Calls for trans elimination

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (50 children)

Iran forces homosexuals to undergo "sex changes" to correct their orientations

And that's barbaric, when did I say I supported that?

every definition of "woman" that isn't circular that TRAs will supply is misogynistic

Definitions should be based in the real world. And in the world we live in, anyone assumed or perceived to be female could be considered a woman. That isn't tied to stereotypes, because women obvi still face misogyny whether wearing makeup or not or regardless of femininity. The men who harass me don't know I'm trans, they harass me because they see a woman, like everyone else, so it's silly to insist I'm not a woman when it contradicts how I live my life.

So someone isn't trans if they don't get surgeries or hormones?

Trans people are entitled to transition care and many of us require it to be functional. Some don't, but withholding it from all of us will just cause us anguish.

I don't care if you or any other adult wants to get cosmetic surgery or take synthetic hormones (as long as you leave female and homosexuals rights alone).

Which rights am I attacking by being a woman? And my hormones are bioidentical, thanks, my estradiol is the same as yours. I just get it through a needle every week.

funny how is being "transphobic" means we're nazis but you being homophobic doesn't mean any such thing.

I'm not, I love and have loved many LGB people, many trans people are also LGB. Being trans doesn't make one homophobic.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

And that's barbaric, when did I say I supported that?

It's like you forgot what we were talking about in the span of one comment. We're not talking about whether or not you personally support forced sex changes in Iran. We're talking about the inherent link between gender ideology and homophobia/misogyny.

anyone assumed or perceived to be female could be considered a woman

And here's the misogyny--a woman is not a woman in her own right, her existence requires the perception of another person. And butch women who are mistaken for men are not women apparently.

Some don't, but withholding it from all of us will just cause us anguish.

We're not talking about whether or not it causes anguish. We're talking about whether it ELIMINATES trans people. Either people are trans regardless of whether or not they "transition" and therefore the number of transitions doesn't affect the number of trans people at all, or someone is not trans if they don't "transition". Which is it?

Which rights am I attacking by being a woman?

I don't know, do you support the elimination of sex segregated spaces/rights/protections and the redefining of the definition of homosexuality as something other than exclusive same sex attraction?

And my hormones are bioidentical, thanks, my estradiol is the same as yours.

Secondary sex characteristics don't determine sex, that's why they're secondary

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

We're talking about the inherent link between gender ideology and homophobia/misogyny.

It's not inherent. Iran is Iran, practices there hardly represent "gender ideology" as a whole.

And here's the misogyny--a woman is not a woman in her own right, her existence requires the perception of another person. And butch women who are mistaken for men are not women apparently.

If you lived on a desert island with no one else around, how much would being a woman affect your life? Not at all. Being female or male definitely would, but gender requires society. Also, butch women are still perceived as women it's not like men stop being misogynistic to them. The occasional misread isn't representative.

We're talking about whether it ELIMINATES trans people

It will eliminate us because we will kill ourselves if you do this to us, if we are unable to access hormones. I'd still be trans no matter what you do to me, but I'm not going to want to live if it has to be on your terms, on T.

I don't know, do you support the elimination of sex segregated spaces/rights/protections and the redefining of the definition of homosexuality as something other than exclusive same sex attraction?

No, there can be sex-specific groups for those who want them, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But public spaces like bathrooms have always implicitly allowed passing trans people, and will continue to do so.

And homosexuality is however the individual defines it. I have no issue with a trans woman and cis woman couple calling themselves lesbians. To many gay or lesbian does not exclusively mean same-sex but includes same-gender attraction, and those people are valid. If it means same-sex to you, then you should be clear about that and it's fine!

Secondary sex characteristics don't determine sex, that's why they're secondary

Cool I don't care? They're what matters in practice, and I'm getting SRS soon.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Iran is Iran, practices there hardly represent "gender ideology" as a whole.

And that’s why I gave multiple examples from all over the world.

If you lived on a desert island with no one else around, how much would being a woman affect your life?

We’re not talking about how much being a woman affects my daily life. We’re talking about what makes someone a woman.

Being female or male definitely would, but gender requires society

In order to be a woman you must be female according to every English language dictionary. To say that women are defined by societal norms (sex stereotypes) is misogyny.

The occasional misread isn't representative.

So a transwoman is not a woman if they do not pass 100% of the time. Is that what you’re saying?

It will eliminate us because we will kill ourselves if you do this to us, if we are unable to access hormones

No one else is responsible for your own actions.

I'd still be trans no matter what you do to me, but I'm not going to want to live if it has to be on your terms, on T.

I don’t see why I should continue this conversation when you’re not engaging honestly. I already said I don’t care if you take synthetic hormones.

But public spaces like bathrooms have always implicitly allowed passing trans people, and will continue to do so.

So yes, you don’t believe females deserve spaces away from males.

If it means same-sex to you, then you should be clear about that and it's fine!

Yeah, if only there were a term that made that clear? How much do you want to bet if we conceded "homosexual" and made a new term for exclusive same sex attraction, that would be appropriated too?

I'm getting SRS soon.

You will not have female primary sex characteristics when you rearrange your male genitalia. You will have rearranged male primary sex characteristics.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

We’re not talking about how much being a woman affects my daily life. We’re talking about what makes someone a woman.

Being perceived that way by others.

In order to be a woman you must be female according to every English language dictionary. To say that women are defined by societal norms (sex stereotypes) is misogyny

We're all defined by how others see us. I'm an adult human female too, at least from the perspective of everyone who matters in my life. The dictionary doesn't have any bearing on that.

So a transwoman is not a woman if they do not pass 100% of the time. Is that what you’re saying?

If it's an occasional misread then they're still a woman. Passing is contextual, butch women occasionally mistaken as men are still women. So it's more a majority of the time instead of 100%.

I already said I don’t care if you take synthetic hormones.

But you care about whether I get medical support in doing so.

So yes, you don’t believe females deserve spaces away from males.

"Deserve"? Spaces away from men. Trans women are not men. If you want to exclude us for your book club or for a women's shelter that you run then that's your decision.

Yeah, if only there were a term that made that clear? How much do you want to bet if we conceded "homosexual" and made a new term for exclusive same sex attraction, that would be appropriated too?

My point is that it's not clear, so you can't insist that it only has one meaning when people clearly use it to mean same-sex or same-gender attraction. If you want to primarily call yourself same-sex attracted go ahead but having that in your bio will probably get raised eyebrows.

You will not have female primary sex characteristics when you rearrange your male genitalia. You will have rearranged male primary sex characteristics.

They'll be female primary sex characteristics because my genitalia will be functionally and perceptually like other women's.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I'm an adult human female too

Define female for me please. Keep in mind you cannot use the word female in your definition.

So it's more a majority of the time instead of 100%.

Lol so what percentage of the time does someone need to be perceived as a woman in order to be a woman? Be specific. Women need rights and protections that men don't need so it's important that you're able to clearly define this boundary. Also I'm assuming you also believe that transwomen are not women until they pass whatever percentage of time you'll be deciding makes someone a woman.

But you care about whether I get medical support in doing so.

This is news to me!

Spaces away from men.

I love how I wrote male and you interpreted that to mean men. I guess you do agree with dictionary definitions.

My point is that it's not clear, so you can't insist that it only has one meaning when people clearly use it to mean same-sex or same-gender attraction.

I'm insisting that there needs to be a term for exclusive same sex attraction because it isn't clear when you use homosexual to also mean bisexual. It's homophobic to not let exclusively same sex attractive people define themselves and organize independently of bisexual people.

They'll be female primary sex characteristics because my genitalia will be functionally and perceptually like other women's.

In order to believe this, you have to believe that the only "function" of a vagina is a hole able to be penetrated by a penis.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Define female for me please

Someone who does or did or will or would, if not for intersex conditions or extenuating circumstances, produce ova.

I consider my unfortunate luck in being amab an extenuating circumstance that I am rectifying as much as possible.

Lol so what percentage of the time does someone need to be perceived as a woman in order to be a woman

The majority of the time.

Women need rights and protections that men don't need so it's important that you're able to clearly define this boundary

Trans women need the same rights and protections.

I love how I wrote male and you interpreted that to mean men.

I was narrowing it to men and not male..

It's homophobic to not let exclusively same sex attractive people define themselves and organize independently of bisexual people.

I'm not stopping u from defining yourselves and organizing. Use whatever words you like for yourselves and I'll use whatever words I like for myself.

In order to believe this, you have to believe that the only "function" of a vagina is a hole able to be penetrated by a penis.

No, I never said that nor do I believe it's the case. I meant in terms of vaginal flora and structure. Although, trans women will probably need to have C-sections in the future unless SRS becomes basically a lab-grown organ transplant (which I certainly hope it does)

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

I meant in terms of vaginal flora and structure.

I think you mean shape, not structure. And by shape I mean rough shape, as in approximation. No matter what tissue is used in your surgery, the cavity you end up with won't have the structure and qualities of the muscular, highly elastic, incredibly powerful female organ called a vagina.

Also, sorry to rain on your parade, but it won't have the flora of a vagina, either. Because it won't have the unique, self-cleaning mucosal lining of a vagina with its billions of constantly-working proton pumps.

Although, trans women will probably need to have C-sections in the future unless SRS becomes basically a lab-grown organ transplant (which I certainly hope it does)

What are you on about here suddenly bringing up C-sections? A C-section can only be performed on a pregnant woman whose uterus has a live fetus in it. You said you were getting surgery to acquire an approximation of a vagina. A vagina is a not the same organ as a uterus - and no one who gets the kind of surgery you're planning to have comes out of it with a uterus or anything like a uterus.

Your expectations of your surgery don't sound at all realistic. Please for your own sake do more research before going under the knife. Sounds like you've been sold a bill of goods, and have fallen for a lot of BS hook, line and sinker.

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

No matter what tissue is used in your surgery, the cavity you end up with won't have the structure and qualities of the muscular, highly elastic, incredibly powerful female organ called a vagina.

It really depends on what the future of SRS holds. If we can eventually grow vaginal tissue in a lab, then they could potentially graft that. Same for billions of proton pumps.

Although, SRS right now has reached a pretty okay state. I've heard from friends who have had vaginoplasty that it works "good enough".

What are you on about here suddenly bringing up C-sections?

Because current vaginoplasty wouldn't give the capability to birth a child. I would like to be a mother someday, so I think about these things, whether I should wait to get vaginoplasty and see if trans woman pregnancy becomes viable first, etc.

Your expectations of your surgery don't sound at all realistic

It was literally people on this sub and the banned, horrible disaster surgery subreddit that have held me back. I've always wanted this, I just got misled into thinking results would be horrific but I've been finding that's not the case at all.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Someone who does or did or will or would, if not for intersex conditions or extenuating circumstances, produce ova. I consider my unfortunate luck in being amab an extenuating circumstance that I am rectifying as much as possible.

"A female is someone who, if not male, produces ova". Listen to yourself. This is nonsensical.

Whoever has told you that you are not male or that you can "rectify" being male and become female has absolutely failed you. They've set you up for failure. It is absolutely sociopathic to convince someone that cosmetic surgeries and synthetic hormones will change their sex, especially if that person would have not "transitioned" if they didn't believe this. It is honestly disturbing to me that you believe this.

The majority of the time.

Be specific. 51% of the time? 60% of the time? 75%? 80%? 90%? 99%?

I was narrowing it to men and not male..

But I was talking about MALES.

I'm not stopping u from defining yourselves and organizing.

If you take the words that mean "exclusively same sex attracted" and use them to mean "bisexual" then this is exactly what you are doing. Many conceded "gay/lesbian" and retreated to "homosexual" and you appropriated that too. If they conceded "homosexual" and made up a new term, you would appropriate that too, and so on and so forth, not allowing exclusively same sex attracted people the ability to define themselves and organize independently of bisexual people.

No, I never said that

You said:

my genitalia will be functionally [...] like other women's.

What is the function of a vagina, derrple?

Although, trans women will probably need to have C-sections in the future

...do you think transwomen will be able to get pregnant and carry children in the future?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Whoever has told you that you are not male or that you can "rectify" being male and become female has absolutely failed you.

I've told myself thanks. It will change my sex enough for me. It'd be great to change my sex chromosomes too but as that has basically zero effect on my social or romantic life I'm not bothered by it.

Be specific. 51% of the time? 60% of the time? 75%? 80%? 90%? 99%?

Greater than or equal to 50%

If you take the words that mean "exclusively same sex attracted" and use them to mean "bisexual" then this is exactly what you are doing. Many conceded "gay/lesbian" and retreated to "homosexual" and you appropriated that too. If they conceded "homosexual" and made up a new term, you would appropriate that too, and so on and so forth, not allowing exclusively same sex attracted people the ability to define themselves and organize independently of bisexual people.

Neither of us own words, it's absolutely pointless to try and own them. Everyone should be able to use words they feel fit them and explain if asked, what's the problem there?

Also I'm bi, so I'm not rushing to call myself a lesbian. I've had sapphic relationships but since I'm trans I personally think it should be up to my hypothetical cis partner on whether to describe the relationship as lesbian.

What is the function of a vagina, derrple?

Quite literally to be a muscular tube leading from the external genitalia to the cervix. It may be used to give birth or for penetrative sex or someone may have had some or all of the cervix removed, bur those functions aren't necessarily universal.

...do you think transwomen will be able to get pregnant and carry children in the future?

I really hope so. I would like to be a mother and bring life into the world, and if or when it were safe for me to do so, I would seriously consider it.

I think it will be possible in my lifetime but I will likely be too old by the time it is practical.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

I would like to be a mother and bring life into the world, and if or when it were safe for me to do so, I would seriously consider it.

But yesterday you said that the very idea of having children made you want to vomit.

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

Yeah so to recap, females are sometimes male, a woman is anyone who is perceived of as a woman at least 50% of the time (transwomen are not women if they do not meet this criteria), defining exclusively same sex attraction is "pointless", the function of a vagina is "to be a muscular tube leading from the external genitalia to the cervix" and transwomen who’ve had surgery have "genitalia […] functionally [...] like other women's", plus transwomen will be able to get pregnant and give birth in the near future. I’m just going to let all of that speak for itself.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

you lived on a desert island with no one else around, how much would being a woman affect your life?

I’d still know I’m a woman based on my observable material reality. We’d still need to deal with menses or menopause, even while totally unobserved.

This is sort of what I was questioning you about last night.

You made a claim earlier that people are defined as what others observe them to be, however this is not true for a massive number of people.

A woman alone is still a woman, even without a society to verify this or to inform her that they expect her to behave a certain way because of her being a woman.

If we define ourselves as the perceptions of others, how can it possibly be an internal identity?

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

Everything relating to your biology would still apply of course, I'm saying that that biology doesn't intrinsically make you a woman. There are trans men who menstruate who live their whole social and professional lives as men, so that can't be what makes them men or women, at least in the eyes of other people.

I have an internal identity but that means very little if I'm the only one who knows about it. So I define myself by others so that I won't have to keep it secret, I guess.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

I’m saying biology alone makes a woman and the perceptions of others have zero impact on that material reality.

If one’s identity requires the observation of others to remain, I’d argue it’s inherently not their identity. An identity that exists only through the participation or observation of others is a performance or a facade.

How can a working definition be something that is up to the perceptions of individuals? For example, three people are locked in a room. Two are female, one is male. One female person perceives the male as a male, the other perceives him as female. How can he possibly be defined as male or female if the only condition for defining something is by what it is perceived as?

If someone who doesn’t know about cats says their kitten is a golden retriever with a growth problem, does it stop being a feline due to perception?

Isn’t it better for definitions to use measurable, observable, objective information, instead of relying on subjective perceptions?

You may require external validation for your identity, but do you truly think that this is true for everyone else? Do you believe that there are no women who know they are women, without the agreement of others?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I’m saying biology alone makes a woman and the perceptions of others have zero impact on that material reality.

I think we have v different ideas on what counts as material reality, I guess. If someone is seen as a woman, thought of as such by others, then that person will have certain experiences unique to how they're seen by others, right? That experience is real, regardless of whether they're actually female or not, and so perception matters a great deal.

I don't yet have female biology and so I obviously don't go through experiences specific to it, but other people believe as if I do.

If biology and not experience is all that matters, would I be a woman if pre-trans-derrple had woken up with a total sex change but still looked the same except for that? Everyone would still have seen me as male, I would have had a childhood of being male and nothing else, they wouldn't have known, so it feels odd to me to say that biology alone determines womanhood? You end up excluding people who lack various biological features but who may not even know it and for who it may never or rarely come up in a social context.

An identity that exists only through the participation or observation of others is a performance or a facade.

It's still there it's just not made manifest. It's like thinking of yourself as a chef but you never cook. You still have the sense of identity but it's totally private to you and unrealized.

How can he possibly be defined as male or female if the only condition for defining something is by what it is perceived as?

He couldn't be, in that context. What someone "is" is always changing depending on their environment, in that situation I think you should ask him how he feels and let him be the tiebreaker.

If someone who doesn’t know about cats says their kitten is a golden retriever with a growth problem, does it stop being a feline due to perception?

If people actually start perceiving it as a golden retriever sure! I mean you might not necessarily know otherwise so based on limited information, like all judgments are, you'd think so too.

Isn’t it better for definitions to use measurable, observable, objective information, instead of relying on subjective perceptions?

There is no objective information x( only sufficient evidence to convince you or someone else that some particular thing is true. But isn't it also better to have definitions that are based on how people actually live, not details about their biology that are invisible to the public? If you can't in practice measure it in the context you're trying to use it to define something, it's kind of a useless measure I think.

Do you believe that there are no women who know they are women, without the agreement of others?

Of course, I mean I'm the same way. I know I'm a woman regardless but I'm a human being, it's lonely to be the only one who knows that while everyone else tells me otherwise. "Proving" myself to others by transitioning is a lot easier than having to explain. Bc this way even people who would tell me otherwise won't know I'm trans to begin with

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

And you really honestly can’t see any flaws with people thinking the kitten is a dog? Do felines not have objective physical differences to golden retrievers? Does it not require a different diet? Different training, different medications, different grooming, different handling? Or do those constant physical realities bend and the cat is fine being being given large dog wormer because of how it is perceived?

You seem intent that physical reality is optionally observable and the idiosyncratic perceptions of individual people who may be incorrect about material reality somehow dictate or define the material.

If this was true, the kitten would thrive with large dog wormer. Would you, right now, dose a kitten with large dog wormer? If not, I suspect you may have a far better understanding of how physical reality actually matters more than personal perception of it.

There is absolutely objective information. Would you say it’s merely a theory that a human requires oxygen or water? Do we not measure temperature, weight, height, density, or light?

If I was unaware of the toxicity of ibuprofen and ate ten boxes, would I get sick because of overdosing, even if I and everyone in the room perceived them as harmless?

It’s absurd to claim there is no such thing as objective reality.

It seems as though you assume the vast majority of transgendered people are passing as the opposite of their sex all of the time, and thus should be included as a part of a count of that group. There’s two flaws here, one is that people are notoriously dishonest about how well people pass in order to be polite, meaning their perception is not truly of a woman but if a male who clearly wants to be a woman.

It also assumes that any facsimile or simulacrum of an object is also the same thing as the object. Like, saying this wax sculpture of an orange is an actual fruit, and fruits include wax sculptures, because a bunch of people looked at the wax sculpture and didn’t know it was wax.

I think you know that this doesn’t work.

If someone identifies as a chef, but hasn’t the qualifications, and doesn’t cook, they just aren’t a chef. They might think they are but they are incorrect. Chef does not become a word for both professional cooks and people who have never stirred a pot.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

And you really honestly can’t see any flaws with people thinking the kitten is a dog?

No? Not on its own. You could very easily take care of its diet privately and just let people outside think of it as a dog. Like I have to exist in my body every day and shower and do my injection but I don't tell people about that.

Would you, right now, dose a kitten with large dog wormer?

If my understanding or impression of it was as a dog then yeah I would because I could not know otherwise.

Would you say it’s merely a theory that a human requires oxygen or water? Do we not measure temperature, weight, height, density, or light?

Not with total accuracy...and yeah it's possible that there could be someone who just inexplicably doesn't require water or air.

There’s two flaws here, one is that people are notoriously dishonest about how well people pass in order to be polite, meaning their perception is not truly of a woman but if a male who clearly wants to be a woman.

"We can always tell" in action x(

Do y'all not think that some trans ppl think about this like...all the time?? Every interaction I have with someone irl I'm worrying about whether they've clocked me. I look for if people hesitate, if they look at me too long. It happens very rarely. Maybe you're notoriously dishonest about how well people pass, in which case I hope never to meet you irl because I would be really scared of you, but most ppl don't seem to consider trans ppl existing very often.

It also assumes that any facsimile or simulacrum of an object is also the same thing as the object

This is pretty much exactly what I believe, unironically.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I didn’t ask if you could lie to everyone and claim it’s a dog. I asked it if is a dog and can be medically treated like one.

I’m sure passing and knowing that polite society lies about it is extremely stressful. That doesn’t alter the fact that you are operating on what I believe to be a faulty premise.

I’m afraid that males presenting themselves as women might rape me, maim me, secretly film me using a public toilet. A trans woman’s fear that I will silently know they are not female hardly feels comparable.

Do you often find yourself choosing to believe things even when they have been proven false or impossible?

Do you often find yourself eating imitation foods by accident or do you know the difference when it actually matters?

Could you please answer the part about the ibuprofen? Would it be safe to eat ten boxes if I perceive it as harmless or would I suffer poisoning regardless of what I perceive?

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Definitions should be based in the real world. And in the world we live in, anyone assumed or perceived to be female could be considered a woman. That isn't tied to stereotypes, because women obvi still face misogyny whether wearing makeup or not or regardless of femininity. The men who harass me don't know I'm trans, they harass me because they see a woman, like everyone else, so it's silly to insist I'm not a woman when it contradicts how I live my life.

IMHO, the definition of the word woman should be based on material reality - objective, verifiable, physical reality. Not merely on the perceptions of some men like you say. Nor on the assumptions and claims you personally make about what you believe to be the perceptions of some men you have encountered in your own life.

As evidence and proof that you are a woman, you say some men harass you - and you say further that they harass you because when they look at you they see a woman.

To you, it seems there's no material, biological reality to being a woman. Being a woman in your view is all based on superficial outward appearance. Moreover, it's all based on superficial outward appearance as seen solely by men and filtered through, and assessed, according to the sexist standards of men. And not just any men, either. No, the arbiters and ultimate deciders of who counts as a woman in your view are the boorish kind of lowlife men who harass others they pass by or see on the streets or when out and about in public.

Being a woman in your opinion has nothing at to do with being a human being of adult age with a female body. In your view, any person is a woman if she or he is perceived to be a woman by boorish men, and those boorish men harass her/him.

Sorry but this is an extremely misogynistic, male supremacist and entirely male-centric way of defining a woman. I find it incredibly offensive.

Because I am quite ill and the whole Covid crisis, I have been homebound for quite a long time. I have carers and helpers who come into my home, but they are all women. It's been ages since a man who doesn't already have long, intimate history with me such as my son set his eyes on me, looked me up and down and made the assessment based on my superficial appearance that in his manly opinion I am a woman. It's been quite a while since I got sexually harassed by the kind of boorish men whose perceptions and assumed opinions you put so much stock in and whose odious behaviors you regard as the deciding factor in who counts as a woman. Do you really think this means I am not a woman anymore and that I do not "live my life" as a woman either?

The men who harass me don't know I'm trans, they harass me because they see a woman

How on earth can you possibly know this?

Which rights am I attacking by being a woman? And my hormones are bioidentical, thanks, my estradiol is the same as yours. I just get it through a needle every week.

Sorry, this is misogynistic tosh. Misogynistic tosh that would be risible if it weren't so erasing of the "lived reality" of the world's women past and present. Hundreds of millions of the adult human females alive on planet earth at this moment have virtually no estrogen in our systems because we have gone through menopause or we have had our ovaries removed for health reasons. We're still women. Because women aren't defined by our hormone levels.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Being a woman in your view is all based on superficial outward appearance. Moreover, it's all based on superficial outward appearance as seen solely by men and filtered through, and assessed, according to the sexist standards of men.

If a woman is womaning in a forest but no man is around to leer at her, does she even exist?

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

If a woman is womaning in a public restroom but no man is around to leer at her, does she even exist?

Sorry, I couldn't resist it.

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

IMHO, the definition of the word woman should be based on material reality - objective, verifiable, physical reality

How often do you verify someone's genitals? It's not objective or verifiable if it requires an inspection that is basically never publically performed..

As evidence and proof that you are a woman,

Everyone in my life knows I'm a woman. I didn't have to tell most of them how I felt, it's just the conclusion they came to. I don't need any more evidence than that, anymore than you do. I just am.

To you, it seems there's no material, biological reality to being a woman

Not a biological one that is universally shared by all women or people perceived to be women. A material one might be near universal, I guess. Is there any biological experience that absolutely all women have?

No, the arbiters and ultimate deciders of who counts as a woman in your view are the boorish kind of lowlife men who harass others they pass by or see on the streets or when out and about in public.

I'm primarily using those men as examples of how trans women experience misogyny while GC tells us constantly that we do not or cannot. But honestly I care far more about the opinions of my friends, and people that I love, than misogynist lowlifes. The latter are just proof that trans women don't enjoy the same privileges as men.

Being a woman in your opinion has nothing at to do with being a human being of adult age with a female body.

Most adult human females are generally seen to be women, not just by awful people, but by nearly everyone in their lives. I would like to have more confidence in my existence that isn't dependent on how others see me, but until I can fully transition and change every cell in my body, I will rely on the perception of others.

Because I am quite ill and the whole Covid crisis, I have been homebound for quite a long time. I have carers and helpers who come into my home, but they are all women. It's been ages since a man set his eyes on me, looked me up and down and made the assessment that in his manly opinion I am a woman.

I'm really sorry, I hope being housebound hasn't been too bad, that really sucks. Is being that removed from men some small solace, I hope? It sounds nice all things considered :(

Of course you're still a woman, isn't that what your carers and helpers think? Family and friends, those who matter to you? Sorry I feel like I gave the wrong impression that it was only ever about the views of misogynists when it isn't.

Like, I know how I feel and I've felt like I should be a woman my entire life. Me transitioning was just externalizing that, because I hated my body, and because most people do not care about my internal feelings. By transitioning people instead just assume and that is much easier.

How on earth can you possibly know this?

Transphobia hits different, also transphobic men would call me different slurs. The things they say are the same things they say to cis woman friends of mine.

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

Have you ever spent any length of time alone without seeing or being seen by anyone else either IRL or by video app? You ever spend any length of time away from mirrors, without seeing a reflection of yourself in a glass?

Have you ever as a thought experiment wondered if you might feel differently if the world was struck by a virus that suddenly left you and the whole human race without eyesight?

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

I prefer being physically isolated but connecting with people digitally, because then I don't have to worry about how I look. So yeah I prefer interactions where I have some control (like just voice or text), but it doesn't really make me like myself any more.