The legitimacy or illegitimacy of self-identification as the opposite sex (more colloquially but incorrectly known as "gender identity") aside, distinguishing between the sexes is justified, but distinguishing between trans-women & men isn't

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

They are exactly the same as breasts developed by natal women, though often not fully maturing. This is the lie that gets me the most.

Like saying a post bottom surgery genital isnt the same as it’s natal counterpart? Fine. But breasts are breasts.

[–]comradeconradical 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is no way they are "exactly the same" THAT is the lie. Again, breasts exist to deliver nutrients to babies after birth, and transwomen cannot do that. They have the appearance of breasts, yes, but even then male nipples are differently situated than female nipples. Also, males do not develop female-level mammary glands even after transition, yes even compared to small-breasted females. Also, what does 'mature' breast mean? If you're the same as a woman, why wouldn't they 'fully mature'? Maybe because they are lacking components to fully functionally develop? This is nitpicking, of course, because though they are not the same, appearance wise, yeah they're breasts (even then though they do tend to be shaped differently).

Anyway, it's gotten pretty out of hand. To bring it back to my main argument: medical treatment does not change sex, and developing secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex does not change sex. Sex exists and has measurable impact on our physiology, our susceptibility to diseases, and our experiences of socialization. You are a ~valid~ person, you are a transwoman, and you have certain experiences and medical needs tied to that that non-trans males don't have, but you aren't female and don't have exactly the same needs or risks that women have. Isn't that objective?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

breasts exist to deliver nutrients to babies after birth

Divine purpose isn’t exactly relevant.

Also, males do not develop female-level mammary glands even after transition,

They literally can. You are just wrong on this.

Also, what does 'mature' breast mean

Due to unfortunate delays in transition many trans women don’t make it past tanner stage 2.

medical treatment does not change sex, and developing secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex does not change sex.

Again I’m not saying you have to call us women, just that it doesn’t make sense to call us men.

A third category makes imminently more sense than categorizing is with men.

[–]comradeconradical 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

lol when considering functionality, yes the purpose for its existence is absolutely relevant. I'm concerned with women's SEX based rights and oppression. Women and transwomen may be objectified for their breasts, but only women are discriminated against for breastfeeding.

Okay lol I looked into the anatomy of transwomen breasts but sure, I'm wrong and the doctors discussing the differences are wrong too /s

I wont event comment on 'unfortunate delays' because I remember debating you about transing kids and, as expected, we have vastly different views on what is acceptable.

Okay, glad we can finally agree on something: transwomen belong in a third category, NOT men and NOT women. Same for transmen. I never did call transwomen 'men', only 'male', because it is vital to at least acknowledge the reality of sex-based ailments and challenges.