Nikki Hiltz is tired of being misgendered by announcers: "I can’t just be like, ‘Oh, no worries, it’s okay."

RunRagged wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That snippet came before you asked what I believe. I don't claim to have answered that question. On the contrary, I agreed I did not, despite an assurance that it was a legitimate question.

You asked if gender fluidity exists. My snippet answers that Gender fluidity is something experienced by enough of "them" that it merits professional attention in the medical field.

You asked if so, then isn't gender fluidity a "mental illness", and this snippet partly agrees, for a different reason, that the mismatch with the fluid gender feelings, and the binary gender expectations of society, is indeed a source of mental health problems.

You also asked about pronouns, and I agreed the use of the plural pronouns for singular persons is awkward and another source of confusion.

But the fact is, what you said in that snippet is just a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated hooey.

When you claim that "Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones...with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" you are simply regurgitating theories that some people who believe in and are peddling gender identity ideology have proposed.

None of what you are presenting as well-established medical fact has never been proven to to be true.

The theories you are offering up as settled medical and scientific fact are just speculation. Speculation made up by people who I believe do not understand the basics of human fetal and child development in either a physical or psychological sense.

The people who have come up with the theories you set out as medial truth and scientific fact also seem utterly clueless about the complex, multifaceted processes through which human beings starting in infancy begin to develop a sense of self and over the course of childhood, adolescence and young adulthood acquire and assemble the set of myriad different thoughts and feelings about ourselves that comprise our self-concepts.

If what you were saying were true, then you would be able to share the names of the specific "different kinds of multiple hormones" you are speaking of which end up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically." After all, humans have been found to make 50 different hormones so far. Which hormones exactly are you talking about here?

If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to specify exactly when during fetal and childhood development this "timely exposure" to these specific hormones occurs, or is supposed to occur - and how "exposure to" "too many, or too little, or multiple hormones" at particular moments/phases of fetal and childhood development - and for how long in each instance - ends up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes."

If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to tell us where exactly these hormones come from. Are they endogenous or exogenous?

If endogenous, meaning from fetuses' and children's own bodies, what organs or tissues do they come from? If the hormones are exogenous, meaning from an outside source, where did these hormone originate? How exactly did they get inside the bodies of fetuses in utero and children after birth?

If what you were saying were true, you'd be able to explain how the hormone receptors and metabolic processes that determine how male and female human beings (and other mammals) respond to hormones - both endogenous and exogenous - during fetal development and after birth work differently in persons of each of the two sexes with "non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" compared to people of both sexes who don't have those outcomes.

Let it Rupp wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sanity is about thinking, while feelings are about emotions.

It seems like the root of your confusion here is your inability or unwillingness to understand what others are feeling and empathize.

It's probably all just hormonal fluctuations causing her shifting feelings. Given her somewhat masculine features, she probably produces higher than average male sex hormones compared to other women. The term to describe a women like this would be a "tomboy" and there is already research to support the biologic basis of this phenomenon . I haven't done her bloodwork myself, but if I had to bet money I would guess she just has extra testosterone, which makes her feel masculine. The stupidity of all this is the creation of new "gender identities" for people who just have abnormal hormonal profiles and personalities, which is why we have these idiotic semantic arguments over language that are completely outside the realm of science and biology.

Link:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/...

Let it Rupp wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

But the fact is, what you said in that snippet is just a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated hooey.

When you claim that "Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones...with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" you are simply regurgitating theories that some people who believe in and are peddling gender identity ideology have proposed.

None of what you are presenting as well-established medical fact has never been proven to to be true.

The theories you are offering up as settled medical and scientific fact are just speculation. Speculation made up by people who I believe do not understand the basics of human fetal and child development in either a physical or psychological sense.

The people who have come up with the theories you set out as medial truth and scientific fact also seem utterly clueless about the complex, multifaceted processes through which human beings starting in infancy begin to develop a sense of self and over the course of childhood, adolescence and young adulthood acquire and assemble the set of myriad different thoughts and feelings about ourselves that comprise our self-concepts.

If what you were saying were true, then you would be able to share the names of the specific "different kinds of multiple hormones" you are speaking of which end up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically." After all, humans have been found to make 50 different hormones so far. Which hormones exactly are you talking about here?

If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to specify exactly when during fetal and childhood development this "timely exposure" to these specific hormones occurs, or is supposed to occur - and how "exposure to" "too many, or too little, or multiple hormones" at particular moments/phases of fetal and childhood development - and for how long in each instance - ends up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes."

If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to tell us where exactly these hormones come from. Are they endogenous or exogenous?

If endogenous, meaning from fetuses' and children's own bodies, what organs or tissues do they come from? If the hormones are exogenous, meaning from an outside source, where did these hormone originate? How exactly did they get inside the bodies of fetuses in utero and children after birth?

If what you were saying were true, you'd be able to explain how the hormone receptors and metabolic processes that determine how male and female human beings (and other mammals) respond to hormones - both endogenous and exogenous - during fetal development and after birth work differently in persons of each of the two sexes with "non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" compared to people of both sexes who don't have those outcomes.

RunRagged, I've done the liberty of sharing plenty of studies and information about the relationship between pre-natal hormone exposure and gender dysphoria and gender expression a month ago on another thread (to which you never responded). You could find this all out for yourself too, yet you write longwinded posts, disingenuously trying to poke holes in the science as if your questions haven't already been answered or pursued. I think at this point you can't accept the neurobiological basis of sex/gender differences, and thus gender dysphoria, because it conflicts with you feminist ideology, I could be wrong though. I'll post the studies I shared with you again.

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7...

The authors conducted a search of published studies on Medline (from January 1948 to December 2019). The evidence suggests that the sexual dimorphic brain could be the anatomical substrate of psychosexual development, on which gonadal hormones may have a shaping role during prenatal and pubertal periods.

Link:http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3197503...

These findings support the idea that high levels of prenatal T in natal females and low levels in natal males play a part in the etiology of GD.

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

Both sexual orientation and sex-typical childhood behaviors, such as toy, playmate and activity preferences, show substantial sex differences, as well as substantial variability within each sex. In other species, behaviors that show sex differences are typically influenced by exposure to gonadal steroids, particularly testosterone and its metabolites, during early development (prenatally or neonatally).

I put this article here to show that research does indicate that prenatal hormone exposure does lead to sex differences, even if the study wasn't about gender dysphoria.

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7...

It is known that the brains of males and females are different. Evidence further suggests that brain anatomy and neuronal signaling pathways are more closely aligned with a person’s perceived gender identity. Individuals who present with discordant gonadal and brain developments experience psychological challenges that may contribute to a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with their biological sex. These point to a possible biological and genetic underpinning of GD as stemming from a discordance between gonadal and brain development.

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...

Many important psychological characteristics show sex differences, and are influenced by sex hormones at different developmental periods. We focus on the role of sex hormones in early development, particularly the differential effects of prenatal androgens on aspects of gender development.

Link:academic.oup.com/HTTPHandlers/Sigma/Lo...

However, recent studies point toward a biological basis involving endocrine, neurobiological and genetic factors. For instance, an increased prevalence of gender dysphoria was observed among people who experienced atypical prenatal androgen exposure in utero, such as females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (8–15). Neuroimaging studies revealed specific regions in the brains of transgender women that may be more similar to the brains of women serving as control subjects (than that of men serving as control subjects (16–18). Heritability studies suggest a genetic component: 23% to 33% of monozygotic twin pairs are concordant for gender dysphoria (19).

If you'd actually like to get your questions answered, maybe you can read some of these studies instead of probing randoms on LRC.

RunRagged wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

RunRagged, I've done the liberty of sharing plenty of studies and information about the relationship between pre-natal hormone exposure and gender dysphoria and gender expression a month ago on another thread (to which you never responded). You could find this all out for yourself too, yet you write longwinded posts, disingenuously trying to poke holes in the science as if your questions haven't already been answered or pursued. I think at this point you can't accept the neurobiological basis of sex/gender differences, and thus gender dysphoria, because it conflicts with you feminist ideology, I could be wrong though. I'll post the studies I shared with you again.

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7...

Link:http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3197503...

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

I put this article here to show that research does indicate that prenatal hormone exposure does lead to sex differences, even if the study wasn't about gender dysphoria.

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7...

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...

Link:academic.oup.com/HTTPHandlers/Sigma/Lo...

If you'd actually like to get your questions answered, maybe you can read some of these studies instead of probing randoms on LRC.

I've read all those papers. None of them provide proof for theories stated in them, which you keep insisting are proven, undisputed facts and matters of settled medical science. The language most of the authors use makes it clear they are simply speculating: the evidence suggests, could be, supports the idea, suggests, may contribute to, point toward

Also, the links you provided are not all to "studies." They are to papers that can be found on Medline, the NIH database of published papers in journals having to do with medicine and various branches of medically-related fields. These range from papers dealing with, and written by experts in, hard sciences like biology and embryology to papers dealing with, and written by specialists in, the so-called "soft sciences" such as psychology, sociology, sexology, social anthropology and new fields full of fluff, gibberish and nonsense like gender studies.

Some of the papers you linked to do refer to actual scientific studies. But those studies tend to be ones using a very small number of subjects whose results have never been replicated by others - or/and whose methods, premises and conclusions have been found flawed and thus refuted by other scientists and scholars.

The brain-imaging studies cited in your last link are a case in point. I will come back later with some info explaining why the only people who take those "findings" seriously are gender identity ideologues.

Just yesterday I was listening to an interview with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he pointed out that the vast majority of the papers published in science and medical journals that can be found on Medline - he said 99%, but I think that's stretching it - do not report the findings of scientific studies which have been replicated time and again by other researchers unconnected to the original researchers. Most of the scientific studies published on Medline are one-offs whose findings have never been replicated by anyone else ever - not once.

As deGrasse Tyson points out, "You can find a scientific paper or a handful of scientific papers that say practically anything." And then the press and people pushing a particular usually politicized POV such as gender identity ideology and queer theory will come along and cherry-pick those papers and hold them up as proof that they reveal a profound new universal scientific truth about the species Homo sapiens that everyone agrees is a matter of settled science.

I am not the one making extraordinary claims here. You are. I am simply questioning the claims you keep making as well as your continued insistence that the theories you believe to be true and you clearly wish to be true are matters of settled science that everyone in medicine and related fields considers the gospel truth.

Let it Rupp wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sanity is about thinking, while feelings are about emotions.

It seems like the root of your confusion here is your inability or unwillingness to understand what others are feeling and empathize.

It's probably all just hormonal fluctuations causing her shifting feelings. Given her somewhat masculine features, she probably produces higher than average male sex hormones compared to other women. The term to describe a women like this would be a "tomboy" and there is already research to support the biologic basis of this phenomenon . I haven't done her bloodwork myself, but if I had to bet money I would guess she just has extra testosterone, which makes her feel masculine. The stupidity of all this is the creation of new "gender identities" for people who just have abnormal hormonal profiles and personalities, which is why we have these idiotic semantic arguments over language that are completely outside the realm of science and biology.

Link:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/...

rekrunner wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

It's probably all just hormonal fluctuations causing her shifting feelings. Given her somewhat masculine features, she probably produces higher than average male sex hormones compared to other women. The term to describe a women like this would be a "tomboy" and there is already research to support the biologic basis of this phenomenon . I haven't done her bloodwork myself, but if I had to bet money I would guess she just has extra testosterone, which makes her feel masculine. The stupidity of all this is the creation of new "gender identities" for people who just have abnormal hormonal profiles and personalities, which is why we have these idiotic semantic arguments over language that are completely outside the realm of science and biology.

Link:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/...

I thought so too, thinking it was not all that controversial to say that sometimes binary outcomes, whether it is physical appearance, sexual preference, or gender identity, don't always work due to hormones, or hormone insensitivity, but was curiously told it was vague, unsubstantiated hooey (ironically argued without providing any substance, and also falling far short of using medical facts proven to be true).

Of course the research is not settled, and there are many ethical considerations and confounders, but thanks for all the links to research which suggest that "sometimes these processes don't work as planned" and any potential links to various hormones, or lack thereof, is apparently not so vague, and not so unsubstantiated after all, even if it falls short of "medical fact has never (sic) been proven to to (sic) be true", as if that were ever a standard to post in an anonymous letsrun forum.

Yeah, 40 years ago I probably would have called Nikki a tomboy.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So she doesn't really "think" she wakes up as a man; she only "feels" she does? And how does that feel for a biological woman, I wonder? However, she does seem to think she is a guy on those days, because she doesn't suggest it is only pretence of some sort or a mere emotion. It is part of her identity - or she wouldn't refer to herself as "they". Thus, she actually thinks that she is a "dude", as well as a "queen" - depending what day it is. (But not race day). Very rational.

I know you often struggle with the English language.

I can't comment on what she "thinks". Nikki didn't talk about thoughts, but about feelings.

Nikki tries to dumb it down for those who don't understand non-binary. I don't know if it's possible to dumb it down any further for you, but it doesn't seem worth the bother.