you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]levoyageur718293[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's a hyperbolic assertion; I figured that if I started from a QT position and followed it as logically as I could to a conclusion that QT would disagree with, then that would demonstrate the weakness of that initial position. This is my response to trans narratives that follow the basic line Philosophy Tube put down, saying something like, "when I was born the doctors said "It's a boy," but then I grew up and realized I was supposed to be a girl, so I'm trans" - which papers over the reality of the body, aka why the doctors said "it's a boy" and the reality of the sexed body. I've also heard from QT types that the commonality of transwoman is "raised as a boy," or vice-versa, which this hyperbole challenges - because I think QT would, if pressed, say that being raised as non-binary and "transitioning" to the gender that matches your sex doesn't rightfully put you in the ranks of the people who transitioned to a gender that doesn't.

If, as QT asserts, genitals are completely unimportant to gender, and "transgender" means "a gender other than you were assigned at birth," then it follows from those presuppositions that a child who was raised as a theybie - a child who was raised in a completely gender-neutral way, effectively being brought up nonbinary - would by definition have to "transition" to either binary gender, and there would be no consistent way to exclude such a person from the ranks of "transwomanhood" unless the people trying to exclude her were courageous enough to say bluntly, "transwoman means you were born with a dick," and that there are two meaningfully discrete classes - people who were born with dicks and people who were born with vaginas, aka what we GC types would call "men and women."

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

None of your original intent as you've now explained it came through to me from your OP. Perhaps this is my fault, perhaps it's yours.

Your framing of distinctly female experiences such as giving birth and breastfeeding struck me as odd - and not in a good way. Why did you try to make your point by depicting the imaginary experience of someone decidedly female? Why not a male person? Or one of each sex?