! Skip that breakfast! Puke up that lunch! Show the world you’re strong and brave by starving yourself! You’re beautiful as a 3 stone skeletal adult!”
We don’t give them liposuction to help them in their delusion that they’re fat.
Society is helping the individual and wider society by discouraging and treating this behaviour.
Yet somehow we’re meant to celebrate trannys.
“You go girlboy! Chop bits of yourself off and have them reattached! Condemn yourself to a life of hormones and medical complications requiring intervention!”
Somehow that’s different.
We’re not helping either the individual or society. We’re opening them up to further risk. The individual suffers with the lifetime of medical problems (especially if they change their mind). Society suffers as we open the door to allowing perverts who will take advantage to go into the women’s bathrooms.
Any healthy society discourages unhealthy behaviours. The worse the behaviour is for both the individual and society, the more it has to be discouraged.
Let’s say that trannydom is an issue with wiring, as you say. Then it has to be treated with therapy, helping them to accept their situation and reality. We don’t have the medical technology currently to do anything more than turn the unfortunates into pale facsimiles of the other gender that will be rejected by those in search of a mate , nor do we have sufficient technology to determine with 100% accuracy if the bad wiring is the case or it has been misdiagnosed. And since we can’t be 100% sure, then it is immoral to subject someone to such drastic irreversible treatments like those in gender transition surgeries.
As Bob Hope said: “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”
Many on here talk about the slippery slope, and homosexuality / trans/et al have shown they have a point. It started out with ‘I just want to life my life without fear and prejudice’ and we now have ‘If you don’t allow me into womens’ toilets / changing rooms i’ll sue’.
And while Dunno makes a good case for it being ‘natural’, it doesn’t make it ‘normal’.
p.s. Iran have just decreed that it is legal for a girl of 9 years old to be married…………
But trannies don’t just let others get on with their lives, and Dunno nos that. It’s the argument ad ignorantium.
“We need to learn to let other people get on with their own lives, without feeling the need to interfere, or tell them what they are required to or not allowed to believe or do.”
Why? Tolerance?
Past few decades there been – it’s best called a fashion – for tolerance. The only intolerance that acceptable is intolerance for intolerance.
So like everything else, that creates a market. People or behaviours to be tolerant about. And the benefit to the tolerated is you get yourself “celebrated”.
Seems to work for immigration, doesn’t it? The more immigrants arrive the greater the opportunities to demonstrate tolerance. The least actually tolerable they are the more Brownie points you get.
While Dunno is indeed being sensible, he forgets that we live in ClownWorld and that rational thought is strictly forbidden.
I have long believed in the ‘wiring’ theory to explain such things as homosexuality or trannydom. It is a random and probably unstoppable process. Therapy or counselling, is I think, treating this as a medical condition, when in fact it is simply a mental switch, as Dunno puts it.
In many cases in the report, though,, the switch is not really ‘on’ and as some here have pointed out, it is an aberration caused by peer pressure or depression or something external. Anorexia and related illnesses are often of the same stem.
My belief ? If someone over 18 wants to be mutilated, let them, but they do it on their own dollar and at a private hospital. The state and thus the taxpayer should not be expected to shoulder their burden.
Yes, Dunno talks a lot of sense, but he uses loose and vague terminology when venturing beyond science…
which sex you are attracted to is obviously a sex-linked function of the brain that is hardwired in…the theory is that homosexuality, for example, isn’t a mental illness/delusion, but a case of the ‘wrong’ sexual attraction module in the brain being installed.
What does “hardwired” mean precisely here? And is it “obvious”? Some hetero and homosexuals can change sexual orientation…and there are bisexuals…and heterosexuals deprived of pussy/cock can temporarily change orientation…
People used to be intolerant of homosexuality. Then we were persuaded that it was biologically natural and shouldn’t be persecuted. So we switched to being intolerant of ‘homophobes’
What does “biologically natural” mean here? The word ‘natural’, apparently, has at least 20+ senses in various contexts. If homosexuality is caused by in utero fluctuations in hormones causing some epigenetic ‘switches’ to fail, then homosexuality is a disorder and in principle it could be prevented – thus preventing a lot of human misery!
you’re hardwired to be attracted to a particular sex, you don’t have a choice, you can’t be persuaded otherwise, and it’s biologically normal for this sort of thing to happen.
Are homosexuals “hardwired” to be homosexual? And is their disorder “biologically normal”? Heterosexuals will occasionally choose to be attracted to the same sex. Some societies have a boys-for-pleasure-women-for-children approach to sex. And whatever happened to free will, or are we genetically determined?
This is the root of communism, and other totalitarian regimes. They hate freedom. So much, they will sacrifice their own freedom to keep others from having it. So much, they will live in dystopian poverty, so long as everyone else does.
Excellent insight from Dunno. I have saved a copy.
While Dunno explains what’s going on in the body it quite well it still doesn’t get us away from the fact that perverts and other bad faith actors have jumped on the band wagon and we have a duty to protect women and children from them and also to protect children from themselves.
I’ve mentioned before listening a few years to a transwoman who lived in California who explained the problems she faced in everyday live, this was just as the whole issue was blowing up. She just wanted to get on quietly with her life, she’d had the full operation and appeared to be no threat to anyone and I have a lot of sympathy for her.
Life can be shit but if it means there are a few things she and others like her can’t do in order to protect women and children then so be it. As far as I’m concerned as a minimum it means no pre op trans women in women’s prisons, rape crisis centres etc, no under 18s being exposed to any for of body or mind altering “treatments” and no born men in women’s sports above the age of about 10 when puberty is starting to kick in.
“We need to learn to let other people get on with their own lives, without feeling the need to interfere, or tell them what they are required to or not allowed to believe or do
Absolutely. Let’s start by not telling tomboys that they are male, gay lads that they are female and sending them down the path of drugs and surgical mutilation.
Don’t be confused by the pseudo-scientific blather or the false equivalence with homosexuality. “Trans kids” are confused teens exploited by perverts and doctors with a god-complex. If left alone they would grow up to be normal men and women. They might be gay or straight, they might be a bit camp or a bit butch, but they would be men or women, because that’s all there is. (Apart from the tiny minority of unfortunate intersex people and that’s another red herring).
Regarding Tim’s earlier item, the reason that more teenage girls claim to be trans is because being a teenage girl, with radical physical changes and the often unwanted attentions of boys, is really hard. It must be even harder now, with so many porn-addled teenage boys. Which is why some take refuge in convincing themselves they are boys. And of course they are also under attack from oh so rational and helpful people like ‘Dunno’, who say they should just be who they “really” are, even if that requires the surgeon’s knife.
Otto – It is a random and probably unstoppable process
The main factor in the rise of middle aged heterosexual men becoming laydeez is the rise of the internet and internet porn.
We didn’t have these problems in 1992, because you couldn’t wank yourself into living your fetish 24/7 in 1992*, and the NHS wasn’t a National Fetish Service in them days.
Not sure if that makes the problem easier to solve, but the Internet and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
*Maybe just a quick one if Jet was on Gladiators.
The issue is the large percentage of people of a certain group demanding not just tolerance but complete support from everyone while simultaneously acting like dangerously crazy loons.
Other members of their group just get on with life and their struggle for tolerance is being undercut by the loud clowns in their midst.
Wake up, Dunno is NiV deploying a bit of entryism.
The basic problem is intolerance. People used to be intolerant of homosexuality. Then we were persuaded that it was biologically natural and shouldn’t be persecuted. So we switched to being intolerant of ‘homophobes’ and persecuting them instead.
This is a childlike view of history, assuming that all values are if not equal then at least fungible and that the real problem is “intolerance”.
British society used to respect and celebrate good values: duty, restraint, family and Christianity. By doing so, we manifested a healthy society that was able to reproduce itself. Now it celebrates evil, and people are surprised to see British society shriveling up and dying like a cocaine addict’s gums.
The problem isn’t intolerance, it’s that we’re not intolerant enough of things that are intolerable. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to think being “tolerant” is an acceptable substitute for destroying evil. If we were faithful to God, we wouldn’t be “nice”, it’s better to be good.
People used to be intolerant of homosexuality. Then we were persuaded that it was biologically natural and shouldn’t be persecuted. …What does “biologically natural” mean here?
To answer that, you’d need to get culture out of the way. In which, what are you left with?
In relationships with other people one might desire
1) Companionship. There no reason to expect a sexual preference apart from same sex might have more in common.
2) Reproductive opportunity. That definitely requires the opposite sex.
3) Pleasure. Sex is usually better in company. It’s hard to why a preference for either sex would “wired in”.
Pair bonding might be an advantageous reproductive strategy. But is there any reason to think it is in humans? It’s not exactly universal, is it? And animals that pair bond are not usually cooperative outside of the bonding.
Odd thing is, what’s probably not “wired in” is heterosexuality. There’s no particular advantage to it. But nor is there to homosexuality. Both are cultural.
Steve @ 2.05, that bloke Richard’s* leotard clad ladies doing yoga worked for me in the 70’s.
*For clarity, it wasn’t Richard I was interested in…………
Addolff – Legs & Co. on TOTP: I’d have had every last one of them.
Now then, now then, now then.
If you only represent 0.6% of the U.S. population, then shut the fuck up and disappear into 0.6% of the background. As Stoney says, this is unacceptable to them, in their minds, anything other than overwhelming obsessional support is HATRED.
I don’t care. That doesn’t mean I hate you, it just simple means I. DONT. CARE.
Steve
Men in frocks – means motive and opportunity. Mail order via teh Interwebs ( for instance ) means that it is so much easier to order dodgy stuff, rather than going to TopShop or leafing through the adverts in grot mags… So I am told.
I also used to meet quite a few middle aged men who, after 20 years of marriage and a couple of kids decided that they preferred the… ahem… company of other gentlemen.
And come on guys : Lynda Carter, Cheryl Ladd and Erin Gray…
Here’s what’s been going on in my state’s legislature this week:
https://x.com/i/status/1882247511819305124
The video-er is our local Rep, trying to work in committee.
Want “acceptance”? This isn’t the way.
“Addolff
Steve @ 2.05, that bloke Richard’s* leotard clad ladies doing yoga worked for me in the 70’s.”
One for Addolff
https://youtu.be/qetW6R9Jxs4?si=Lj4fsysVMYfahQpv
From the comments on the above video
“I’ve been doing this workout for years and it only builds my forearm”
Erin Gray +1
and Jenny Agutter and Janet Ellis and Annabel croft. (and Athena lady’s reverse side)
Dunno’s speculation about homosexuality is wrong. If it were true, Homosexuals would be evenly spread through society.
But they’re not. According to surveys the Berties are ten times as likely as straights to have been abused as children.
In my day we just had transvestites: hairy-arsed blokes in dresses and heels. Now we’re supposed to believe and affirm that they’re actual women, and that any perverted male – befrocked or defrocked – may walk into women’s and girls’ toilets and changing rooms (or compete in women’s sport) with everyone’s assumption being “oh, he must be a woman.”
At the risk of be intolerated against, no. It’s everything and nothing to do with letting people get on with their own lives. Blokes are free to dress up as women if they want to. I wouldn’t get between Eddie Izzard and his fetish. Anyone can “identify” as anything they want within their own fantasies – as Hunter, banging Ulrika Jonsson for example – but what they may not do is suppose that their delusions and perversities dictate and control other people’s lives.
Otto – I also used to meet quite a few middle aged men who, after 20 years of marriage and a couple of kids decided that they preferred the… ahem… company of other gentlemen
People can change. Idk if there’s been much research into how hormonal changes associated with getting older can change the male personality, but of course they could. Btw I’m not saying the homos are low-T, probably the opposite.
But usually these are “bisexual” guys who neglected to let the wife know about that little detail. Shag a fag burn in a fur coat, they would.
I am not gay. But my boyfriend is.
We’ve just been told that the number of British schoolkids identifying as trans has increased by a factor of 50 in the last decade. It might be there’s an epidemic of genetic malfunctions going on, it might be the issue was previously massively underdiagnosed, but I don’t think so. As a teenage relative explained it to me: “If I come out as a lesbian, the reaction of my peers will be ‘Meh’; but if I come out as trans, I’ll be the centre of attention”.
Chris – “but if I come out as trans, I’ll be the centre of attention”.
And they said banning corporal punishment was a good thing.
Addolff:
Steve @ 2.05, that bloke Richard’s* leotard clad ladies doing yoga worked for me in the 70’s.
The thought of Richard Whiteley in a leotard (LEOTARDS being a frequent Countdown word) is truly frightening.
The thought of Richard Whiteley in a leotard
Nightly Whiteley, tightly.
Whenever I have a conversation with a ‘hardwired/tolerant type’ I eventually ask ‘So what about paedophiles?’ It normally stops there.
I realised yesterday’s post was slightly ambiguous, so (for the avoidance of doubt), my niece is neither trans nor a lesbian, but an extremely grounded young lady 🙂
@Steve – “British society used to respect and celebrate good values: duty, restraint, family and Christianity”
Try reading a few history books. Christianity is not a good value.