When reading scientific articles about "gender identity" ALWAYS check if they control for sexual orientation.
It's very easy to choose only homosexual trans identifying males and compare them to heterosexual females and claim that they discovered brain "gender identity".
2/
Sexually dimorphic nucleus is a brain structure linked to sexual behaviours in animals. In some animals the difference between sexes is big with respect to this structure. In humans the difference is smaller, but it wouldn't be surprising, if the difference is still there.
3/
Some research links this brain structure to sexual orientation in mammals.
It is not surprising. Many animals must know with which sex to mate and how to attract a partner.
I would like to discuss the idea of "social construct". What is it and what it is not?
2/
The "construct" part means that it is something that was created (probably by humans). It suggests it is something that could be different, if people had decided to create it differently.
3/
It does not necessarily mean it is meaningless or irrelevant. It can have a huge impact on people's lives.
In this thread I will post males in dresses. The reason is to annoy people (I don't have a specific person in mind) who claim to be gender critical, but they are not.
2/
Based on the information I have, the examples presented in this thread are not related to transvestitism, fetishism or autogynephilia. They are simply fashion statements. If those photographs annoy you, it might mean you are not really gender critical.
One of them is creating fake consensus. They all pretend the matter is already settled and their ideology is the "truth".
That's why it's so important to always present alternative points of view whenever they attempt that.
2/
When an external observer sees an exchange, and they see many people claiming the same thing they start to think it's a consensus. But it's fake consensus. There was never any conclusion and often the discussion didn't happen at all.
3/
That's why it's always important to post disagreeing opinions. It's also important to ask for evidence of people's claims. And to point out what they are doing (creating fake consensus).
People who spread fake consensus will not be able to provide evidence.
Let me discuss the details of your argument, as those details are very important. I will present a perspective of how gender critical trans activism might look like and later compare it with your perspective.
From my perspective a gender critical trans activist must make a clear distinction between sex determination systems, sex, different primary and secondary sexual characteristics and different aspects of gender which I gonna list in the next tweet.
Gender consists of (maybe among other things) the expectations and social pressure related to certain behaviours which form a system. That rigid system is considered oppressive by the gender critical movement, mostly towards women.
Some quotes from that article. Make your own opinion.
3/
"(white) cis women’s ability to claim a position of vulnerability in this context is, itself, a reflection of the power that (white) cis women have over trans women (as well as racialised subjects of all genders)"
What is bad is often not the things themselves but pressure to do them and consequences when one doesn't.
E.g. things like make-up. Without gender expectations it could be an interesting hobby or a funny thing to do from time to time.
2/
Just like any other hobbys. But it's something totally different when there is pressure in the society for females to apply it (it takes a lot of time which can be spent elsewhere) and there are negative consequences, if they don't.
3/
Things are often neutral (but some are not e.g. extremely high heels are unhealthy), but it's society values that makes them tools of oppression. Societies can make many neutral things into tools of opression.
