you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

I'm saying the very idea of there being any OTHER thing to be aware of is just made up.

Then what do you think the distress felt by gender dysphoric transgender people is based on?

Saying that you are the gender identity of your sex is imposing the notion of gender identity on people who simply don't have it. Most of us just have a sex.

There is no such thing as "not having a gender identity". If you feel psychological distress in regards to having your anatomical sex, you have a gender identity different from your anatomical sex and is the sexed phenotype where you wouldn't feel such a distress. If you don't feel any such distress, your gender identity matches your anatomical sex. Under such definition, how would it be possible not to have a gender identity?

The more ethereal you make the concept of gender identity, the less need there is for a word to begin with.

it's not at all anm etheral concept. And of course we need words here.

We can escape that ridiculousness by using the standard terms as they were originally meant, and then calling your friends by their personal soul names or whatever.

what words do you propose for "Person with male Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a male Phenotype" and "Person with female Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a female Phenotype" and how do you propose replacing the words "man" and "woman" with these words for all interactions not involving sexed anatomy?

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There is no such thing as "not having a gender identity". If you feel psychological distress in regards to having your anatomical sex, you have a gender identity different from your anatomical sex and is the sexed phenotype where you wouldn't feel such a distress. If you don't feel any such distress, your gender identity matches your anatomical sex. Under such definition, how would it be possible not to have a gender identity?

No, this is not true. Please stop saying that the subjective feelings that you and a small number of the earth's human inhabitants experience are feelings that everyone else on earth shares.

Most people definitely do NOT have a "gender identity." The only people who can be relied on to agree they have a gender identity are those who wish they were the opposite sex, or neither sex, or some human-concocted combination of the two sexes.

Some vegans have a very extreme revulsion to the idea of consuming or using animal products. But just because some people have this revulsion and experience it deeply does not mean everyone else on the planet have it too. Even amongst people who are against eating and using animal products, many don't feel the same sort of revulsion and deep-seated distress over these matters that some vegans do.

Billions of people on earth believe they have souls and after their deaths their souls will continue to exist in some kind of afterlife or reincarnation. Just because billions of people believe they have a soul does not mean all people believe we have souls. Many of us don't think that souls are real even for those who believe they have one.

Right now I personally feel great deal of distress and discomfort "in regards to my anatomical sex" coz my anatomical sex has caused me to develop pudendal neuralgia, which creates an excruciating combination of extreme pain and numbness in my vulva, lower vagina, female perineum, female urethra and the anus in which I've had recurrent piles since I first developed them during pregnancy many years ago. Every day I wish a giant bladed device would come along and scoop out all these body parts. But I still do not have a "gender identity."

BTW, both sexes have a pudendal nerve, and thus both males and females can suffer from pudendal neuralgia. But it is is 2-3 times more common in females. Coz of our sex anatomy and coz female people experience many physical things that males don't - menarche, menstruation, pregnancy, miscarriage, labor, childbirth, childbirth injuries and menopause.

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

No, this is not true. Please stop saying that the subjective feelings that you and a small number of the earth's human inhabitants experience are feelings that everyone else on earth shares.

Most people definitely do NOT have a "gender identity." The only people who can be relied on to agree they have a gender identity are those who wish they were the opposite sex, or neither sex, or some human-concocted combination of the two sexes.

Of course people whose gender identity matches their anatomical sex do not feel gender dysphoria, and therefore, to them, there doesn't appear to be such a thing as a"gender identity", since without the mismatch between gender identity and anatomical sex, gender identity has no effect. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Some vegans have a very extreme revulsion to the idea of consuming or using animal products. But just because some people have this revulsion and experience it deeply does not mean everyone else on the planet have it too. Even amongst people who are against eating and using animal products, many don't feel the same sort of revulsion and deep-seated distress over these matters that some vegans do.

transgender people do not believe non-transgender people to experience gender dysphoria. A close adaption of your analogy would be if the vegans with a revulsion to consuming or using animal products would consider there to be such a thing as a "meat-revulsion-identity" where you do identify as "meat revolted" if you feel a revulsion to eating meat and "meat non-revolted" if you do not feel such a revulsion, while still being aware that there are both.

Right now I personally feel great deal of distress and discomfort "in regards to my anatomical sex" coz my anatomical sex has caused me to develop pudendal neuralgia, which creates an excruciating combination of extreme pain and numbness in my vulva, lower vagina, female perineum, female urethra and the anus in which I've had recurrent piles since I first developed them during pregnancy many years ago. Every day I wish a giant bladed device would come along and scoop out all these body parts. But I still do not have a "gender identity."

you experience distress resulting from your reproductive anatomy being in an unhealthy state - and therefore hurting - right now. But if it were healthy and fine and not hurting at all, would you still wish every day "a giant bladed device [would] come along and scoop out all these body parts" ?

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Of course people whose gender identity matches their anatomical sex do not feel gender dysphoria, and therefore, to them, there doesn't appear to be such a thing as a"gender identity", since without the mismatch between gender identity and anatomical sex, gender identity has no effect. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I have made it clear to you in other posts I don't have a "gender identity"! Stop trying to impose on one me.

You haven't defined gender or "gender identity" anywhere on this thread, despite everyone asking you to do so again and again.

Gender is commonly understood to mean masculine/feminine. And "gender identity" is commonly understood to mean preference for sex stereotypes and sex roles that are either masculine or feminine.

I am of the female sex, but I do not identify with feminine sex stereotypes and sex roles forced upon or associated with female people. Please stop telling me that because I don't have "gender dypshoria" I must identify with those stereotypes. I know my own mind very, very well. I have fought against sex stereotyping my whole life - and I'm in my mid-60s, so that's a long time.

But if it were healthy and fine and not hurting at all, would you still wish every day "a giant bladed device [would] come along and scoop out all these body parts" ?

That's an a silly thought experiment coz the condition I have is incurable, or at least it is at the moment. I've tried all the available treatments, and am open to trying others if they come along, but so far the treatments I've tried have either not worked or only worked partially and for a while. My only option to not be in severe pain 24/7/365 is opioids such as morphine and Fentanyl, which I was on for close to a decade but decided to stop in 2011. Coz I like having a clear head and my wits about me.

I'd miss my clit and the orgasms it brings, and wouldn't want to have to pee and defecate into bags, but I have no use for most of my sex organs anymore. I've already had my uterus, cervix, ovaries and Fallopian tubes removed coz of the painful health problems I've had - and getting rid of those certainly helped for many years. I don't regret losing those organs. I think I'd do fine without the rest. My brain is the organ I treasure the most, followed by my eyes and typing hands.

BTW, the removal of various of my female reproductive organs has had no impact on my sense of self and self-image. I am just as female now as when I was a lovely young woman, when I was pregnant, when I was a new mother, when I was breastfeeding. My sex is a matter of biological fact. It's not an identity. If I lost my breasts due to cancer, and had an accident in which I lost my lower body, every cell in my body would still be XX. I would still be as female as I am today, and when I was born.

[–]Taln_Reich 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You haven't defined gender or "gender identity" anywhere on this thread, despite everyone asking you to do so again and again.

I have defined it again and again. Just because you are unwilling to listen, doesn't mean I haven't explained it already.

And "gender identity" is commonly understood to mean preference for sex stereotypes and sex roles that are either masculine or feminine.

NO IT DOESN'T. Why do you make me explain the same goddamn thing over and over again?

I am of the female sex, but I do not identify with feminine sex stereotypes and sex roles forced upon or associated with female people. Please stop telling me that because I don't have "gender dypshoria" I must identify with those stereotypes. I know my own mind very, very well. I have fought against sex stereotyping my whole life - and I'm in my mid-60s, so that's a long time.

Gender Identity has nothing to do with gender roles/gender stereotypes. It doesn't matter at all how masculine/feminine you are or how much you say "f#ck you" to gender stereotypes. If you are okay with being of the female sex (which you quite clearly are. And, no, health problems or experiences of sexual harassement do not count towards this) your gender identity is female, even if you defy every single gender stereotype regarding women that has ever existed simultanously.

[–]emptiedriver 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Then what do you think the distress felt by gender dysphoric transgender people is based on?

It's personal distress - bodily, psychological discomfort or dysphoria. Exactly how to categorize will depend on how individuals describe their own experiences - a LOT of people have some kind of distress about their bodies! - and especially when living in a society or family that imposes expectations. But personal distress is a psychological issue. It is not a category that can be physically or objectively determined.

It began as a mental illness, with the same mushy boundaries as other psychological diagnoses, but has become increasingly unreliable as it's become acceptable to just self-diagnose. The gates are wide open with no requirements.

There is no such thing as "not having a gender identity". If you feel psychological distress in regards to having your anatomical sex, you have a gender identity different from your anatomical sex ... If you don't feel any such distress, your gender identity matches your anatomical sex.

Again, why is this an "identity"? You don't have to identify with your body to have a body. What if you just accept the body you have, or feel slight distress, or have had distress at times, or can't exactly decide whether you have distress? Plus plenty of transgender people no longer claim to have distress about their bodies anyway, they just say they feel an inner sense of gender. You are the one claiming it simply exists. Do you accept that you have a racial identity? Or a national identity? If someone tells you that you either do or don't identify with some aspect of your physical or historical reality, and that that makes you either trans or cis-racial or what have you, is that reasonable to you? Can't we simply have physical bodies and personal (rather than categorical) identities?

it's not at all anm etheral concept. And of course we need words here.

If it's not ethereal, what does it actually mean? What do people in the category "trans women" all have in common? Or what do "trans women and cis women" all have in common that make them one category?

what words do you propose for "Person with male Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a male Phenotype" and "Person with female Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a female Phenotype"

Transsexual, Transvestite? Trans person? Trans Woman / Trans Man? MTF and FTM? As long as we recognize that a trans person is specifically one sex presenting as the other we are fine.

and how do you propose replacing the words "man" and "woman" with these words for all interactions not involving sexed anatomy?

Not sure I get what you're asking. I would like to continue using the words man and woman to refer to biological reality, and use trans-specific terms to talk about people who are intentionally trying to present or want to be understood as the sex that they are not anatomically.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It began as a mental illness, with the same mushy boundaries as other psychological diagnoses, but has become increasingly unreliable as it's become acceptable to just self-diagnose. The gates are wide open with no requirements.

I find self-diagnosis rather questionable, since self-diagnosis is obviousöly rather unreliable.

Again, why is this an "identity"? You don't have to identify with your body to have a body. What if you just accept the body you have, or feel slight distress, or have had distress at times, or can't exactly decide whether you have distress?

They simply can't accept the body they have, because it feels utterly, innately and inherently wrong to them. This is not a choice. This is not some slight distress. If they could accept their bodies as is, do you really think they would go though HRT, surgeries, get thrown out by their parents (yes, I have seen several experiencing this) over this?

Like, let me tell you about the time, one of them was - clearly during a particulary bad gender dysphopric phase - making a post about how he felt about the physiological effects of having the hormone levels of his birth sex. The entire thing read like a particulary disturbing body horror story written from the perspective of the person undergoing the body horror - except all the worse because it happens for real to someone I actually know and like (Note: he latter, after pulling himself somewhat together and having reconsidered his decision not to go on HRT for carrerial reasons deleted the post. But, believe me, it was a really disturbing read)

Do you accept that you have a racial identity? Or a national identity?

If someone tells you that you either do or don't identify with some aspect of your physical or historical reality, and that that makes you either trans or cis-racial or what have you, is that reasonable to you?

depends on how they define the entire thing. If their definition is, that you are "transracial" if you feel distress over physically/by ancestry being a particular ethnicity and "cisracial" if you don't, than I would be "cisracial", because I don't give a sh#t. If they demanded that because of that I would have to have a strong identification with my ehtnicity, I'd call them out on this bullshit.

If it's not ethereal, what does it actually mean? What do people in the category "trans women" all have in common?

Starting out with a male physical anatomy and desireing to change their anatomy to a female one or having already done so.

Or what do "trans women and cis women" all have in common that make them one category?

Having a female physical anatomy and not having a desire to have a different one or having a desire to have a female physical anatomy .

what words do you propose for "Person with male Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a male Phenotype" and "Person with female Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a female Phenotype"

Transsexual, Transvestite? Trans person? Trans Woman / Trans Man? MTF and FTM? As long as we recognize that a trans person is specifically one sex presenting as the other we are fine.

I was asking for words that respectively mean "Cisgender women and transgender women" and "cisgender men and transgender men", not for trans-specific words.

and how do you propose replacing the words "man" and "woman" with these words for all interactions not involving sexed anatomy?

Not sure I get what you're asking. I would like to continue using the words man and woman to refer to biological reality, and use trans-specific terms to talk about people who are intentionally trying to present or want to be understood as the sex that they are not anatomically.

If you demand, that "man" and "woman" are purely biological terms, then you also have to replace every instance of the words "men" and "women" were the present sexed anatomy doesn't/shouldn't matter with new words meaning "cisgender men and transgender men" and "cisgender women and transgender women".

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They simply can't accept the body they have, because it feels utterly, innately and inherently wrong to them. This is not a choice. This is not some slight distress. If they could accept their bodies as is, do you really think they would go though HRT, surgeries, get thrown out by their parents (yes, I have seen several experiencing this) over this?

No one is saying that the distress of people who call themselves trans or "gender dysphoric" is not real, that it's consciously chosen, or that it's "slight" or insignificant.

We are simply saying that distress over one's body, including one's sex anatomy and processes, is not unique to people who are trans or "gender dysphoric" - nor is the suffering that trans and "GD" people feel coz of their distress over their sexed bodies necessarily more extreme, painful or disabling than the distress many other people who are NOT trans and do NOT have "GD" feel over their bodies and sex characteristics too.

Like, let me tell you about the time, one of them was - clearly during a particulary bad gender dysphopric phase - making a post about how he felt about the physiological effects of having the hormone levels of his birth sex. The entire thing read like a particulary disturbing body horror story written from the perspective of the person undergoing the body horror - except all the worse because it happens for real to someone I actually know and like (Note: he latter, after pulling himself somewhat together and having reconsidered his decision not to go on HRT for carrerial reasons deleted the post. But, believe me, it was a really disturbing read)

You really need to broaden your social circle a bit and meet, talk to and read about a more diverse set of human beings than just people who are trans and "gender dysphoric" whom you seem to think experience things unlike what other people go through.

Fact is, many people of all sorts have had strange, extremely disturbing dissociative episodes in which they've seen and experienced their bodies as monstrous, utterly alien, out to get them, diseased, distorted, hideous, non-human, huge, tiny, crawling with bugs, being on fire, part horse, part dog, with wings or fins, and so on.

Sometimes people have hallucinatory experiences - visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and/or gustatory - as the result of mental illnesses (lots of people with "garden variety" major depression, for example, experience episodes of psychosis and disassociation from their bodies during MDD); due to physical states brought on by disease (brain tumors, Co2 narcosis, meningitis, shock after a traumatic labor and birth, for example); or because of drugs (THC, opioids, the drugs they used to routinely to drug to pregnant women in labor and birth, some drugs used in labor and childbirth today, infused immune drugs like IVIG, and hallucinogens like LSD, mescaline, peyote and ketamine, for example).

https://www.healthline.com/health/hallucinations#causes

https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/nonpsychotropic-medicationinduced-psychosis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727751/

This is not to diminish the scariness and horrible nature of what your friend went through. I'm just trying to make it clear that such experiences are part of human experience and therefore they are not unique to trans and gender dysphoric people the way you and others seem to think.

Some information about the horrible experiences featuring very scary hallucinations that have been part of childbirth for women past and present that you might find eye-opening:

https://timeline.com/restraints-hallucinations-and-forgotten-pain-were-the-norm-on-midcentury-maternity-wards-46909123c4f7

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjg8em/i-thought-my-baby-was-a-horse-what-its-like-to-trip-on-your-post-birth-drugsv

https://www.rxlist.com/pitocin-side-effects-drug-center.htm

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No one is saying that the distress of people who call themselves trans or "gender dysphoric" is not real, that it's consciously chosen, or that it's "slight" or insignificant.

Except for all the gender criticals here downplaying and trivializing the issue. Like making statement along the lines of calling transgender women "men who believe that preferring their legs shaved and enjoying cosmetics makes them women"

We are simply saying that distress over one's body, including one's sex anatomy and processes, is not unique to people who are trans or "gender dysphoric" - nor is the suffering that trans and "GD" people feel coz of their distress over their sexed bodies necessarily more extreme, painful or disabling than the distress many other people who are NOT trans and do NOT have "GD" feel over their bodies and sex characteristics too.

I'm not saying that people can't feel distress over their bodies (sexed anatomy included) that isn't gender dysphoria, or that it is necessary more painfull/disabling/distressing. I am just saying that gender dysphoria is a serious condition, that deserves treatment, empathy and acceptance, instead of villification, hatred and stigmatization.

Fact is, many people of all sorts have had strange, extremely disturbing dissociative episodes in which they've seen and experienced their bodies as monstrous, utterly alien, out to get them, diseased, distorted, hideous, non-human, huge, tiny, crawling with bugs, being on fire, part horse, part dog, with wings or fins, and so on.

Sometimes people have hallucinatory experiences - visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and/or gustatory - as the result of mental illnesses (lots of people with "garden variety" major depression, for example, experience episodes of psychosis and disassociation from their bodies during MDD); due to physical states brought on by disease (brain tumors, Co2 narcosis, meningitis, shock after a traumatic labor and birth, for example); or because of drugs (THC, opioids, the drugs they used to routinely to drug to pregnant women in labor and birth, some drugs used in labor and childbirth today, infused immune drugs like IVIG, and hallucinogens like LSD, mescaline, peyote and ketamine, for example).

https://www.healthline.com/health/hallucinations#causes

https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/nonpsychotropic-medicationinduced-psychosis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727751/

This is not to diminish the scariness and horrible nature of what your friend went through. I'm just trying to make it clear that such experiences are part of human experience and therefore they are not unique to trans and gender dysphoric people the way you and others seem to think.

Some information about the horrible experiences featuring very scary hallucinations that have been part of childbirth for women past and present that you might find eye-opening:

https://timeline.com/restraints-hallucinations-and-forgotten-pain-were-the-norm-on-midcentury-maternity-wards-46909123c4f7

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjg8em/i-thought-my-baby-was-a-horse-what-its-like-to-trip-on-your-post-birth-drugsv

https://www.rxlist.com/pitocin-side-effects-drug-center.htm

Except that you are still fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. The issue wasn't, that he was perceiving his body in a way it wasn't. The problem was, that he was perceiving his body exactly the way it was and that to him having such a body was as deeply disturbing as actually having some monsterous, inhuman body.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Except that you are still fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. The issue wasn't, that he was perceiving his body in a way it wasn't. The problem was, that he was perceiving his body exactly the way it was and that to him having such a body was as deeply disturbing as actually having some monsterous, inhuman body.

If he was experiencing his body as monstrous when by objective standards and the observation of others, his body is not in fact monstrous, he was NOT

perceiving his body exactly the way it was

At all. He was disassociating and hallucinating, and thus not perceiving the reality of how his body actually is or was at that moment.

There's nothing wrong with having hallucinatory or disassociative episodes - lots of people (including me) have taken drugs for the express purpose of hallucinating and experiencing other ways of perceiving the world and our own bodies through all our various senses. Many of us have found this extremely beneficial. There's an entire literature written about it, from Huxley's classic The Doors of Perception from 1954 to recent works about people micro-dosing with LSD or using IV ketamine as treatments for and ways to prevent depression. Lots of rock 'n' roll is about these kinds of experiences, and The Doors are named after them.

Having experienced hallucinations can very much deepen one's understanding of reality, but hallucinations are not reality. People who mistake their hallucinations for reality are suffering from a delusion.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If he was experiencing his body as monstrous when by objective standards and the observation of others, his body is not in fact monstrous, he was NOT

perceiving his body exactly the way it was

At all. He was disassociating and hallucinating, and thus not perceiving the reality of how his body actually is or was at that moment.

There's nothing wrong with having hallucinatory or disassociative episodes - lots of people (including me) have taken drugs for the express purpose of hallucinating and experiencing other ways of perceiving the world and our own bodies through all our various senses. Many of us have found this extremely beneficial. There's an entire literature written about it, from Huxley's classic The Doors of Perception from 1954 to recent works about people micro-dosing with LSD or using IV ketamine as treatments for and ways to prevent depression. Lots of rock 'n' roll is about these kinds of experiences, and The Doors are named after them.

Having experienced hallucinations can very much deepen one's understanding of reality, but hallucinations are not reality. People who mistake their hallucinations for reality are suffering from a delusion.

Again. He wasn't hallucinating. That wasn't the problem. The problem is, that to him having a body of his birth sex is deeply and fundamentally disturbing to him, even if from a purely physical point there was nothing wrong with the body. It just isn't the kind of body that feels right to him.

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I find self-diagnosis rather questionable,

Start telling that to the trans rights people.

They simply can't accept the body they have

a) this is not a current definition of trans, but if it were, everyone who was trans would get full SRS, and the questions of biological difference would at least be significantly reduced (eg, the issue of people with penises being allowed into women's shelters, prisons, dressing rooms etc would not come up) and b) not accepting your body doesn't mean your body isn't real. Anorexic people or depressed people or plenty of other mentally troubled people (especially teenagers whose bodies are changing) cannot accept their bodies. Some of them go through years of suffering and manage to come through the other side thanks to various therapies or medications or life changes. Not accepting their body does not mean they can determine an inner reality that others cannot see. It means they have a mental problem. One way to deal with this may be to assuage the pain by trying to make reality better match their inner vision, but it doesn't mean that they never had the body they struggled with. A trans person who suffers with a male body and gets surgery to alleviate pain is still a male person who had mental problems and surgery. They don't have anything in particular in common with a woman who was born female and deals with an actual female body. They have a different set of life experiences.

[Having a female physical anatomy] or [desireing to have one while not desireing a different one.] I was asking for words that respectively mean "Cisgender women and transgender women" and "cisgender men and transgender men", not for trans-specific words.

Don't you see that your own definitions already show that there is NO NEED for that? You cannot define the word woman without using "or" to separate cisgender women and transgender women into two parts. Why do we need one word for the both of them? They are simply two different ideas. There is nothing in common between them as a concept.

If you demand, that "man" and "woman" are purely biological terms, then you also have to replace every instance of the words "men" and "women" were the present sexed anatomy doesn't/shouldn't matter with new words meaning "cisgender men and transgender men" and "cisgender women and transgender women".

I truly have no idea what you are talking about.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

a) this is not a current definition of trans, but if it were, everyone who was trans would get full SRS, and the questions of biological difference would at least be significantly reduced (eg, the issue of people with penises being allowed into women's shelters, prisons, dressing rooms etc would not come up)

Not everyone can get everything ,partialy SRS because isn't covered everywhere and is expensive, especially if it is to be done well , partialy because the strength of gender dysphoria can vary (and aparently the strength can even vary depending on which body part it concerns, like having a lot regarding the chest but little regarding the genitalia or vice versa). Also, I hardly see gender critical people be any more accepting of the "years on Hormones, multiple rounds of FFS, post-buttom-surgery, unclockable-if-they-dont-tell-you"-level trans woman compared to the "day-one, pre-everything still trying to get rid of the beard stubble"-level trans woman.

b) not accepting your body doesn't mean your body isn't real. Anorexic people or depressed people or plenty of other mentally troubled people (especially teenagers whose bodies are changing) cannot accept their bodies. Some of them go through years of suffering and manage to come through the other side thanks to various therapies or medications or life changes. Not accepting their body does not mean they can determine an inner reality that others cannot see. It means they have a mental problem. One way to deal with this may be to assuage the pain by trying to make reality better match their inner vision, but it doesn't mean that they never had the body they struggled with.

I don't think any transgender people are really claiming they never had the body they struggled with. They might try to keep it a secret if they are stealth, but that is not the same.

Don't you see that your own definitions already show that there is NO NEED for that?

No, I don't.

You cannot define the word woman without using "or" to separate cisgender women and transgender women into two parts. Why do we need one word for the both of them?

because, at the end of the day, part of the transgender identity is also the desire to be socially accepted as part of the same group as the cisgender people of the respective gender.

If you demand, that "man" and "woman" are purely biological terms, then you also have to replace every instance of the words "men" and "women" were the present sexed anatomy doesn't/shouldn't matter with new words meaning "cisgender men and transgender men" and "cisgender women and transgender women".

I truly have no idea what you are talking about.

How would you like it, if every instance of the word "woman" would be replaced with the word "ovary-haver"? Because if you insist on "men" and "women" being biological terms instead of social ones, that is what the word "woman" would mean. It would mean, that every use of the words "woman" and "man" would be reducing the person in question to their gonads, with no regards to their identity.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How would you like it, if every instance of the word "woman" would be replaced with the word "ovary-haver"? Because if you insist on "men" and "women" being biological terms instead of social ones, that is what the word "woman" would mean. It would mean, that every use of the words "woman" and "man" would be reducing the person in question to their gonads, with no regards to their identity.

No, this is not true. The words woman and man communicate three things: 1) that the organism in question is a human being, in other words a person; 2) that he or she is an adult human being, as opposed to an infant, child, adolescent or teenager; and 3) that the adult person is either male or female. The latter terms designate the two clearly different, broad categories of human beings - and other animals as well as plants - that exist based on having developed in utero the anatomy to have the potential capacity at some point in life to play the male or female role in the reproduction of species.

These words don't reduce anyone to their gonads, they just designate which of the two groups of human adults individuals belong to. In both "adult human female" and "adult human male," the words that designate sex - female or male - do not negate or override the "adult" or "human" part. Sex is only one of three pieces of information about someone conveyed by these words.

Everyone knows that there is much more to human adults than just our sex, LOL. And that female and male human beings of all ages can have any kind of personality.

In English, there are tons of words that separate the adults of all the different animal species from the young of the same species: horse v foal; hen v chick; fox, bear, lion and so on vs cub; dog vs puppy; cat vs kitten; duck vs duckling; pig vs piglet; cow or bull vs calf. And as my last example shows, there are different words to distinguish adults of most animal species by their sex too: bull vs calf; stallion vs mare; buck vs doe; cock vs hen; ram vs ewe (in sheep, the young is called a lamb); lion vs lioness, and so on.

When people use such words as bull, cow, buck, doe, stallion, mare, ram, ewe, cock, hen, lion, lioness, we can all picture in our minds what the particular animal spoken of looks like. No one is reducing them to their genitals!

On the contrary, when we call up a mental image of a lion or lioness, what we tend to focus on is the mane, or lack thereof, and the size of the animal. When we call up an image of a deer or buck, or a bull or cow, we tend to focus on the antlers and horns as well as the relative overall body size of the male and female animals in question. When we call up mental images of a cock or rooster, a hen and a chick, we all see the animals in all their feathery fullness - no one envisions their gonads. We really don't think of their gonads at all. (I personally can vividly picture what a rooster/cock, hen and chick look like right now, but I have no idea what their gonads look like, or where they are even located.)

with no regards to their identity.

Yes, it's true that the terms under discussion are used and given without regard to any person's or animal's identity. That's coz they're not markers or badges of "identity" - particularly not in the newfangled way the word "identity" is used today, meaning as a shorthand for "ideal self" or the kind of person an individual human might want or prefer to be, or believes he or she should be or insists he or she really is, contrary to the actual facts. These words were invented to be statements of observed, verifiable, objective fact - to reflect the reality of what an individual person, animal or plant actually is. They were never intended to indicate the desires, fantasies or claims that run counter to objective reality that some humans have about themselves.

I'm totally in support of people inventing new words to designate the new ways some people like you conceptualize their/your own selves and want to be seen in the world. The problem is, trans people and other gender identity ideologues are trying to seize and utterly change the meaning of words that have existed, been commonly understood and in use for thousands and thousands of years - and they are doing so without any consultation with, or concern for, the rest of the population that already knows what these words really mean. Moreover, some members of the trans community are trying to take the words for particular groups of people - such as woman, man, mother, father, daughter, sister, feminist - from the very groups to whom those words actually apply. Which is not going to end well for the trans people. Coz those words are already taken. They're not up for grabs.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, this is not true. The words woman and man communicate three things: 1) that the organism in question is a human being, in other words a person; 2) that he or she is an adult human being, as opposed to an infant, child, adolescent or teenager; and 3) that the adult person is either male or female. The latter terms designate the two clearly different, broad categories of human beings - and other animals as well as plants - that exist based on having developed in utero the anatomy to have the potential capacity at some point in life to play the male or female role in the reproduction of species.

These words don't reduce anyone to their gonads, they just designate which of the two groups of human adults individuals belong to. In both "adult human female" and "adult human male," the words that designate sex - female or male - do not negate or override the "adult" or "human" part. Sex is only one of three pieces of information about someone conveyed by these words.

Except that, in the vast majority of cases it is already clear that someone is talking about an adult human before the words "men" or "women" are used, so the only difference inm conveyed information between "men"/"women" and "person" would be what gonads you think that person has.

In English, there are tons of words that separate the adults of all the different animal species from the young of the same species: horse v foal; hen v chick; fox, bear, lion and so on vs cub; dog vs puppy; cat vs kitten; duck vs duckling; pig vs piglet; cow or bull vs calf. And as my last example shows, there are different words to distinguish adults of most animal species by their sex too: bull vs calf; stallion vs mare; buck vs doe; cock vs hen; ram vs ewe (in sheep, the young is called a lamb); lion vs lioness, and so on.

When people use such words as bull, cow, buck, doe, stallion, mare, ram, ewe, cock, hen, lion, lioness, we can all picture in our minds what the particular animal spoken of looks like. No one is reducing them to their genitals!

On the contrary, when we call up a mental image of a lion or lioness, what we tend to focus on is the mane, or lack thereof, and the size of the animal. When we call up an image of a deer or buck, or a bull or cow, we tend to focus on the antlers and horns as well as the relative overall body size of the male and female animals in question. When we call up mental images of a cock or rooster, a hen and a chick, we all see the animals in all their feathery fullness - no one envisions their gonads. We really don't think of their gonads at all. (I personally can vividly picture what a rooster/cock, hen and chick look like right now, but I have no idea what their gonads look like, or where they are even located.)

And just like that you shot yourself in the kneecaps. Because when I look at this people 1 2 I see a woman and a man, respectively, not the other way around - which is what you insist - because I don't reduce people to their gonads and see people looking like my mental pictures for women and men, respectively. Ergo, trans women are women and trans men are men.

These words were invented to be statements of observed, verifiable, objective fact - to reflect the reality of what an individual person, animal or plant actually is. They were never intended to indicate the desires, fantasies or claims that run counter to objective reality that some humans have about themselves.

and observed, verifiable, objective fact is, that a passing transgender person is going to be perceived as and treated as their gender identity. And that this is a good reason to socially sort transgender people and cisgender people of the same gender identity (trans men and cis men, trans women and cis women) together. ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343753789_We_Are_All_Women_Barriers_and_Facilitators_to_Inclusion_of_Transgender_Women_in_HIV_Treatment_and_Support_Services_Designed_for_Cisgender_Women )

The problem is, trans people and other gender identity ideologues are trying to seize and utterly change the meaning of words that have existed, been commonly understood and in use for thousands and thousands of years - and they are doing so without any consultation with, or concern for, the rest of the population that already knows what these words really mean. Moreover, some members of the trans community are trying to take the words for particular groups of people - such as woman, man, mother, father, daughter, sister, feminist - from the very groups to whom those words actually apply.

And if there was a vote on whether "woman" and "man" should be defined by identity and lived experience or by gonads, that vote would actually go with the former 3, 4 . And your examples undermines your point further: adoptive parents are, usually, called "mother" and "father" despite not being the biological mothers/fathers of their children. So, clearly, those are socially defined terms.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because when I look at this people 1 JPG 2 JPG I see a woman and a man, respectively, not the other way around -

That's on you, then. People who use hormones and surgeries to alter their appearance so they look more or less like the opposite sex - or rather, so they look like the stereotyped way sexist people think all people of the opposite sex look - do not actually become the opposite sex. Only superficial sexists confuse appearing like sexist stereotypes of one sex with actually being that sex.

You and others who share your superficial view must find theater, films, drag acts, Halloween, costume parties and the dressing-up box at nursery school very confounding if you don't know the difference between looking a part and being that way for real.

Also, your definition is entirely dependent on sight - and on modern methods of electric lighting being present, operating and switched on during the hours of the day-night cycle that are dark as well. At night during a blackout, or out in the wild in the pitch black without a torch, you'd have to rely on other senses. Such as touch. The artificial chest orbs some males have implanted in their chests feel nothing like women's breasts. And as blind people can tell you, the shape of a woman's and a man's head is different. So is the relationship between the width of the shoulders to the hips, and the size and shape of feet and hands.

adoptive parents are, usually, called "mother" and "father" despite not being the biological mothers/fathers of their children. So, clearly, those are socially defined terms.

That's because mother, father and parent aren't just nouns, they're also verbs - and have been verbs for a long, long time. Childrearing is an activity, something a person does - and there are many names for it, such as raising children, caring and bringing up a child. In the 1970s, people invented a new sex-neutral term to add to mothering and fathering: parenting. But the words woman, boy and girl are nouns only. There is no verb "to woman", "or "to girl" or "to boy." Girling, boying and womaning are not words or activities.

There is a verb form of man, but not in the sense you mean. The verb "to man" means

1) (of personnel) work at, run, or operate (a place or piece of equipment) or defend (a fortification): the firemen manned the pumps and fought the blaze.

2) provide someone to fill (a post or office): the chaplaincy was formerly manned by the cathedral.

3) archaic fortify the spirits or courage of: he manned himself with dauntless air.

When the new word "parenting" was invented in the 1970s, some people harrumphed over it, but most people didn't object - and coz it served a purpose, it was widely adopted. One of the reasons that parenting was widely accepted is that it not change or diminish the meaning of parent, nor did it change diminish the longstanding meaning of the words mothering and fathering, or of mother or father. (I know this full well coz I happened to write a newspaper article about it at the time.)

If trans people came up with their/your own brand-new words for yourselves instead of trying to take other people's words and utterly change the meaning of them, no one would have a problem with it. In fact, many people would back you. Including me.

But instead, trans ideologues are hellbent on seizing already-extant words like woman, man, girl and boy and unmooring them from their longstanding meanings and basis in objective fact, then giving them all an entirely new meaning that reduces being a woman and a man to appearing like the sexist stereotypes that some people associate women and men and boys and girls with. Which many people both sexes find profoundly sexist, insulting, appropriative and arrogant. You're trying to tell the entire rest of the human race that all there is to being a man/boy or woman/girl is playacting, LARPing, cosplay - basically just looking the part, and the part as defined by superficial sexists to boot. Which not only ignores biology, science, medicine and how we all came into the world, it also totally ignores and undermines the "lived reality" of everyone else on earth and makes you trans ideologues the sole arbiters of what's true and allowed. And most people won't go along with that.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's on you, then. People who use hormones and surgeries to alter their appearance so they look more or less like the opposite sex - or rather, so they look like the stereotyped way sexist people think all people of the opposite sex look - do not actually become the opposite sex. Only superficial sexists confuse appearing like sexist stereotypes of one sex with actually being that sex.

First, you were the one bringing up the visual part, with your "mental image"-comment. Second, as I already explained multiple times, "woman" and "man" denote social categories, not sex categories, therefore it is irrelevant what kind of gonads they might or might not have. And precisely because I don't reduce the terms "man" and "woman" to the gonads, I see the transgender man as a man and the transgender woman as a woman.

You and others who share your superficial view must find theater, films, drag acts, Halloween, costume parties and the dressing-up box at nursery school very confounding if you don't know the difference between looking a part and being that way for real.

there is a huge difference between medical transitioning and playing dress-up. A transgender woman doesn't take her breasts and femminized face of at the end of the day, and neither does a transgender man his flat chest and masculinized face.

Also, your definition is entirely dependent on sight - and on modern methods of electric lighting being present, operating and switched on during the hours of the day-night cycle that are dark as well. At night during a blackout, or out in the wild in the pitch black without a torch, you'd have to rely on other senses. Such as touch.

First, again, you were the one bringing up visuals. Second, most people will react rather negative if someone they don't know tries to use senses other than sight or sound to determine on how to interact with them.

The artificial chest orbs some males have implanted in their chests feel nothing like women's breasts.

First, not all transgender women need implants to have breasts (breast growth from HRT varies depending on the person and specific medication used), second, quite a lot of cisgender women get breast implants too.

And as blind people can tell you, the shape of a woman's and a man's head is different.

Foppington's law confirmed again.

Once bigotry or self-loathing permeate a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls.

That's because mother, father and parent aren't just nouns, they're also verbs - and have been verbs for a long, long time. Childrearing is an activity, something a person does - and there are many names for it, such as raising children, caring and bringing up a child. In the 1970s, people invented a new sex-neutral term to add to mothering and fathering: parenting. But the words woman, boy and girl are nouns only. There is no verb "to woman", "or "to girl" or "to boy." Girling, boying and womaning are not words or activities.

There is a verb form of man, but not in the sense you mean. The verb "to man" means

What does that have to do with anything?

When the new word "parenting" was invented in the 1970s, some people harrumphed over it, but most people didn't object - and coz it served a purpose, it was widely adopted. One of the reasons that parenting was widely accepted is that it not change or diminish the meaning of parent, nor did it change diminish the longstanding meaning of the words mothering and fathering, or of mother or father. (I know this full well coz I happened to write a newspaper article about it at the time.)

Including transgender men/transgender women into the words "men"/"women" does not diminish their meanings. Your attempt to define "man" and "woman" as being solely based on what gonads someone has does.

But instead, trans ideologues are hellbent on seizing already-extant words like woman, man, girl and boy and unmooring them from their longstanding meanings and basis in objective fact, then giving them all an entirely new meaning that reduces being a woman and a man to appearing like the sexist stereotypes that some people associate women and men and boys and girls with. Which many people both sexes find profoundly sexist, insulting, appropriative and arrogant. You're trying to tell the entire rest of the human race that all there is to being a man/boy or woman/girl is playacting, LARPing, cosplay - basically just looking the part, and the part as defined by superficial sexists to boot.

No, being a "man"/"woman" is not playacting, LARPing or cosplay. It is the lived experience of being perceived as, therefore being treated as and therefore living the life of a man/woman. That is a far more meaningfull way of expressing what it means to be a man/woman then whether reducing it to whether the person in question has testicles or ovaries.

And most people won't go along with that.

And in that, you are wrong. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331998753_Public_Support_for_Transgender_Rights_A_Twenty-three_Country_Survey

[–]emptiedriver 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also, I hardly see gender critical people be any more accepting of the "years on Hormones, multiple rounds of FFS, post-buttom-surgery, unclockable-if-they-dont-tell-you"-level trans woman compared to the "day-one, pre-everything still trying to get rid of the beard stubble"-level trans woman.

there are plenty of trans women who are not "pre everything" but simply do not want surgery. It's hard to find clear statistics but even among those who get any kind of medical intervention, it's a very small percentage who have any intention of having their genitals removed.

But the key thing here is how much it ends up affecting people's lives - I'm not religious but don't much mind if people say things like "god has a plan" or "I'm praying for you" - I take it as well-intentioned and translate it in my head to something along the lines of "I want things to go well for you". So I thank them for the intent and don't argue over the details. But if they start claiming that I am scared of God and just need to submit, that various words have specific new definitions (like the lingo of cults), that I have to do the sign of the cross every time we interact, it's going to become more unwieldy. Trans women who have removed their genitals, mostly pass, and usually don't ask to be included in private women's groups are like polite christians who might say "god loves you" every now and then but don't push it. Most people will just smile and nod. But even the spiritually open-minded can get pretty pissed off by a new religion who is trying to change the law so everyone has to follow their belief system. Trans women who want to change the rules of sports, of privacy, of language, for no reason except their own belief system are imposing their religion on the rest of us.

I don't think any transgender people are really claiming they never had the body they struggled with.

Then why can't they accept being "trans women" and not demand to be included in the category "women" in every case? They are not women, they are men who have struggled with and cosmetically altered the body they have. They are a different set.

They might try to keep it a secret if they are stealth, but that is not the same.

If they want to be in the closet about it, that's their thing to deal with in their own lives. I wouldn't think it the best way to go, and I can't imagine it can work in all relationships (maybe superficial acquaintances, but not real friendships, and your family always knows). What matters is that they don't claim that they are actually women and should be allowed to e.g., compete in women's events - just that they are not "out" about being trans women, and therefore, have to make excuses about why they can't compete in the women's event.

No, I don't... because, at the end of the day, part of the transgender identity is also the desire to be socially accepted as part of the same group as the cisgender people of the respective gender.

So, although there is no definition that includes both, their desire to be included in the definition should change the meaning of our words? Should we change all words to work that way? A lawyer is a person who has finished a law degree or anyone who wishes they had a law degree? Your husband is the man you married, or any man who wishes they had married you? Why is the desire of the trans woman to be included in the word more important than an objective definition?

How would you like it, if every instance of the word "woman" would be replaced with the word "ovary-haver"?

No, that is what you are trying to do. The word woman already includes the idea of having ovaries, along with other biological realities. It also includes the idea of belonging to the human race and being a person and having the experiences that come with being biologically female. If I was going to ask about something specific to ovaries, I might want to also want to include people who used to have ovaries, but I would not care to include men who have no idea what having a female reproductive system is like. So, the word "woman" is perfectly good. I could also use that word to ask people about the experience of growing up female, or being worried about being pregnant, or menstrual cycles, or breast cancer or any number of other things. But what would you need the category of "woman" for to address "cis women and trans women" ? What experiences and commonalities do they have ?

It would mean, that every use of the words "woman" and "man" would be reducing the person in question to their gonads, with no regards to their identity.

Woman and man aren't the entirety of anyone's being. You also have a whole lot of other words that you can use, plus your own name. Your "identity" is not ensconced entirely in the concept of woman. It just means you are a female person. Don't get so stuck on that.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

there are plenty of trans women who are not "pre everything" but simply do not want surgery. It's hard to find clear statistics but even among those who get any kind of medical intervention, it's a very small percentage who have any intention of having their genitals removed.

Nowadays 95% of "transwomen" in the US keep their genitals. So say pro-trans orgs and medical professionals in trans care. I'll try to come back and provide the links later. I've posted the links on GC before, so they're in my history.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I hardly see gender critical people be any more accepting of the "years on Hormones, multiple rounds of FFS, post-buttom-surgery, unclockable-if-they-dont-tell-you"-level trans woman compared to the "day-one, pre-everything still trying to of the beard stubble"-level trans woman.

I'm one of those people. And I very much disagree with this point made by emptiedriver

it were, everyone who was trans would get full SRS, and the questions of biological difference would at least be significantly reduced (eg, the issue of people with penises being allowed into women's shelters, prisons, dressing rooms etc would not come up)

Coz imany girls and women - and many men especially fathers and grandfathers - don't just think it's inappropriate for males with penises to be in women's shelters, prisons, change rooms, toilets, hospital wards, sports and so on. Most people think it's not appropriate for all and any males over age 7 regardless of their genital configuration, sexual orientation and claimed "identities" to be in female spaces.

No matter how much plastic surgery they have, males still have enormous strength and speed advantages over female people. Males who've gone to great lengths to surgically alter their outward appearance like Gigi Gorgeous, Blaire White and Laverne Cox might look like Barbie dolls come to life, but they still have male grip strength and size. With one hand they can easily grab a girl or woman by the throat and strangle her to unconsciousness or death. Even a lifetime of cross-sex hormones and T-suppression doesn't change that.

No matter how much cosmetic surgery and lip fillers males get, what they wear, how much makeup they put on, how long their hair or hair extensions are, how much they flick their hair and tilt their heads, how long and shiny their acrylic nails are, how giggly and "girly" and coquettish they act, they all still have a male gaze - and it's with that prurient, prying male gaze that they look at girls and women.

Decades ago working as a newspaper reporter I did a story on Vietnam war vets in the US who had experienced extreme injuries and amputations to their lower bodies and were in wheelchairs. These men all had lost their genitals, but that in no way diminished their male gaze and made them any less able to make women uncomfortable by using their male gaze to look us up and down and visually undress us. Similarly, I have visited a lot of rehab hospitals and nursing homes full of men in wheelchairs for one reason or another, often coz they were elderly and had experienced strokes. But just coz these men couldn't get out of their wheelchairs and attack me didn't mean they couldn't look and leer at me like a piece of meat.

Even males who are not sexually attracted to females tend to have an untoward, unseemly curiosity in looking at female bodies and can't help themselves from checking us out to see what we really look like up close. Moreover, homosexual males who wish they were female themselves tend to look at female people and our naked bodies with envious, covetous eyes - which is very unpleasant for us female people. Worse, since males who wish they were the opposite sex and call themselves trans typically tend to be extremely sexist, superficial, ageist, judgmental about other people's appearance and disdainful of human physical imperfection in general - and disgusted by things like body fat, cellulite, stretch marks, wrinkles, saggy skin, breasts and buttocks - their presence in women's locker rooms, loos, shelters, showers, prisons and such will make these spaces less welcoming and psychologically safe for the majority of female people.

Girls and women don't consent to male people bringing their male bodies, male gaze, male sexual thoughts and sexist aesthetic standards of what women and girls should look like into spaces meant for females-only and where we will be vulnerable, naked and/or in various states of undress. As for the girls and women who say it's OK with them, they don't mind the presence of some males in such spaces personally - the consent of other female people is not for them to give on our behalf, and the hard-won rights of all female people are not for a small number of our own too naive to have thought things through sex to blithely give away.

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And I very much disagree with this point made by emptiedriver

it were, everyone who was trans would get full SRS, and the questions of biological difference would at least be significantly reduced (eg, the issue of people with penises being allowed into women's shelters, prisons, dressing rooms etc would not come up)

Coz imany girls and women - and many men especially fathers and grandfathers - don't just think it's inappropriate for males with penises to be in women's shelters, prisons, change rooms, toilets, hospital wards, sports and so on. Most people think it's not appropriate for all and any males over age 7 regardless of their genital configuration, sexual orientation and claimed "identities" to be in female spaces.

I don't think that's disagreeing with me. I just said the issue would be reduced because at least the question of penises would not come up. The question of males regardless of genital reconfiguration would still be an issue, of course. But at the moment, 90+% of the people who are fighting for rights to access are intact males. If we can all agree that they should not have access, and that the only questions should be about whether or in what cases males with full SRS could have access, I think that would be progress. But pro trans people like Tain-Reich have to be fully clear - to their own side - that they do not support people with penises calling themselves women or accessing women's spaces.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No matter how much plastic surgery they have, males still have enormous strength and speed advantages over female people. Males who've gone to great lengths to surgically alter their outward appearance like Gigi Gorgeous, Blaire White and Laverne Cox might look like Barbie dolls come to life, but they still have male grip strength and size. With one hand they can easily grab a girl or woman by the throat and strangle her to unconsciousness or death. Even a lifetime of cross-sex hormones and T-suppression doesn't change that.

First, that thing about "unchanged grip strength" is wrong 1. ), second, I call BS. on your claim that even the average man can "easlily" grab and strangle the average woman to death one handed.

No matter how much cosmetic surgery and lip fillers males get, what they wear, how much makeup they put on, how long their hair or hair extensions are, how much they flick their hair and tilt their heads, how long and shiny their acrylic nails are, how giggly and "girly" and coquettish they act, they all still have a male gaze - and it's with that prurient, prying male gaze that they look at girls and women.

Decades ago working as a newspaper reporter I did a story on Vietnam war vets in the US who had experienced extreme injuries and amputations to their lower bodies and were in wheelchairs. These men all had lost their genitals, but that in no way diminished their male gaze and made them any less able to make women uncomfortable by using their male gaze to look us up and down and visually undress us. Similarly, I have visited a lot of rehab hospitals and nursing homes full of men in wheelchairs for one reason or another, often coz they were elderly and had experienced strokes. But just coz these men couldn't get out of their wheelchairs and attack me didn't mean they couldn't look and leer at me like a piece of meat.

Even males who are not sexually attracted to females tend to have an untoward, unseemly curiosity in looking at female bodies and can't help themselves from checking us out to see what we really look like up close.

Is this "male gaze" a learned ability or biologically inate (if yes, how?)?

As for the girls and women who say it's OK with them, they don't mind the presence of some males in such spaces personally - the consent of other female people is not for them to give on our behalf, and the hard-won rights of all female people are not for a small number of our own too naive to have thought things through sex to blithely give away.

53% of women 2 agreeing to let transgender women into women's shelters (if the transgender woman in question is a victim, of course) are "a small number"?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

First, that thing about "unchanged grip strength" is wrong 1. ), second, I call BS. on your claim that even the average man can "easlily" grab and strangle the average woman to death one handed.

You can call BS all you want, buddy. Which is consistent for you, as you've also made false claims on this very thread that males with opposite sex "gender identities" have no advantages over females in sports - and when solid evidence was presented saying otherwise, you ignored it.

There's tons of scientific research documenting the very different grip strength of the two sexes - and the large size of males' hands relative to the much smaller size of female throats that enable males to do females enormous damage with their bare hand or hands.

Also, one of the reasons it's so easy for males to strangle females to unconsciousness or death with their bare hand or hands is that during puberty, female humans do not grow an extra layer of neck cartilage that protects against being strangled, choked, hit and injured in the throat the way males do.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can call BS all you want, buddy. Which is consistent for you, as you've also made false claims on this very thread that males with opposite sex "gender identities" have no advantages over females in sports - and when solid evidence was presented saying otherwise, you ignored it.

There's tons of scientific research documenting the very different grip strength of the two sexes - and the large size of males' hands relative to the much smaller size of female throats that enable males to do females enormous damage with their bare hand or hands.

Also, one of the reasons it's so easy for males to strangle females to unconsciousness or death with their bare hand or hands is that during puberty, female humans do not grow an extra layer of neck cartilage that protects against being strangled, choked, hit and injured in the throat the way males do.

First, I linked evidence that the thing about "still have male grip strength" is wrong. Second, can you provide proof for your claim that even the average man can "easlily" grab and strangle the average woman to death one handed? Third, has your lurid scenario, where a transgender women starts strangeling women in the women's shelter ever actually happend?

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

has your lurid scenario, where a transgender women starts strangeling women in the women's shelter ever actually happend?

Why do assaults on women have to happen exclusively in women's shelters for these assaults to count in your opinion?

A "transgender woman" in the US state of Illinois incarcerated in a male prison strangled their male cellmate to death with "her" bare hands. After being transferred to a female prison, this inmate reportedly raped at least one female prisoner the first day he was allowed to interact with the general population.

A "transgender woman" who'd set records in fell running in the UK committed a murderous knife attack against a male sporting official and others in the official's office that nearly killed them and left all with varying degrees of lifelong disability.

A "transgender woman" who was part of the founding team of Twitter broke into the home of "her" ex wife and raped her there.

A "transgender woman" staying in a publicly-funded women's shelter in Canada posted pictures of himself online showing how he paraded his erect penis in the women's loo in that facility, telling how he walked around the women's shelter every day showing off his "morning wood," and bragging about how he abused female residents of that women's shelter.

A "transgender woman" who'd long led male protests to harass women who supported and participated in MichFest was so incensed by women saying no to him that he violently murdered two lesbians and their son in California.