Science Supports Trans People - Here is why

That's not the same thing.

"Male traits" are not objective.

Moreover, many gay men are effeminate and so would fall under your term of "female traits". But that doesn't make the gay men trans-. Many straight women have "male traits", too, but are neither gay nor trans-. This works in all manner of ways.

Feminine traits and masculine traits cannot, therefore, be the measure with which to identify a person as trans-.

So purely identifying "male traits" as a means to objectively confirm the existence of any gender is deeply flawed.

So the point seems to stand. That we do not have an objective test for the existence of the gender that someone self-identifies as.

For biological sex, we have all the tests. But for gender, there is no objective test.

Probably because funding bias is a recognised problem in regards to research, and drug trials. Although it's funny that you would dismiss that (considering what you previously found funny ).

I haven't claimed not to have a bias. I am certainly biased. Although, I'm not anti-Trans as you would love to frame me as. I support certain aspects of the Trans debate, and I'm against others. Whereas this belief that someone needs to support the overall trans topic completely, or be termed anti-trans? Meh.

Of course, the people who are critical of the Trans situations are going to seek to counter a claim that science supported Trans people.. because science doesn't support them. Not to the degree that you and others want to promote as happening.

When you can provide me with scientific evidence (not social sciences or psychology) that shows verifiable results that a man can become a woman, and vice versa, to the point of being able to have children.. as their desired biological sexes.. then, I'll happily drop that bias. You'll have to work a bit harder for me to drop my bias in regards to non-binary or self-Id.. because there is no science today to prove gender, apart from the direct connections to their natural biological sex (from birth). Not suggestions. Not theories. Facts. Verifiable, and repeatable means to show that it can be done across a wide selection of people. Although, I'll still have reservations due to the importance of experience of that desired gender in developing from child to adult, and how that reflects on a teens/adults identity. I'm rather sceptical at the idea that someone can declare themselves another gender, without any knowledge of what it's like to be that gender. But sure... you get me some proper scientific research to prove that. I'll step away from my bias.

But you won't.. because there is no such research, using scientific methods, to prove it.

And yet, you didn't counter them. You just decided to make vague reference to a prejudice, which is some weak attempt to discredit.

Pointing out a bias existing doesn't seek to discredit, unless it relates to something where people are supposed to be impartial... which is not the case on boards. You decided that my saying your bias is showing, is some form of insult or whatever, and reacted.

If that gender is biologically rooted to manifest, then it will come out in later years / adulthood regardless. As we see with sexuality.

Therefore, there is no need to impose this upon very young children who, quite frankly, have better things to be doing at that age.

Dunno why you seem to think that infertile/barren people are some kind of gotcha moment... because they're not. Just because some people are incapable of having children, doesn't mean that people choosing to transition are able to become their desired sex. Transition being the important part here. Especially since many of those seeking to transition are giving up the ability to have children, by transitioning.. In any case, though, it's irrelevant to the past points made.

And I didn't say what sex change means to a trans person... once more you're showing your inability to stick to what posters have stated, and then, your desire to argue with yourself. I said nothing about a Trans persons needs in achieving personal acceptance. Nor did I claim to define what gender means to other people. I directed my post at that poster in relation to bias... so, again, you've decided to interject points and then counter your own points made.

Your last paragraph does nothing to answer or counter my point about experience as the desire sex..

I've given up trying to reason with you, because you consistently fail to address the points made.

I'm sorry but it appears that this is very much what you are trying to do.

Children aged 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 are not isolated in their bedrooms, grappling with the deep question of what non-binary gender they are, nor what gender means in relationship to the wider world.

The only possible way that children can be introduced to think the above, as they have in recent years, is if adults and educators are introducing these concepts to children. It doesn't matter what you teach children, whether it's Santa Claus or anything else - they will believe adults and educators. That means there is an added responsibility to ensure that whatever we teach children, it is done in a way that does not cause needless confusion or disorientation.

To expose concepts such as this to very young and impressionable children is grossly inappropriate; in exactly the same way it would be inappropriate to introduce a 5-year old to what sexuality they may be. They cannot know. And even if they did produce an answer, it would be at the behest of an adult asking them. It wouldn't be through their own personal volition.

Best to leave these matters until adolescence at the very earliest and, even at that stage of development, the person cannot be fully sure about who they are nor what they stand for. It is a period of flux, as it is for all of us.

Trying to argue that we should draw certainties from childhood reactions is a very irresponsible pathway to both tread and advocate.

Completely agree.

Leave this to parents.

The education system has no role to play in this sector.

The "whether we personally approve of those issues or not" is the problem part.

One of the functions of the parent is to absolutely overrule children where we feel their protection or development, for example, may be compromised.