sorted by:
new
hottopinsightfulfun

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Discussion in a conversation framed like that is just as futile as women conversing in a forum of men who have a grudge against all women in general -- of course every women has committed a sin again maledom in that distorted view of reality. If a women disagrees with any of their points then her humanity is cast away from her and she is nothing other than the caricatures that exist their futile machinations.

Interesting example...

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Hearing opposing views, most of which doesn't contain any kind of insult, is not self-harm.

I don't need to imagine how a QT poster could feel by coming here. I've been in the minority position in a hostile environment in another forum for a very different issue and I still stuck around. I could argue that is a form of "self-harm" for me to keep coming here to argue with random people who don't listen, too. And as I said, just asking questions about transgenderism is enough to attract a rage storm to you in a good bunch of the internet. Don't you think many GC posters knows exactly how is to be in the minority position? Anyway, although moderation is important, when discussing any controversial subject that has been debated to death, some anger is going to be expected. So, I don't know what QT potential posters, expect besides being treated as royalty like everywhere else. Maybe I should be more sympathetic, but I cannot. They keep acting as if they were the most oppressed people in the world when they get everything served in a silver plate. And it's not like my sympathy would be reciprocated.

Furthermore, you're assuming I never looked for some potential mod before you. I did it in private, but I got rejected. And it's not as I had some options to choose from. About the "unmoderated" posts, I saw them. We're surely going to disagree; however, if I ignored them, it means I though they didn't merit action or I left them to other mods to decide (yeah, useless hope, I know). That being said, if I treated GC users with "kid gloves", so I did with QT. I did not banned circling, for instance...

Anyway, I didn't burn out for workload since there wasn't much activity here most days. I did because, although I tried to honor my value for fairness, I resented every single time I had to mod in QT favour. I just didn't sign up for that. I became a mod because there was not an active GC mod and I wanted thing were more balanced. I didn't expected that I'd be doing QT mod's job because they couldn't bother to show up. Plus by arguing with QT and trying to stay civil after reading so many infuriating and absurd takes, not to mention all the lies. It was because I absolutely disagree with the rules that make impossible for me to speak honestly; a rule that is not going away ever because QT get more offended by the truth than whatever hideous and dehumanizing insult that anyone could think of. Plus I keep getting increasingly frustrated by real life development of transgenderism (that in spite whatever trans identified people says it has a big impact on so many people because everyone must accommodate their every wish regardless of the consequences) alongside other issues, which I won't mention nor detail so not to get too political.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Well, thanks so much for not challenging the claim I did so little modding. So glad, I quit being a mod.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Yes, I saw who the banned user was and I can imagine what she could have said (I don't want to make assumptions since I didn't see her comment). I still stand for what I said, anyway, especially because she only comments once in a blue moon. And, really, yo do realize that GC posters receive way more push-back on most of the internet than what QT posters receive here. As I said, in many cases on the internet, or even irl, GC hear far far worse, particularly if they are women (QT has no problem recognizing them without pulling any pants down, funny that). For some women saying GC ideas has come with real life consequences, e.g. getting fired or actual violence (rather than just the typical threats). Yet GC keep discussing against all the odds. However, you say QT posters cannot handle some push-back in a small anonymous forum where we still have not to contradict how they perceive themselves? Sorry, but I am not impressed.

So, because I made you a mod it means I can never disagree with you?

Look, this fairy tale that I was such a biased mod that never bother to moderate is getting old. And it's not true. I was the most active mod by a long shot. Grixit disappeared as soon as he made me a mod (I should have never believed him and accepted his offer), quetzal showed up exactly and peaking was mostly absent and peaking absences had the worst timing, too. There never was so many QT posters here. Most threads were made by the spammer playing devil's advocate (you know the one) and who I must have banned dozens of times; but it seems that Spammer has gotten bored. And I was so "biased" that when a user complained about me to the mod mail, quetzal was forced to admit that I've been fair. I was so biased that I had Flippy calling me a rapist apologist (or something like that) because I warned him off in the very same thread where circling was asking for me to be removed from the "mod team" (i.e. just me). I was so biased I even offered you being a mod. Honestly, I wish I was as harsh as every single QT poster claims I was. It would had been easier for me.

Anyway, of course, what else an ex-biased mod like me could say? After all, the biased mod is going to defend herself against all the evidence. But I have to ask you, beris, if you think I was such a biased mod, why are you following my steps. You keep being very open about how you think GC posters are so mean and of course QT ran away from such hostile environment. Given that there is no GC mod anymore (no, peaking doesn't count), don't you worry that GC posters just leave? Well, I guess that is a way to attract QT posters. Although it may not work since GC posters are usually more resilient than that. And whatever the result, it doesn't change the fact you are, at least, as biased as me, beris.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

As if their comments don't exude anger too or as if they didn't misrepresent our arguments.

I don't know why you keep acting as if they don't come here because we are such lying and unredeemable jerks. This sub was created because the reddits administrators banned the old one for "transphobia". Most QT users celebrated the moved and they didn't want to come here. It's not a secret.

Anyway, at 99% of the internet you have to walk on burning eggshells not to offend them, while they are free to say the most vile things. But I guess a little forum that is little bit less biased in their favor is too much for them to handle.

Edit: I don't know what the removed comment said, I just thought this needed to be said.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

So, you keep talking about your lived experience, but what about your un-lived or whatever the antonym of lived experience may be? I mean, can there be personal experiences that are not lived? Does the phrase redundancy give the experiences more validity? Jokes aside, you're falling on a kind of exceptionalism. According to you, no one but trans identified people are qualified to talk about the "trans experiences"; nevertheless, you give yourself permission for matters that should be foreign to you, like the "lived experiences" of women. For how could you know you are a woman, otherwise? How could you know who, including yourself, is a woman when you are unable to define the word? You have no idea how it is to inhabitant a female body and all the biological and social experiences that arises from this fact.

Words have meanings that people have agreed upon in order to communicate with each other. Thus, I don't have a personal definition of "woman", rather I go by the one that is (still) in the dictionaries (the one that has been used by everyone before transactivists started lobbying to change it), which is based on the reality of sex. Because, here is the thing, reality doesn't change just because you give something a completely unrelated name. A donkey doesn't become an unicorn just because you say it's really an unicorn. I doesn't become one either even if you also fix a horn on its head.

Anyway, I didn't say you lack empathy for women because of our disagreements. I said it because you showed no concern for the very real impacts trasactivism is having on women. Instead, you worry that "modern transgender people" ruin it for you. What is more, you're worried for consequences that have yet to materialize for you. If it is true that you "pass" as a woman completely, I mean, you "pass" 100% and no one ever could tell you are actually "transsexual" by looking at you, then why do you mind if Republicans want to ban all males from the women's restrooms at all?

Something like requiring SRS surgery, 10 years on hormones, no transfers from male prisons, and no history of certain crimes makes sense to me as criteria for trans women in female prisons for instance.

None of these things would make them female, though. Furthermore, that was already tried. Old school transactivists in different countries lobbied to be legally recognized as the opposite sex and have access to sex-segregated spaces that weren't intended for them. It was a trap. Soon enough, that was not good anymore because not all trans identified people could afford "medical transition", for some it could not be accessed legally in their countries, some though it was cruel to be subjected to procedures that have all kinds of harsh side effects in order to be recognized as their "true selves", to say nothing of the "forced sterilization".

No. Self-ID doesn't happens overnight, but it's a gradual process that starts by ignoring biology. It never ends with just a few special cases.

I think that we need to be judged by our characters and not by having the original sin of being born male.

I agree with judging people by their characters. I don't think being born male is a sin. As there is, however, many males who do shitty things, women have plenty of reasons to be wary of them, especially because we cannot tell who are the bad ones. Any decent male would understand this and not make it personal.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

You say I can't talk about trans identified people because I lack the "necessary" personal experience. If we follow this premise to its logical consequence, then history quickly becomes a off-ground subject. So why have you be talking about the experiences of historical groups of people with such an authoritative voice? Have you been there to back up your claims? How do you know people "transitioned" before there was a concept of "transgender"? How could they "transition" when there were no exogenous hormones or surgeries (other than castration) available?

I suggest you give a read at the links in my comment above. Transactivists often project modern ideas on ancient people and misrepresent other cultures. I guess it must be reassuring to think that there has always been trans identified people as we understand it now; but there is little, if any evidence, for such claims.

Also, you have no answered why we don't give liposuction to patients with anorexia nervosa nor why we don't amputate healthy arms for people who desperately want to get rid of them. What does make trans identified people so different that we must go against what would be regarded as common sense in any other mental health issue?

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

I am a small person at 5’4. There are bigger trans women for sure though.

You're still very likely stronger than the average woman. There are many males who are more vulnerable for a variety of reasons (e.g. very short height, old age, disability or minority status); however, women's spaces are not a refuge for any of them. Those spaces were built for women. Making special exemptions for some kinds of males defeats its purpose. Making cross-sex self-identification the special exemption is even worse because there is no objective way to determine who is a "true trans"; even you has admitted this much. In other words, allowing any trans identified male in women's spaces means, in practice, allowing all and every male there.

There are bigger trans women for sure though. I’m not going to go into a 3rd space to make a political point when I have been going into the right restroom already for decades without issue.

Without issue FOR YOU, you meant. But who cares what the plain women in those restrooms think about it, right? You're comfortable there and that is the only thing that matters.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

I understand, but this study is from Sweden and they have a bigger welfare State than the US, too. And those stats are just saying they commit more violent crimes than females, which is true for every male group. And they are also keep being stronger and bigger than women. We cannot put aside all that if we're discussing their access to former women's only space. And, I repeat, they won't even entertain the possibility of third spaces. The very fact that so many are willing to ignore women's boundaries, even after being explained again and again the problems with their actions, doesn't look good, to say the least.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Please tell me if I’m not correct but I sense that you see trans women as being the exact same as men with the same socialization.

I think I've made my views pretty clear given the constraints that I mentioned on other post. If you think you had different experiences from both men and women, then why do you claim the label "woman" for yourself? Why do you not choose any other label? How are you a "woman", anyway? We have take your word for it, but you don't offer neither proof nor justification. If biology doesn't matter, then what is a woman? What is a man? Can you really define either of without recurring to sexist stereotypes?

As for how society treat trans identified people... Well, trans identified males are very prominent in transactivism, many occupying leading roles. Their stories are always believed, they are always given the benefit of the doubt, their "identities" always respected. Even in cases they commit horrible crimes, correctly sexing them (aka "misgendering") is viewed as far worse than whatever crime they committed. They are given every thing they ask for, may it be hormones, cosmetic surgeries, access to former women's only spaces, and so on. Dissenters, especially dissenting women, are viewed as nazis. We are even supposed to pretend they will be able to get pregnant within a few years.

Meanwhile, we only hear about trans identified females when: a) they got pregnant; b) they take part in sports... in a female league...; or c) they commit a crime, except people don't care about "misgendering" here (see the recent case of the Nashville shooter, for example). Yet, they so "much" male privilege that trans identified males can talk over them. What does this tell you?

I’m not sure about what you mean by rape threats and how that relates to me. I have never threatened anyone with rape and am confused about how I am involved in that.

I meant that dissenting woman have to deal with rape threats quite often. You can find them on the internet quite easily. I didn't say that was something you personally did, but that is something that happens and said women are given a once of sympathy because they are "transphobes", you know? Here is issue, trans identified males' comfort are always privileged over women's discomfort and safety. Yes, women's safety, because there is no way to tell who is a "true trans" and the evidence suggest trans identified males retain male patterns of criminality (*).

Yourself, here, are showing a clear lack of concern for women all the while you expect we respect your wishes. Maybe you're the nicest person in the world and can't kill a fly, but there is no way for women to know this, but even if they could, privacy is important, too. Who are you (or anyone like you) to decide what women find acceptable in such vulnerable setting? Moreover, I've to highlight you keep focusing only on bathrooms when I mentioned several other settings. And you don't even registered the option for third spaces.

You ask for empathy, but you don't seem willing to offer any to women.

(*) Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.

I think I've written enough for today. Further replies from my part may take a while...

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

My point was that the technology for making exogenous hormones and performing cosmetic surgeries on secondary sex characteristics is pretty new. People at early 19th century or even more earlier couldn't risk everything for something that was not possible. I think you're projecting a lot of modern experiences and concepts in ancient people. What is even "gender-variant people" and what Sumerians could know about them when until mid 20th century gender was a grammar concept? It was either John Money or Robert Stoller who reapplied the term for how someone self-perceives in the form of "gender identity" in their questionable researchers. Then some English speaking feminists thought it was a good idea talking about "gender" instead of sex-based roles and stereotypes. Also, English speakers, especially American, gradually became more and more uncomfortable using the word "sex" when talking about biological sex and started using "gender" as an euphemism. And because English is the most studied and influential language in the world and, probably, also the most translated language, these newer uses of the word "gender" extended far beyond the borders of English speaking countries.

And speaking of language, I think it's telling that, while you can find a word for a woman or a man in every language, even ancient languages, there are no ancient equivalent for "transsexuals" or "transgender". At most, you may find some words for so called "third genders" in certain cultures (like the hijra in India), that are not equivalent with each other because said terms are culture-specific, which suggest "transsexual status" or lack thereof is not something universal and fundamental like being a woman or a man. Furthermore, I've see no evidence that cultures with so called "third genders" recognized and treated said people as the opposite sex.

The Myths about the Mythical Indian Hijra

The sex binary is not a ‘Western construct,’ gender identity is

You were the one who classified trans identified people in two groups, those who are legitimate as yourself and the ones who are just following a trend and were ruining it for the "legitimate" ones. I was just following your lead here. Funny, you mention Ray Blanchard because, despite being so maligned by transactivists of either group, he actually thinks AGP transidentified males are "true trans", who suffer from the most painful gender dysphoria and he neither thought about asking women what we think about it. So, who can tell who is a "true trans"? Even you admit there is not an objective test and is a matter of given off the right "energy"? That is not scientific at all and the inability to determine who has actually gender dysphoria is the first crack in the field.

Something you have not addressed is how gender dysphoria is treated very differently from any other mental health issue. People with anorexia nervosa go to great lengths in their self-destructive behavior; however, nobody thinks is wise to recommend them for a liposuction or assist them by any other means in their search for their "perfect" weight. Some people want their healthy arm or leg amputated, sometimes they ampute them themselves with all the risks that it implies. Yet, you won't find many people recommending amputation as an aceptable "treatment for said people. So, why should we act differently regarding gender dysphoria? Especially because there is no way for humans to change one's sex, neither naturally nor artificially. Sex is determined at conception and you cannot reverse all the changes that are triggered because of it. Everyone is either female or male, even people with DSDs (intersex is an outdated and misleading term), many of which are not misidentified at birth.

Finally, regarding the supposed standards for this field of medicine, doctors working on it are notorious for their bad designed experiments and the big rates of drop-out. Sometimes they cannot even keep basic data from their patients, as we've seen in the judicial review of the Tavistock clinic brought by Keira Bell in the UK. Even after decades prescribing hormones, there is still no proof they work as a treatment for gender dysphoria. GnRH agonists (aka "puberty blockers") are prescribed off-labeled for trans identified minors ignoring their serious potential and reported side effects. What is worse, they are described as "reversible" despite this claim defies all we know about pharmacology or human development. The only basis for this bold claim is their use for patients with central precocious puberty, which is a very different population, for which there are objective diagnostic criteria and its usage is very different, too. But the fact children with precocious puberty will resume puberty after stop taking GnRH agonists is not the same as these drugs not having side effects. Surgeries are even worse because experimentation is more rampant in that field.

Moreover, there is a total lack of curiosity for the changing demography of patients with gender dysphoria. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that detransitioners often don't go back to their doctors. This suggest there needs to be more research on this area. Unfortunately, academics and professionals questioning the official script are often prevented from doing their jobs.

A live experiment on children': Mail on Sunday publishes the shocking physicians' testimony that led a High Court judge to ban NHS's Tavistock clinic from giving puberty blocking drugs to youngsters as young as 10 who want to change sex

Antiandrogen or estradiol treatment or both during hormone therapy in transitioning transgender women - spoiler, the authors of this review couldn't find any study that could pass their inclusion criteria and point out the big gap between research and clinical practice.

New Systematic Reviews of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones Published by NICE

Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care

One Year Since Finland Broke with WPATH "Standards of Care"

All Six of Sweden's Pediatric Clinics Meet to Discuss a Cautious Stance Toward Pediatric Gender Transitions

As a Former Dean of Harvard Medical School, I Question Brown’s Failure to Defend Lisa Littman - about the woman who coined the term Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

We Need Balance When It Comes To Gender Dysphoric Kids. I Would Know | Opinion (by Scott Newgent)

Detransition-Related Needs and Support: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey

Proposal to research 'trans regret' rejected by university for fear of backlash, claims psychotherapist

AAP 'Silencing Debate' on Gender Dysphoria, Says Doctor Group

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Uh, you're welcome. Yeah, I write a lot and I'll keep writing a lot because I've read your four comments. It'll just take a while...

I'll repeat what I said before: disagreeing with you, even disagreeing with how you view yourselves is not the same as dehumanizing you or wishing your non-existence. I see how one could interprete my phrase "people like you" that way, but I meant exactly people like you, i.e male-attracted "transsexual" male who "transitioned" in times of more "gatekeeping", which was the group you were focusing on since you were talking about from your own experience. Saying that was a mouth-foul, and it involves several ideological-based words that I don't like using because they contradict both my beliefs and my knowledge. Language is important when discussing these issues, unfortunately, what I can say here is limited by the sub norms. Even if that not were the case, the one time that I spoke honestly, with a trans identified user who got more offended by my references to said user's sex rather than by my more harsher criticisms, was such a headache that lasted a whole week or more that I don't wish to repeat. So, in short, I end up using a lot of clunky phrases as "people like you" in this sub.

Anyway, I don't speak from a place of prejudice and ignorance as you suppose. I've spent good deal thinking about these issues even before joining this sub two years ago, really. Also, I've listened to what trans identified people and their supporters have to say, both here and elsewhere. Finally, I know a good deal about the human body and I can tell when something does not add up. And the so called "gender medicine" doesn't add up. I'll expand this last point in another comment.

Moreover, saying I, too, would be forced to transition if I were to live your experiences is a bold claim since you don't know anything about me. And, you know what, because I've a natural deep voice for a woman, I have been mistaken for a boy over the phone and inter-phone a few times; plus, some people have assumed I was male on the internet, where you don't know how someone else looks. Yet, no once this has caused me an identity crisis because my identity don't depends on how other people perceive me: I am a woman. I know this for a fact and I don't need any affirmation, even though I'm not a stereotypical "feminine" woman. When I said gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria relied a lot on stereotypes, I was not joking; and this is specially true for children. If I were to take those "tests" as a child, some may even decide that I were a "trans kid". I was somewhat a non-conforming, but not so much; that is how bad I'm saying those "diagnostic criteria" are. Just take a look at the parents of famous trans identified children this stuff by pointing out how their 3-years-olds played with the wrong toys or liked the wrong clothes. It's all about stereotypes.

You mentioned the frightening stories from South America. Well, I'm from a South American country, Argentina, where things are apparently so bad that trans identified people have, supposedly a life expectancy of around 35 years (transactivists certainly love throwing that number around on local Media). I call nonsense. Firstly, they ignore possible confounding factors like insecurity, the economic situation, homophobia (as far as I can tell, many trans identified people here are same-sex attracted) or prostitution. Okay, they actually acknowledges the prostitution issue, but they act like this is some great proof of transphobia. In reality, there are more women involved in prostitution, but when is plain women being raped, beat or murdered no one bats an eye.

So, what local transactivists did about this? Fighting the sex trade and pornography? Not, of course not. Instead they lobbied for the gender identity law, that in 2012 recognized their right to lie about their sex on official documents and elsewhere, a being given free exogenous hormones, cosmetic surgeries to alter the appearance of their secondary sex characteristics, among other "treatments" like voice training (I have no words...) and body-hair removal (for goodness sake, why can't they just shave?!). The lobby started in 2007 and they got all this in a few years. Meanwhile, abortion was only legalized here in 2020 and with far less support.

And transactivists gave the most absurd arguments, too. For example, they claimed they were exclude from health care and voting. How so? Well, they didn't like to use their previous names or put themselves in the sex-segregated quees when voting. It was both triggering and dangerous as it meant "outing" themselves. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous, both because they were the ones self-excluding themselves and because they don't "pass" today, less so back then when altering their appearance involved more money and traveling abroad. And that the State has to pay for all those cosmetic changes with our screwed economy and our overwhelmed and underfunded public health system... This makes me mad, more so because it's the newest form of colonialism as it's developed countries who pioneered this stuff and have exporting it elsewhere and now people there can pretend they are anti-imperialists by supporting it.

Furthermore, although the law said nothing about trans identified males being granted access to formerly women's only spaces; in practice, they have got this because, otherwise, they wouldn't being treated as the opposite sex as the law commands. Of course, this was not mentioned when they were lobbying for the law (it would have been too much, back then). "It's only a minor change in our identity cards, that won't affect anyone else", we were told. For that end, they educated journalists on "inclusive language", among other things, and they were more than happy to comply and lie to the public and not ask hard questions.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

I use the term transsexual instead of transgender as it connects me to the strong and resilient women in the past who defied a society that wanted them to not exist and communicates that changing my secondary sex characteristics to be that of the opposite sex is paramount to my condition.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like quite the overstatement. First, who exactly did want people like you not to exist? Disagreeing with your views, even how you view yourselves is not the same as wanting you not to exist. Second, exogenous hormones and elective surgeries can only alter your appearance so much. For some, it may increase the likelihood that other people mistake them for the opposite sex, but only up to a certain point; and I remain skeptical that someone could fool ALL the people ALL the time. IME, people like you not only often overestimate how much they pass irl (which doesn't come up with filters, convenient angles and so on), but they also underestimate how much people are willing to play along whether for thinking is the "polite" thing to do, for fear of negative consequences or for not wanting to go against the flow.

Putting the matter of "passing" aside, there are other things that you've not considered. You focused a lot on how much people like you need all those medical procedures and that you all were/are willing to risk everything for them; unlike the modern "transgender people", who are only following a trend. However, if people like you would have born at the early 19th century, you couldn't have access them not matter what because they didn't exist. So, how much is this need innate? How much has said need arised by the very new existence (in terms of human history) of said procedures?

Furthermore, I disagree that back then there was actual "gatekeeping". I've read the old diagnostic criteria and they still relied on sexist stereotypes, unsurprisingly. It could not have been any other way because once you rule out biology to define who is a woman or a man, you're only left with stereotypes. What is more, any "gatekeeping" could be bypassed if you have enough money and that is how even in the good old days of gatekeeping you had middle aged males who were sexually attract to females, have fathered children and had very "manly" jobs declaring suddenly they were "transsexuals" and got all the hormones and surgeries done. So, how can you tell who is and who is not a "true trans". If there less people like you back then is likely because these procedures were more expensive, less available, less advertised, and less people willing to play along among other things.

All of this, plus the shoddy science done by the doctors working on "gender medicine", the fact that not other mental issue is treated the same way (e.g. nobody recommends liposuction for people with anorexia nervosa) and the well-known health problems produced for these elective surgeries and the usage of exogenous hormones is enough, I think, to question the wisdom of "gender affirmement treatments" for anyone but, ESPECIALLY, for children and teens.

You also complain about other people dismissing the experiences of people like you; however, besides focusing so much on "passability" and overestimating the ability to tell "true trans" apart from the trenders, you're ignoring the fact people will never have the same experiences than females, regardless of how much hormones you take, how many surgeries you undergo or much effort you put on emulating the stereotypical dressing and mannerisms of women, and so on.

But you worry about Republicans and bathrooms. I don't care for Republicans. I don't have any good thing to say about them nor about the Democrats (I'm not American). Yet, by your post it seems you have not considered at all how the bathroom's issue affects women, not only in the US, but in all the other countries where "affirmation" has become the norm. Indeed, it seems you feel threatened by "modern transgender people" because women may assert their boundaries with all trans identified males. Nevertheless trans identified males, BOTH "old school transsexuals" and the "modern transgender people", have inserted themselves in former women-only spaces, not only in public bathrooms, but also changing rooms, spas, sports, hospital wards, refugees, prisons, and so on. Women were not consulted for this and when we tried to assert our boundaries you all (i.e. both groups of trans identified males) you kept going on. You STILL keep going on. In some cases, some of you have responded to dissenting women with threats of rape and violence, trying to get them fired from their jobs or "cancelled", or even with actual violence.

Both groups seems completely disinterested in how much their actions hurts women. Both groups seems completely disinterested on how women may find offensive to be defined based on a bunch of sexist stereotypes or how offensive is to see our biology and our experiences be treated like a costume. Both groups ignore also how much their actions are setting the hard-earned women's rights back. In conclusion, by your post it seems you have more in common with "modern transgender people" than you think.

And yet you won't go to the men's bathrooms. Of course, you all could have lobby for third spaces ages ago. That is the obvious compromise that both the "old school transsexuals" and "the modern transgender people" has ruled out from the very beginning, and they both still treat it as a taboo. Apparently third spaces are othering and akin to racial segregation. Funny, though, how we women don't feel othered by not sharing the bathrooms with men, don't you think?

Edit: yeah, I guess I'm once again able to write a long post discussing this topic after a long, and very needed, "rest".

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

I find it interesting how little the TRA movement has been able to police the language. On Reddit, you will see people complaining about Audrey not being called Aiden or "he/him," but the mainstream media is either desperately trying to ignore pronouns altogether, using "they," or outright using "she" with no regard for her pronouns. If Hale thought becoming a school shooter would cause her to be seen as male, she would have been sorely disappointed in this outcome.

Evidence #43817 that no one actually believes this stuff.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

I won't comment much on the shooter's possible motivations because I don't like to speculate with so little information. I've seen people blaming exogenous hormones for the shooting, which is possible, although I'm not sure if it is confirmed that she was taking testosterone and, even if she was, there are many potential confounding factors (like whatever unresolved trauma or mental illness she may had, she possibly trying to prove how "manly" she was, TRA's violent rhetoric and irresponsible talks of genocide and suicide, and so on).

On one hand, I don't think you can rule out, without examining it first, the role that her chosen identity may have played. On the other hand, focusing too much on her identity is missing the forest for the trees.

I read Nashville was the 129th mass shooting in the US in 2023 (that is more mass shootings than days in the year so far...) and the 13th in a school setting. This a very American issue that don't happen anywhere else, not at this rate, anyway, pretty likely because there are too many guns in the US. It's quite easy buying and carrying firearms there, even assault riffles, that belong in the military. What for a civilian would need, for instance, an AR-15 living in a country that is not fighting a war in their own soil? Of course, the US is always at war with someone else, but that happens far, far away.

It's far too easy for wannabee shooters to have access to firearms, even ones designed to kill many people in a short time, yet there is little political will to restrict said access. Supposedly because of some sacrosanct right to bear arms, but more likely because regulations kill profits and the American gun lobby is quite powerful.

And for many Americans, guns seem to be answer to everything. I'm not longer shocked that, after a new mass shooting in the US, there are calls for bringing more guns so the "good guys" can fight off the "bad guys" and protect the innocents. But, for what I've hear over the years, apparently plenty of these gunmen, in their twisted logic, see themselves as the "good guys" fighting for a "just cause" and write a whole manifesto justifying their criminal acts. Not unlike American politicians of either party deciding to invade foreign countries or to make "regimen change" abroad pretending that is for a noble cause like "spreading democracy" or "human rights", all with the full approval of MSM; except that American war criminals are respected and never pay for their crimes. And American troops are honored for "serving their country"; even though that usually means ravaging the invaded countries so as to rich Americans can get richer.

Some may object that I'm linking mass shootings with militarism, but when so many Americans regard an AR-15 as a reasonable choice for self defense...

This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart

Varmints, soldiers and looming threats: See the ads used to sell the AR-15

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

And with Agatha Christie's books they don't have the excuse that is for kids. Presumably, the adults who read them understand that social actitudes have changed.

It seems they want to "update" some Ursula K. Le Guin's children books, which I find completely absurd. Having read all the Earthsea's books and learning about her views, I cannot imagine her writing something questionable for children. And, indeed, the problematic parts are only seven instances of four words. So, what is the point?

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Asking questions is always important, it always have been, more so when the powerful refuse to answer them.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Focusing so much on language is backwards, anyway. I mean, sure, language is important or I wouldn't have spent so much time talking about it here; however, language reflects social prejudices. Even if you baned all the offensive words, as long social values don't change, new ones will be coined. And, of course, not amount of language changes is going to modify physical reality, another reason why correctly sexing people is not the same than, for example, a racial slur.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Some of the changes are indeed for the worse and not only from a literary or historical point of view. I think it's "interesting" that among the changes, Matilda now reads Jane Austen and not Rudyard Kipling, I'm guessing because the latter is a British man writing about India, but the former fits better within the narrow range of things girls and women are allowed to like according to transactivists.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Oh, but TRAs are perfectly fine being offensive when they want to. In fact, a good deal of their "inclusive language" is pretty dehumanizing toward women. Trans identified people just reserve the right not to be the object of offense.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

I'll start saying I've not read Dahl's books and I'm only familiar with the Matilda movie, which I liked, and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, which was pretty weird and I disliked. However, even I can see how sensitivity readers had completely altered the books despite claims of trying to preserve the original essence.

I don't see the purpose of the changes, either. First, writers spent a good deal of time choosing every word; so, of course, any attempt to randomly change them is going to produce clunky results. Second, if you think the books are offensive, I really don't know why you are eager to read them, even if you're reading a tamer version. I think there is value in analyzing and discussing how a book covers controversial subjects (as long you don't start assuming that an author always supports everything that happens in their books or makes thing up, anyways), but this can only be done with the original. And when we're talking about old books, updating their language and ideas is, in my opinion, a form of historical revisionism, but whitewashing the past doesn't erase what happened. And, when you don't know history, it makes you prone to repeat past mistakes or unable to understand the present.

I'd say sensitivity readers should write their own stories instead, but I think it's clear why they don't: they really don't know how.

Kind off-topic for this sub, but this incident reminded me of the publication of Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince. In Latin America, the book title was translated not as Harry Potter y el príncipe mestizo, but as Harry Potter y el misterio del príncipe (Harry Potter and the Prince's Mystery) in case people got offended over the word mestizo even if it was the better translation choice. On the contrary, people were ofended because of the implication we would interpret it as a racist thing. And, besides the title, the books used the word mestizo, anyway, which made everything more ridiculous.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers

by BiologyIsReal to /s/GCdebatesQT from (self.GCdebatesQT)

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

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

so I wanted to ask people who are against male gender nonconformity why they thought it was wrong.

Then you came to the wrong place to ask. Though, honestly, I think you would have to ask your parents. We all here could speculate about their behaviour, but they are the only ones who know the answer.

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

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

My mistake. I admit, I know barely anything about jewelry and I've never heard about that kind of earrings. Here, in Argentina, baby girls usually get their ears pierced at the hospital and, therefore, girls usually wear standard earrings.

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

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

???

I see no reason to tell a 8-year-olds boy that he is creepy for wanting earrings. However, that boy should be told that, unlike his sisters, he hadn't get his ears perfored when he was a baby; and he needs to do that before wearing any earrings.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

look =/= being

Anyways, is that, really, the only comment you're going to reply to?

Is this thing on? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

Also, does anyone know who soundsituation is?

She is a mod on the GC sub on saidit.

Is this thing on? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

I keep checking, but there is no much activity here. I had few ideas for new threads, which at the end I never made because I kept thinking: 'What is the point'? And I just so tired of absolutely everything going on in my country and in the world. And I mean everything, not just the stuff discussed on this sub. Partly, it's why I left as a mod, too.

The definition of "Gender" and how TRAs use it to push their agenda by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

Well in recent time, I've had these TRAs tell me that I'm wrong because the definition of "man" and "woman" has changed to "gender". That whenever you see these terms in some documentation, it'll say "gender" instead of sex and then you fill it in as "man", "woman" (and "other" these days...) Or if you ask people what their "gender" is, they'll say "man" or "woman" (or "nonbinary"...)

That is because many people are too prudish to say the word "sex" and say "gender" instead.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Most major news and information sources use preferred pronouns, and if they didn't TRAs would boycott them. If TRAs were such a tiny minority of people, we wouldn't have this much influence.

I'm going to continue my reply from yesterday. TRAs have been trying to cancel J.K. Rowling for more than two years by now. However, no matter how much they they demonize her, she is still quite popular and selling lots of books worldwide. For example, I went to a bookstore recently and the Harry Potter books were visibly displayed, including the 20th aniversary editions. The movies are still broadcasted at TV, too. Moreover, their attempst at cancelling her have backfired and many people have changed their views because of the discrepance between what she actually said and TRA's overreaction, which includes countless death and rape threats (just check the peaking threads on Ovarit, for instance). Even public figures who have "denounced" her are quite happy to keep profitering off her works.

This huge failure by TRAs may be explained by: (a) TRAs are not that numerous as they claim to be, (b) she is too big to be cancelled, (c) both. In any case, this put into question TRAs' capability to influence MSM through boycotts. It's more likely they have lobbied them. Actually, scratch the "likely": they have lobbied them. Transactivists (and here I'm refering to the people at the top, not any radom saying TWAW on an random forum/social media) are very aware they need to control the narrative and, for that, they have set their eyes on MSM from the begining.

For instance, Argentine TRA have admited (*) this and explained how they "educated" local media, so they in turn could (mis)inform the public about the inconming gender identity law. They even had a media guide in Spanish to do so. Surely there must be other guides of this kind elsewhere. Although I don't remember who wrote it, it's have been linked on Ovarit an English journalist redaction manual which deals specifically on how news articles must talk about trans identified people.

And I have little doubts somehow there is money behind Media support for transgenderism, too. Truth is secondary for newsmedia; they are not going to go against their own interest. That is why you need to read the news with a critical mind.

(*) Here is an old article where they admit this and here a quotation from that article (bolding is not mine):

But perhaps the most important effect of the Court injunctions campaign has been its educational effect on public opinion. Each recognition (especially at the beginning) received much media attention and was thus a great opportunity for activists to explain to our society the importance of recognizing self-perceived gender identity, why a medical diagnosis should not be required and other issues. I must say, it was surprising to hear journalists using terms like "self-perceived identity", "de-pathologization" or "gender expression" among others.

It was also very important that we develop a "Guide for Communicators on Gender Identity" (http://www.lgbt.org.ar/archivos/folleto_identidad2_web.pdf), especially trying to educate journalists for them to use appropriate vocabulary, understanding that this would also influence the rest of society. During the campaign for equal marriage we had already noticed that many times journalists supported our cause but had no tools or knowledge to defend it. At that time we developed a little material that gave them very useful arguments, and then we did the same on gender identity.

THEIR words, not mine.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Pronouns are not based on biology.

Pronouns that change depending on which sex someone is (like "he" and "she" in English) are indeed based on biology. In Spanish, a group of men and women may be refered to as "ellos" because of the generic masculine, but that still is because there are at least a person of the male sex in the group. That is because sex is an easily observable characteristic we have evolve to recognize; while "gender identity", besides being unobservable, is a modern concept. You won't find references to "gender identity" prior to the mid 20th century. And it's only in the 21st century this new concept became more widespread. You could argue there is an language change going on, but I would point out this "change" is being forced from top to bottom. How can it be a natural change when "misgendering" may get you baned from social media, fired from your work, be the target of bullies, etcetera?

I am a cis woman and I am secure in my own identity. Yet when people use "she" for me they are validating my identity. Why is different about trans people?

Pronouns are not a tool to validate anyone's identity, but a way to ease communication. A text flows much better when you uses pronouns instead of repeating someone's name all the time. That is why "neopronouns" like zim or xim don't stick. Who has time to memorize the "correct" pronouns for each new person they meet?

Even if you don't believe in this language you can still return the same respect that Buck gives to you. I don't know if Buck can be considered GC but he holds GC beliefs.

I don't know how you expect I return respect to someone I've never met or talked to. It's unlikely that Buck reads this forum, so who I would be offending by refering to her sex? Also, I don't think is a given that she would respect me.

Buck is a man. He has a beard, deep voice and male levels of testosterone.

I have a natural deep voice, I've even been mistaken for a boy in the phone/interphone, and yet I'm a woman. We'gone through this already. Female refers to the sex that produces large gametes (egg) and male, to the one who produces small gametes (sperm); and humans cannot change sex. You only named secondary sex characteristics, which are (usually) indicative of someone's sex, but they don't define someone's sex. Besides, you're being inconsist: when asked to define the words "man" and "woman", you claim none of this matters.

Using preferred pronouns is absolutely a neutral and respectful act.

You say so because you believe this stuff and because you don't think it's harmfull to women in spite of the proof we have been providing you.

Most major news and information sources use preferred pronouns, and if they didn't TRAs would boycott them. If TRAs were such a tiny minority of people, we wouldn't have this much influence.

It's not about numbers, but about who holds the power. Women are slightly more than 50% of the population and yet you'll find sexism and misogyny all around the world. Just 1% of the world populations holds most of world's wealth. The whole world is hostage to the nine nuclear powers. In the International Monetary Found the richest countries have the most number of votes ( i.e. it's not a vote per country); guess which countries are always screwed up. And I could keep going on...

If TRAs have gotten so far is because there are powerfull and rich men pushing this stuff up in the West (where it began) and in the rest of the world (though, it helps that English has become a sort of lingua franca and that there is no lack of people parroting whatever the West says).

I may expand this point some other day, but now it's getting late here.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. I don't think stating someone's sex (aka "misgendering") is violence.

  2. I don't even think stating someone's sex is offensive, but a matter a fact and a neutral descriptor. Trans identified people are the ones taking offense where none is intended.

  3. I think it's quite arrogant for some people to expect everyone else's see them as they see themselves regardless of reality.

  4. Someone who is secure on their own identity doesn't need the "validation" of other people, especially, not the "validation" of complete strangers. Someone getting angry about being refered as their own sex is admitting that even they don't believe in this stuff.

  5. Why should I use language I don't believe in? That is I know Buck Angel is not a man, and by using he or him for her, I would be sending the opposite menssage.

  6. Why should I lie to talk about someone who is not in the room? Why should I lie to talk about someone I have not even met?

  7. You cannot change reality through language. Even if everyone in the world used her "prefered pronouns", Buck would still not be a man.

  8. Using "inclusive language" is not a neutral act and it only serves to ofuscate the facts. A newspaper saying "She was convicted for murder and sent to a women's prison" instead of "He was convicted for murder and sent to a women's prison" is shamelessly misleading the public.

  9. We've evolved to recognize other people's sex (and without the need of pulling anyone's pants down). Asking us to ignore our own eyes and to put constant attention to any potential "misgendering" is exhausting and it slows our thoughts. Be honest, genderbender, if not with us, at least with yourself. Even you have to carefully think all those "prefered pronouns" to get them right, aren't you?

Both: What do you think about the NHS ending the gender-affirmation care model for youth in England? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Overall, I think it's a great development in the right direction, though I've some concerns:

  1. They've not explictly said "cross-sex" hormones will be reserved for research settings.

  2. The stuff with teens and "social transition". Even if they have included informed consent (and we all know how well that went), they've forgotten that plenty of this stuff envolves the participation of other people, who apparently have no say on this.

  3. The fact that it still uses ideological terms like "gender incongruence", which I guess is a result of them focusing on minors. And I think, it's about time to start rethinking this whole gender dysphoria stuff and its treatment from zero.

I'd like to say that I hope my country followed this, but I'd be lying. Honestly, I'm fed up, and not only about this issue. If we limited to change course just because developed countries like England or Sweden did, then it'd mean we didn't learned any lesson (and imo, they don't go far enough, anyway). I wan't my fellow country(wo)men stop copying whatever the West is doing and figure out this is all a big scam on their own. And Western countries trying to impose this stuff (along many others) on us can f*** off, sorry, not sorry.

Q/T:. What advice would you give a non-conforming boy who gets bullied in the boys' bathroom and is jealous of trans girl classmates who don't have to use it? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The fact that boys bully you doesn't make it right for you to bully girls like your fellow male classmate is doing.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Elliot Page did testosterone himself into a male. He is becoming a gorgeous and handsome man.

That is not how it works. Humans cannot change sexes. All taking exogenous testosterone can do is making some superficial changes (like voice dropping and increasing body hair) and creating a lot of health problems. Page has NOT became a man in the same way a female athlete does NOT become a man for dopping herself.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Saying women and men are opposite is meaningless as long you won't describe HOW they are opposite.

I'm going to make up two words: haskilm and bopagi. What do they mean, you ask? Easy. A haskilm is anyone who says they are a haskilm. And a bopagi is anyone who says they are a bopagi. Do you not understand what i mean? No problem, I'm happy to explain. Haskilm and bopagi are opposite. That should clear things up, right? What? Still no clue? But I followed all your steps for defining words!

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

How do you know it? You've been unable to define the characteristics of a woman so far. So, could you tell us with great detail how you and Page are completely opposite?

All: what is your opinion on tomboys? by FrogEnjoyer in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The popular perception seems to be that GC doesn't really like the concept in general and is okay with either gender mixing gendered qualities.

I don't believe in gender or gendered qualities. Society has placed different roles and stereotypes to people of both SEXES, with women always being second-class citizens.

And I think people should let kids be kids instead of obsessing over whether kids are behaving as 100% "girly" girls or 100% percent "boyish" boys, or not. And, definitelly, no child should be medically abused because she or he played with the "wrong" toy once.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Stop dodging the questions. You have been doing this for days now. You claim women cannot be defined by biology but, when you are called out for being sexist, you insist you didn't mean anything sexist while still refusing to explain anything. If you trully are not defining women based on sexist stereotypes, then tell us explicitly with great detail what do you mean by "social class". Also, do not forget telling us why would anyone choose willingly to be a second class citizen?

I'm not talking about a group of people called "women" and assigning the attribute of "identifying with a social class" to that group. I'm defining a term. I can see how that could be unclear when you remove the sentence from its original context.

LOL How can you not talk about a group of people when you are defining said group?

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

Yes, I was refering to that part. And I still don't understand what you meant by that. Why do you think GC and ideological extremists are analogous?

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

Do you really think that just because you didn't detail what that "social class" entails, we cannot tell what you meant by that? Once you reject a biology based definition of the word woman, all that is left are sex-based roles and stereotypes. If not, then what did you mean by "social class"? What do characterize the "social class" of "women"? And why would anyone choose willingly to be second class citizen?

GC women: If you had been born male, and you felt unable to get the rest of the male community to behave better, wouldn't you be ashamed and embarassed too? Possibly to the point of wanting to hide it or make it ambiguous? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Y'all don't even know what we're like irl, like, a big number of people who feel this way are incredibly timid irl. I can barely go outside, let alone invade a woman's club or space. Ppl just make up caricatures of how trans women's self-hatred manifests. Maybe some people lash out but most of us are suffering in relative silence or physically or digitally self-harming

Look, I do NOT know anything about you because I do NOT know you, and I do NOT care to discuss what you personally do or do not IRL. I do NOT care if you never leave your house because there IS plenty of OTHERS like you who DO engage in said behaviours, just like Chronicity pointed out.

However, because I can see it I can tell you how you act on this very sub. All you do care is about you and every discussion must be around you. You're constantly dismissing how women are being hurt or will be hurt because of transgenderims. And you're unable to understand why women may find insulting the fact that a male (speaking in general here) thinks he can be a woman either through self-declaration or through taking exogenous hormones or undergoing cosmetic surgeries. And you are unable understand why we take issue when you say that sex does not matter at all.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

Please, provide evidence of the so GC extremism you're talking about. And I hope you have better examples than women being rude on the internet when ranting about all this stuff being force on us, or women refusing to play along with "prefered pronouns" or "inclusive language" in general, or women calling out the lack of evidence of what pass as "trans healthcare". And I hope your examples dont' include blaming women for male on male violence. Otherwise, it'd be a dishonest framing if you claim that both sides have extremist when we can provide plenty of evidence of TRAs threathening, doxing, getting fired or physically assaulting dissenting women, and when we can provide plenty of evidence of TRAs advocating for the chemical castration of children and teens, getting male rapist in women's prisons and the legal erasure of sex, and not to mention all the dehumanizing language they want to impose to talk about actual women and actual women's bodies, or how they often work behinds everyone's backs.

GC women: If you had been born male, and you felt unable to get the rest of the male community to behave better, wouldn't you be ashamed and embarassed too? Possibly to the point of wanting to hide it or make it ambiguous? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd be more ashamed if, in order to hide my hypothetical male sex, I engaged in the very same toxic and abusive behaviour I claim to be fleeing from. Every time I hear this kind of explantion about how someone cannot possibly be a man because they define a man as a kind of monster whithout any redeemabe quality, I want to ask them how genuine this feeling actually is if they are completely oblivious about how much havoc they wreck by forcing women to play along with this. To me it sounds more as if, because for whatever reason they feel like they are at the bottom of male hierarchy, either (1) they want to use women as disposable human shields or (2) they want to bully women because we are an easier target than men.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

Don't dodge the question. What a woman is it's absolutely relevant if you're going to define "trans". What does the adjective "trans" means when describing a "woman"? What does make someone "trans"? What are the differences between "transwomen" and women?

Your argument relies on us accepting the claim that a "transwoman" is a type of woman. If you expect we accept this, then first you need to define what is a woman and how "transwomen" fit the definition.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

So, what does make them "woman"? What is a woman?

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a word can mean whatever to anyone, then that word it's effectively meaningless. Words are supposed to facilitate communication.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Oh, just stop. You're always trying to give this image that you are this super good and super tolerant person, who is even willing to disavow their own family for the crime of calling a man a man. But no one buys it. It sounds so fake. Especially when you say things like you "respect" our "identities", yet you miss the point of anything we say and now you are even pretending we are not the same sex because of our political beliefs.

I don't know why you do this, but trying to appear as this super trans ally won't save you when (not if) QT disavows you for not keeping up with their ever changing rules.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

I dont understand why some GC women have a hard time believing that women could advocate so hard for transgenderism

Because QT seeks the erasure of women's rights for the benefict of men. Because they won't even allow we have a name for ourselves. And, yes, I know you think I'm being hiperbolic here, but just tell me this, genderbender. What have transactivists made for "cis" women? In what way"cis" women" benefit from transgenderism? But don't give me a generic and empty statemente like all women are better off by including everyone. Give me concrete and observable examples.

Moreover, giving recent developments in the US... Do you really American women have any chance about fighting for abortion when many are more worried about saying things like "not only women get pregnant" so not to the offend the "transmen"? Do you really American women have any chance about fighting for abortion when many are more worried about not pissing off the "transwomen" with so much talk about female reproductive organs? You may deny the importance of sex all you want here, but I'm sure you understand very well which sex category is the only that can get pregnant even if you don't won't it out loud. So, who do you think all this ofuscation and walking on eggs shells really benefit?

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

So you can tell someone's sex assigned at birth by their words and behavior? I thought GCs were against sex stereotypes?

I cannot speak for others, I can only make guesses about what they may think, you know? You keep sharing random quotes from Ovarit and asking us to justify or explain them as if we all are a hivemind. But, anyway, some possible answers may be:

  1. Because people don't always live up to their own ideals.

  2. Because being against sex-based stereotypes doesn't mean you have to deny the reality that there are observable trends in how women and men behave. Humans make assumptions based on trends about all kind of things all the time. It's hard-wired on us because in order to survive in the distant past we had to decide in an instant if, for example, that big and scary lion over there was a threat. Getting right of generalizations may not be possible, but that doesn't mean we cannot strive for a fairer society or challenge plain baseless ideas like, for instance, "men are the rational ones, women are the emotional ones".

  3. Because some GC women have a hard time believing that women could advocate so hard for transgenderism.

But speaking about sex-based stereotypes...

Yes I understand. I still believe some trans people are indistuinguishable from cis people of the same gender.

Could you explain what do you mean by this? What does make two people be the same "gender" if not sex-based stereotypes? If self-identification alone, as you have told us, makes a woman how "transwoman" can be indistinguishable from "cis women"? If self-identifation alone makes a woman, how can a "transwoman" "pass" or not?

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Don't you understand that meeting someone in person is a complete different experience than seeing them in a picture? And pictures can be filtered, being in taken in convenient angles and lighting, etcetera. Also, those users may have made a guess based in Chase Strangio and Jeanette Jennings's words or behaviour.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

What is the difference...?

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

How do you know it's sulphuric acid? I can't say until I actually see the effects of it, it could be doubly mislabeled.

I know because I am the one making the example up! Whatever, the way you phrased this betrays that you do understand that perception don't trump reality. So, why cannot you apply this when it comes to trans issues.

I've been easily overpowered by women and trans men before, I'm infertile because of HRT and the thought of having biological kids makes me nauseous, I've never been violent because I refuse to be like the men who abused me, and I've never even initiated sexual contact with someone. Me being trans doesn't erase historical oppression, but I'm not evil or a threat, that is the last thing I want to be.

Women have no way to know anything of this about you. Again, barying males from women's bathrooms is nothing personal against you or any male, however said male identify as. We just cannot know wheter a male stranger is safe or not.

That doesn't change that sexual predation still simply shouldn't happen. It doesn't make it better because you have a slightly better chance of fighting it off.

Slightly better is and understatement. And you are forgeting the part where men are way more likely to be sexual predators. C'mon, derrple, there is a reason why you're afraid of men, but not women.

To me? When talking to my doctor to plan SRS or other transition care. Or family planning because I would like to be a mother idk. The sex of partners doesn't matter to me at all.

What? No, I was asking in general. No everything is about you...

Which is disgusting and sexist. Women can be rapists. And no, you're wrong, even under British law women can be charged with rape as accessories to a male rapist, I will find the numbers but the vast majority of British women incarcerated for rape were not trans.

Source?

What's wrong with that? They're still horrible criminals.

Don't you think that collecting data of trans identified people but not counting certain trans identified people alter the statistics?

I've had some very thoughtful convos with trans people my age and a lot agree with me that that angry rhetoric does no one any good. Angry people on twitter are not the majority, as anywhere the loudest and most violent voices dominate sadly.

And yet I've not seen the same level of violence coming from the GC side.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't need to. Any more than anyone else here does, I simply am.

I can easily explain why I am woman. Because of biology, it's that simple. I am adult human female.

Y'all have mainly given a ton of fearmongering and hate stirring mostly over those in totally different situations like prisons. It's not like you listen to me either, when I tell you that trans people have been using the bathroom for decades and that it was never a problem before... We are just talking past each other.

It has always been a problem! The only reason you face more vocal opposition right now is because you (general you) cannot hide your actions anymore because the number of people like you keeps increasing and because you all are quite vocal about it with some of you even taking selfies of their adventures into women's restrooms. And of course internet makes easier for women to spread the word in spite of how much Big Tech try to supress dissenting voices. And of course, you have all the TRAs starting a witch hunt anytime they a woman speaking out about males using spaces designed for women.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

but a bathroom is not a personal boundary that you get to exclude an entire group of women from.

If a bathroom is not a personal boundary, then you wouldn't care either if all bathrooms become unisex and you have to share them with regular males, right? After all, who are you to exclude half the population of using public bathrooms? Saying men may pose a risk to you sounds like fearmongering, you know? You cannot judge all men for the actions of a few abusive men, don't you think so?

Of course, you know that I'm talking nonsense here. Yet, when women try to explain to you why we don't want males however they identify as in places like bathrooms, you act outraged.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

It's probably part of it, but even before that there were signs.

Like which ones? What made you think you were a girl? You're contradicting yourself. You said being a "woman" it's a matter of how other people perceive you. However, unless you started "medical transition" when you were very young, I doubt other people perceived child derrple as a "girl".

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

I know what hitologically means, thank you. I was questioning your claim of not being histological differences because tissues are made up of cells. If there are differences at the cellular levels, those differences will manifest in the structure and function of tissues. And sex is not defined by secondary sex characteristics.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Wow it's almost like trans men identify as men and trans women identify as women.

And despite that both "transwomen" AND "transmen" are competing in the WOMEN's categories.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

there are still many differences at the cellular level.

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical, what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

Well, tissues are made up of cells and if there are differences at the cellular level...

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

There are trans men in sports too y'all just don't demonize them as much. There was a trans man swimmer that ik of.

No one has said there aren't trans identified females who are compenting in sports. We said they are not winning in MEN's sports. I know of a TM swimmer, too: she competes in the WOMEN's category, which is quite common among female athletes who identify as "men" or "non-binary". Funny how they are eager to compete against men unlike TW, who are eager to compete against women. I wonder why that could be...

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

It pretty much is though? If you can't distinguish something or someone in a certain context than thats that.

Don't ignore the question: what would happen if someone tried to drink from a botle of sulphuric acid because it's labelled as a water?

It's because you literally do exactly the same thing as racist people who post criminals to stir up hate against an entire demographic. I don't pose a risk to women, neither does anyone I know. Hyperfocusing on criminals who happen to be trans is deliberately associating transness with criminality which is just hatred nothing more.

We've gone through this already: males (regardless of how they identify as) are a risk to women because they are physically stronger than us, they can impregnate us, they are more likely to be violent, and they are way more likely to be sexual predators. Declaring yourself a woman wont erase the historical oppression of women.

An exception doesn't mean the floodgates are open though

It literally does. Just read the links I gave you.

Yeah. You're allowed to question their actual actions and whether they're being a creep but that would apply regardless.

You're allowed to question the actions of any abusive man that may threat you in the men's bathrooms, but that would apply regardless.

I've already admitted it's contextual which matters more so

Oh, really? So, when does sex matters to you? Because up to now you've not provided a single example.

Trans women aren't men

Define the words men and woman, please.

and you don't know which women are sexual predators either, things will be virtually no different if you ban those whose identity is "man" in terms of danger.

Sexual predators are overwhelming male, though. And we have a better chance of fighting against another woman.

I distinctly remember some of the British statistics being debunked, I will have to try and dig that up. Something about it being based on the number of women convicted for rape but there actually being very few trans women.

Uh, do you know that rape, as defined by British law, is a male-only crime because it requires a penis? Pretty much any "woman" convicted for rape there is guaranteed to be actually male. But that is besides the point because I said nothing about sex crimes in particular. Those numbers were are about all trans identified inmates (minus those who have adquired an Gender Reassigment Certificate because the UK goverment decided not to count them, but sure GC women are being hateful and paranoid when protesting recent changes in language...).

I do think trans women in general should try and unlearn toxic models of socialization and anger, iirc that study mostly studied an older cohort of trans people who's behavior does not necessarily reflect on young trans people today.

I doubt very much younger TW are less prone to violence if all their very current threaths of violence, rape and death (and in some cases actual violence) towards disenting women are any indication.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

How many times do you need to be told that no one here personally hates you? We've given you a lot of explanations and examples for why including TW in women's bathrooms (and other women's spaces) hurts women. We've explained to you why the material reality of sex is more important than how people perceives themselves and others. You just keep refusing to actually listen to anything we've to say and, instead, you choose to believe our disagreements are rooted in us having an irrational hate for you and other people like you. You keep insisting than you are a "woman", yet you are completely unable to justify the claim beyond stating your wish for it to be true. And in spite of the lack of explanations for your own "identity" you believe everyone has the duty to perceive you as you perceive yourself and behave accordingly.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Being mistaken for something is NOT the same as being that something! And yes, the difference between the two DOES matter. For example, sulphuric acid is a colorless and odorless liquid. If someone labeled a botle of it as water and, a while later, another person tried to drink it, what do you think it would happen?

Also uhm, you can't reasonably expect me to respond to every single article in that right x( it will take me a while but fwiw

Take all the time you need to read them. I can wait and there is no much activity in this sub, anyway.

There have also been studies done showing that trans people using the bathroom did not cause any issues:

What did happen with "women should be believed"? Also, I don't think an study on this issue made by the ACLU is trustworthy giving that they are set on not allowing American citizens to learn how many males who identify as trans have been transfered to women's prisons. If TWAW and they don't pose a risk to women, what is there to hide?

I don't think gender neutral toilets are a good idea so I'm not going against the articles you shared about them.

Allowing special exeptions for certain males is basically making women's toilets into mixed toilets. By allowing certain males in, you are making those places open for ALL males. And let's not forget women are NOT allowed to question the "gender identity" of any male wandering into women's spaces regardless of how much like a typical man he looks like.

A third, single stall room would be nice, but trans people have been using the room that matches our expression for a long time and will continue to just fine.

You're assuming women never have a problem with this before.

As for prisoners/criminals/people who have done awful things: 1. Obviously I do not support their crimes and I hope those they hurt receive help and love 2. If you want to talk about prison placement we can but idk how it's the same thing as bathrooms? Unless you think most people using bathrooms are criminals

I know this thread is about public restrooms in particular (because genderbender won't discuss any other space...), but I think other sex-segregated spaces are also relevant when discussing whether "gender identity" is more relevant than sex or not.

Idk how I'm personally responsible for the actions of lia Thomas or r*pists or why their behavior or crimes should mean I'm treated the same

I never claimed you were. Again, you are taking our "no" too personally despite that nothing of this is because of you in particular. Like I told you before, the best prevention strategy is barying all men from places certain places like bathrooms or changing rooms not because all men are sexual predators, but because women have no way to know which men are. Somehow you are able to understand that you don't want to be around regular males, yet you are unable to understand why women want to be away from all males regardless of how said males identify as.

BTW, according to this study, even after full "medical transition", TW retain male patterns of criminality. Also, according to official numbers from the UK, around 80% of trans identified inmates are "transwomen"; in contrast, women represent around the 4% of all British inmates.

Edit: typos

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

It's about the fact we are opposite sexes regardless of how you view yourself.

So? We don't have to be the same sex to both be women.

Of course we would have to be the same sex to both be women! Saying you're a woman doesn't make you one just like saying you're a bird doesn't make you a bird, either. I'm not making any moral judgement by stating such facts. It's not my fault if you decide to interpret this as an attack against you because of your own views on women and men, and because of your self-esteem issues.

On the other hand, I find insulting your insistence that we are both woman and that sex is irrelevant. Once you decide that the definition of woman is not rooted in biology, all that is left are sex-based roles and stereotypes and I refuse to be defined on such terms. And I remind you that you have yet to explain in what way you are a "woman" beyond your own wishes, and why it's so important for you to reject your own sex.

As for what is harm in women giving up women's spaces like public bathrooms in order to accomodate people like you, well, here you have some examples:

Single-sex toilets needed to overcome girls' barriers to education,' says Unesco

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

Women are losing access to public toilets 'by stealth' amid a boom in gender-neutral loos, say experts

School girls rejecting mixed toilets over boys’ bad behaviour

Professor Blasts 'Unacceptable' Gender-Neutral Bathroom With Man at Urinal

Father Claims Daughter Was Sexually Assaulted by Male Student in Girls' Washroom at School

Male Student Filmed Women in “All Gender” Washroom

Lia Thomas' UPenn teammate tells how the trans swimmer doesn't always cover up her male genitals when changing and their concerns go ignored by their coach

LAPD Officer Blamed a Mother for Exposing her Daughter to Male Genitals at Wi Spa

Five Women Have Filed Police Reports Alleging Indecent Exposure at Wi Spa

Patient safety fears as NHS allows trans sex offenders in female-only wards

NHS 'gaslighting' patients over trans women on female-only wards, nurse claims

Hospital told police a woman who complained she was raped that only other women were present on the single-sex ward - before admitting after a YEAR that one was trans

Protecting men at the women’s shelter

‘Bigoted people may be challenged’: Comments by trans head of Edinburgh Rape Crisis sparks controversy

Why was convicted paedophile allowed to move to a female jail?

Male-Bodied Rapists Are Being Imprisoned With Women. Why Do so Few People Care?

Prison officers demand guidelines on transgender inmates

Female prisoners at greater risk of sexual assault by transgender inmates, High Court hears

High Court rules transgender women CAN go into female prisons: Judges rule government's policy is lawful despite claims from inmate it raised risk of sex attacks

Women prisoners who call transgender inmates ‘he’ or ‘him’ face extra jail time

Trans-Identified Male Inmates Committing Sexual Assault in Women's Jails, Female Ex-Inmate Claims

Female Prison Staff Called "Transphobic" for Discomfort with Trans-Identified Male Inmates

Two inmates at all-women's New Jersey jail are PREGNANT after both had sex with transgender prisoners: ACLU won battle to house 27 trans inmates there

UK: Women Recount Staff Denying there were Men in Single-Sex Hospital Spaces

Transgender Inmate Convicted Of Raping Female Prisoner at Women’s Facility

Women Being ‘Punished’ For Complaining About Male Transfers: Inmate in California Women’s Prison

I can look up more examples if you want, including ones that are only about public bathrooms.

Edit: typos

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Let's use real data. According to this height percentile calculator, a 5 feet 11 inches man is taller than 77.07% of adult males from the US. In constranst a 5 feet 11 inches woman is taller than 99.88% of adult females from the US. So, I stand by what I said: Laverne Cox stands out because of his height.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm just not going to put myself last at all costs anymore. Trans people don't have to sacrifice ourselves for you either.

No one is asking you to sacrifice yourself. Again, you all are free to advocate for third spaces. I doubt youwould find much oppossition to this solution besides yourselves.

Also still I don't understand what you mean by asking women, who exactly? Bc I've had women drag me into bathrooms before and tell me I was being silly.

The fact that your friends are okay with you using the women's bathrooms doesn't mean ALL women are fine with this. It's quite arrogant on your friends' part to consent to this in name of all women.

Would you use one regularly or would you feel you should be able to use the bathroom that's for you?

Sorry, but when was the votation where it was decided that women's bathrooms will be open from anyone who identifyes as a "women" regardless of biology? I think I missed it, same with the votation where it was decided anyone could be a "woman".

A bathroom that you don't own and that trans people have been using for decades is not your boundary, you can't just declare things as being your boundary and expect everyone to accept your ownership??

The fact you all have been using women's bathrooms for decades doesn't mean you are now entitled to them. The fact is they weren't meant for you all back then, either. If you all find more opposition for your actions right now is because your actions are not a secret anymore as there are way more males who claim to be "women" and because of the internet.

Like, your person, your body, those are for you to set what you're comfortable with 100% but kicking an entire group out of a bathroom simply because you don't like some of us is just bigotry.

Why do you think public bathrooms and other places where vulnerability is expected are sex-seggregated to begin with? It's not a social club. It's about and privacity because lots of women are not confortable sharing them with male strangers. It's about safety because men are physically stronger and are more likely to be violent and most sex predators are men. Women cannot know which males are safe or not, so the best prevention strategy is baryng ALL males from such places. You're taking our "no" too personally, but this is NOT about you. Allowing special exeptions for certains males because they feel like "women" defeats the purpose of sex-seggregation.

if someone is harassing you or making you feel unsafe then ofc I support you, heck I'd probably support you if there were an incident and it were your word against theirs because women should be believed.

Oh, right, women should be believed unless it's about "transwomen" accessing women's spaces. It's funny how you all expect sympathy for any potential male abuse you may suffer in men's bathrooms, and yet you all dismiss women's concerns so easily. You all insist you NEED to be away from the men for your own safety, but women must settle for your "support" after an avoidable incident happened.

Like, wouldn't you say that women's bathrooms are for all women and girls regardless of race, creed, sexuality, etc? Bc if so that's exactly how I feel, you just do not include me in that.

It's not about whether I want to include you or not. It's about the fact we are opposite sexes regardless of how you view yourself.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Sorry but I've spent years asking and the only answer I ever get is that I can't, I get told to just be a gnc man, etc--basically impossible answers that I can't hope to adhere to without hurting myself. The expectation for me from y'all is that I should be totally selfless and be a woman in my home but conform in public and I just won't do that, it's not a fair expectation to place. I care about whether other people are comfortable around me but I'm not going to flagellate myself to appease them.

So, instead, you expect women be the ones who must disregard our own comfort and safety so to appease people like you. So you all keep accessing women's bathrooms, which you all have decided without asking women of course, you HAVE to use at all costs. It's women who must sacrifice themselves for the benefict of you all.

If you all don't want to use the men's bathrooms (and other sex-seggregated spaces), then you all can advocate for third spaces. But, no, you all do NOT want to use third spaces under any circunstance because that it's not "validating" enough or whatever. No, you all must use the women's bathrooms regardless of how women feel about this. And, of course, women are the ones who are being mean by standing up for their own boundaries and no you all for feeling entintled to use spaces that never were meant for you all.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wait, but isn't Laverne Cox that huge dude who appears in a well-known picture where he is standing next to a short woman who is about half his height? If so, there is no way he "pass", even if he weren't a celebrity. And I know you'll point out that there are some very tall women too, but they are rare. Laverne Cox's height alone should draw enough attention to himself that anyone who met him would notice his other male features later.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

I have multiple reddit accounts and on one of them I used to regularly post on r/gendercynical a few years back and no one ever accused me of transphobia. I have never once been accused of transphobia in my life.

Sorry, but I find this very hard to believe. I mean, it's the internet: people argue for dumb stuff like the color of a dress, misunderstandings happens (and what someone intended to be an obvious sarcasm, others take it seriously), and sometimes people make stuff up for whatever reason, including just for trolling. But you are tellling me you are active in online groups surrounded by vindictive people who are quick to take offense at reality and who are changing the rules all the time, and yet you've never been told you said something "transphobic? And we know you hold some opinions that some QT would find deeply transphobic like the fact you would only date post-op "transmen", and yet you've never been told you hold some "problematic beliefs", really?

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you really think we care about being called "transphobic" when we know that anything and everything is "transphobic" for QT? Imo, the only real thing to worry about is what may follow to such ridiculous and meaningless accusations, e.g. death and rape threaths, doxxing, firing, violence. But the word itself? No, really.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

regarding modifying legal documents and getting cosmetic surgeries to look more like the opposite sex.

Yeah that just seems like the basics?

I don't understand your point. I'm saying all this stuff was presented to the public as a settled issue in spite of not only being a radical change, but also it was something unheard of for most Argentinians.

What? Like what's your basis for that, there have been trans or trans-identifying people across history it's not just a western phenomenon. I get there might be issues with translating the language though.

All the historical examples I'seen have either been: (a) women who are being "transed" posthumously for defying sex-based roles or stereotypes, or for having disguised as men or used male pennames to go against the constraints of their times; (b) examples of so-called "third genders", where in certain cultures men (and, more rarely, women) are put into a special cast outside the social roles assigned to men and women. The problem with using "third genders" as examples is that they were/are still recognized by their sex in their own cultures. Refering to certain males as women is a new fenomenom who began in Western countries at the 20th century due to, I think, the development of new medical technologies (i.e. exogenous hormones and "SRS") which would allow them to appear more like the oppossite sex.

Here is an Indian woman talking the actual reality of Indian hijras. She also has lot to say in other articles of her website about how the Western "trans" movement is being imported in India at a very quick pace in contrast to women's rights there.

It's weird, because what you see as imperialism just seems like a human rights issue to me @_@ like trans people should be accepted in every nation and able to transition and change our documents, I support the Yogyakarta principles in general

I imagined you supported the Yogyakarta principles. My point to mentioning them was there are rich people who are lobbying for this stuff around the world. The quick pace at which laws and policies are being changed, often without public knowledge, the way this is being supported by a good bunch of MSM and big companies-including Big Tech companies like Google-, the way dissenter's voices (particularly female dissenters) are being suppresed... Nothing of this looks like a grass-roots movement. For instance, you can read here about how a law firm advised British trans activist to hide their goals, and you can read here how the ACLU blocked a women's request about the number of trans identified males being held in the female estate in Washington.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

"medical transition" were legalized here.

Wait isn't this last bit at least a good thing? For trans Argentinians

I've many problems with that law. Let's start saying that there were no laws regarding "trans" issues before 2012. The only antecedents were a handful of legal cases ruling in favour of trans activists since the late 90's onwards regarding modifying legal documents and getting cosmetic surgeries to look more like the opposite sex. So, we went from 0 to 100 in a single law and there were really not debate about any of this. Newsmedia, regardless of political leanings, spreaded TRA's talking points about the law. MSM not only started deliberately misleading the public by using the "inclusive language" proposed by TRA. They sold the public the lie that this law represented a minor change that will greatly benefict a marginalized demography. There were no questions asked about whether there were a conflict of interest between women and males who claim to be "women", or whether "medically transition" actually works, or whether children should access any of this stuff (note: even pre-schoold kids have been able to to get their sex markers on their legal documents with the approval of their parents), or whether everyone should be forced to play along someone's cross-sex "identity", or whether "identity" should trump over material reality.

The main opposition came from the Catholic Church, which even to this day have little idea of what they are talking about as they lump together feminism, gay rights and trans activism under the name of ideología de género (literally gender ideology). They either can't see or don't want to see any conflict of interest between those groups. Also, religious zealots don't really care much about women, either.

Another problem I have is that I view transgenderism as the newest form of imperialism from the developed world. There are western rich people who are lobbying for this stuff in their home countries and beyond (1, 2, 3). I could talk about how much of this stuff doesn't make sense in languages other than English. For instance, the 2012 law talks about identidad de género (gender identity), but the actual word used in the official documents where the self-ID takes places is sexo (sex).

Now regarding the medical stuff, the law allows giving hormones on demand for minors as long as they have parental approval (or a judge order), and it allow surgeris for minors if they have both parental approval and a judge order. I suppose you'd view this a good thing, but I'm against the "transitioning" minors. And as I see it the risk of suicide is overstated (4).

As for the adult "transition", well, I think medice should be based on science and I believe in that "first, do no harm" stuff. And on one hand, I've yet to see evidence that any of this actually improves mental health(5, 6). On the other hand, there is evidence of all the health risk associated with it (7). And this is something that should be considered because the law not only say that all this stuff must be provided on-demand, but also it must be covered by both private and public health system. And whether the State should pay for this is not a minor detail. We live from economic crisis to economic crisis, wages are always running behind prices, our currency had lost a lot of zeros through history, and there is much corruption and former president Mauricio Macri got the country into an unpayable debt with the IMF (which also means the goverment has to follow their economic receipts that only favour the rich). Our public health system was overwhelmed even prior to the COVID pandemic, too. Yeah, I know some posters here will see me as an extremist, but I cannot get behind trans identified people getting this stuff paid by the State.

Also, apparently even body hair removal by electroysis is considered "trans health care". I mean, seriously? Why can't they just shave? After all, shouldn't shaving be "gender affirming"?

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

No? You said it only happens occasionally.

All the people in my life could conspire to play me a big joke and refere to me as a man from now and even so I'll still know that I am a woman. The physical reality of my body will stay the same regardless of how everyone else call me.

If people who would otherwise have been GNC in a world without transition, decide to transition instead of being GNC, then isn't that kind of their decision to make? More GNC people and fewer trans people isn't necessarily a positive (or negative) thing, unless you consider transness to be a negative state. I think that, if this hypothetical kid could end up living a happy life transitioning or not, then whether they do is totally up to them and we shouldn't try to protect them from their own choices.

This hypothetical girl is too young to take such drastic and irreversible decisions. In most places, the law doesn't allow 12 year-olds to vote, drive a car, drink alcoholic beverages, smoke, consent to sexual relationships, get married, live alone, etcetera. No doctor would refer her for tubal ligation because of her young age, yet according to QT she is mature enough to get chemically castrated and get her breasts amputated. It's doubtfull that "transition" will be the panacea she thinks it is and whether she persist or desist from her "new identity" she will become a patient for life (keep in mind that "medical transition" is harsher in the female body as MarkTwainiac has detailed to you in other threads). Her personal relationships may deteriorate because she now will try to control how everyone else sees her and how they speak about her even when she is not present. And, very likely, she won't be able to opt out of sexism and misogyny: trans identified people are stil treated as their actual sex. That is why "transwomen" lead the movement and we mainly heard from "transmen" when they get pregnant...

I was invited and went to girls' sleepovers, I guess because I must have given off an intense gay aura or something.

And the girls' parents were okay with this even thought they knew you weren't a girl?

You literally can tho, u cn tlk lk ths nd ppl cn stl ndrstnd u, language is whatever you make of it! The meanings of words are always contextual and change over time.

And can you understand the following? Ne'a't hojna mjid¨pasd tish w?pt to¡!851 sjoo.añkm ablean airmb na wqimn.

Wait isn't this last bit at least a good thing? For trans Argentinians

I'll answer this in another comment because this may get a bit long...

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

My body isn't doing the thinking

But your body IS doing the thinking! All your thoughts are happening inside your brain, which is a part of your body. Your mind doesn't exist independently of your body. And whether you like it or not, your body does influence how you perceive the world. You don't know what it feels like to have a female body anymore than I know what it feels like to be blind. Sure, you could listen to women to get an idea about it, just like I could listen to blind people to understand their experiences; however, you don't have that "lived experience" that you like to talk about. You don't know for instance, what is like worrying about periods (or a lack of them), or whether you may get pregnant, or whether you may be able to access a safe abortion if you ever need it. All that stuff is purely theoretical for you.

And you have yet to tell us why you think you are, or must be, a "woman" besides your own wish to be one. Forget about whether people in your daily life sees you as one or not, why do you started seeing yourself that way before you taked any step to modify your body? I mean, I doubt people in your daily life saw you as "woman" before you tried to physically resemble one, so what did "make" you one back then if no one viewed you that way?

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

If you runned a farm, I bet you'll care more about your mutant chicken's actual sex rather than its outward appearance. And just you know, there are people whose job is correctly sexing chicks (i.e. when the sexual dimorphism is not that evident at first glance).

Based on previous discussions here and from what I heard from QT elsewhere, it's evident to me that, yes, many people on the QT side have a poor understanding of the human body in general and sex in particular. I've heard it all: how sex is a spectrum (or even a matrix...) becuase intersex or clown fish, or how sex is a social construct because of so called "third genders" in other cultures, or how "pausing" puberty is reversible, how trans identified people must be treated as the oposite sex in a medical setting, how men don't have an athletic advantage over women, how males who reduce their testosterone levels don't have an athletic advantage over women, how males who take estrogene can breastfeed babies, how not even ginecologysts can tell "neovaginas" and vaginas appart, how sex is completely irrelevant even in health care, how males who identify as trans have periods just like women, how males who identify as "women" will get uterus transplants and get pregnant some day, how the vagina is a front hole, how messing with your endocrinological system won't have major side effects, how a "neopenis" is like a penis, how "trans" is real becuase of "brain sex", among another jewels.

But whatever any particular individual who believes in "trans identities" understands about sex, it's clear by looking at the policies and laws they lobbby for that the goal of trans activists is the legal erasure of sex and its replacement for "gender identity". In other words, women won't have words to describle ourselves, neither we will have the ability to name the source of our oppression (i.e. sex), and neither we'll have reliable data to show the extent of sexism and misogyny; and, by identifying as trans, any male will be able to have access to any formerly women's space from public bathrooms to prisons.

The problem is people's sex is very relevant in many areas of life like health care, safeguarding, sports or dating, for instance. And "transition" doesn't undone the relevance of sex. For some easy examples, "transition" doesn't undone the athletic advantage that males have over women neither undones male patterns of criminality.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

It just means that when other people think of you, do they think you're a man or a woman? Dependent on sex characteristics, presentation, information you've told them, etc.

Like I told you, I've been mistaken for a man on the internet; and, because of my somewhat deep voice, a few times I've been mistaken for a boy on the phone and interphone. Does that makes me less of a woman?

Honestly not more than cis people hold sexist ideas of what men or women must be. And yeah that's problematic but I don't see you disputing that sexist men and women are still men or women?

It's like, I do not think that women should have to perform femininity, I know and love women who are unapologetically themselves, who do not conform with every expectation and that's great. Feminity doesn't equal womanhood.

Sexist men are still men and sexist women are still women, of course. It's their ideas about how women and men should be what I take offense at. And in the case of trans identified people those ideas are likely influencing how they perceive themselves. For example, imagine the case of a 12 year-old girl who is perceived as "masculine" for their interest and behaviour: let's say for instance, she has short hair, prefer practical clothes, doesn't wear male-up, likes outdoor acvities and loves action movies among other things. She has been struggling with the body changes brought by puberty like breast growth and periods alongside with the unwanted male attention. She feels like she doesn't fit in and, to complicate matters, she is becoming aware that she is only attracted to girls, not boys. And because she holds some sexist ideas about women and men, some day she concludes her life would be far more easier if she were a typical heterosexual boy. She thinks if she were a boy she would suddenly fit in with her peers and she wouldn't have to deal with periods, unwanted male attention or homophobia. And nowadays, in order to try to "live as man", she could be prescribed GnRH agonists to "pause" puberty and, later, testosterone, and being refered for a bilateral mastectomy. All this with the blessing of the MSM, the medical and political establishments, her teachers and, maybe, even her family; none of whom would question her motivations for "transition" nor would try to help her get more comfortable in her own skin.

But for me, because I want to be far apart from anything masculine, I feel like I must conform to some feminine expectations just to be seen "the right way". That's part of why I've trained my voice and don't go topless, because it would be socially unacceptable for me to sound like a man or to have my breasts shown. It shouldn't be unacceptable, but it is right now.

But why do feel like you need to do this? Why cannot you do whatever you want without rejecting your own body and changing how everyone sees you?

You can use whichever words you want for yourselves! Just don't be surprised if people are confused or need clarification? Like, I'm not stopping you from using the word women? Just, I'm going to use it too because it describes me best..

Didn't you say yesterday that nobody owns words...? Jokes aside, words are important for communication and that is why one cannot change arbitraly the meanings of words and expect to be undertood by everyone else. However, I am NOT the one who is proposing a radical change in language; it's QT who are doing this. Until very recently in human history, saying that women are adult human females would have been an uncontroversial statement. In fact, I can even point out when the shift in language happened in my country, Argentina: it was around 11-12 years ago when newsmedia outlets started refering to trans identified males as "women" with the help of trans activists who "educated" them, and it was in 2012 when self-ID and "medical transition" were legalized here.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

They aren't, unless you consider being perceived to be female as a sexist stereotype regardless of clothes or style.

What does being perceived to be female even means?

Just listening to trans identified people talking about their "authentic selves" makes clear that they often hold very sexist ideas about what a woman or man are. Like there is even a British lobby group who uses (or at least used) an escale between Barbie and G.I Joe to explain "gender identity" to children. There is a trans identified male, Andrea Long Chu (or something like that), who wrote about his experience and states that being female is "an expectan asshole, dead eyes" (you really cannot get more misogynist than that). Oh, and there is also the trans flag (pink and blue? I mean, seriously?). And there are plenty of other examples like that.

Also there's plenty of words or phrases: cis woman, womyn-born-womyn, even adult human female will probably get your meaning across: someone who is a woman and did not undergo any sort of gender transition to become such

Oh, I like how you expect everyone calls you as you see yourself, but women have to acept the words that you deem appropriate for us.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

So, you know what a rooster is. Good. Now, why there cannot be a word that means adult human female? Why do women must be defined based in sexist stereotypes?

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

AIDS is a condition that causes suffering, being trans is not...

This contradicts you following claim:

Read accounts of trans women priests in antiquity, or various trans men who unequivocally described themselves as men or lived their entire lives in hiding. Hormone therapy and transition has been around for nearly a hundred years. It's possible that without it trans people would have learned to cope and been invisible, but you cannot put the genie back into the bottle. It's inhumane.

Please provide links or be more specific.

If you watch the video, she says that they cannot rely on persuading everyone, they need to "get through to the decision makers", aka skipping popular support.

Ah, that part. And how is that any worse trans activists lobbyng lawmakers?

Obviously manipulating because he's abusing her??

Are you implying that all trans people, by our very existence, are abusing women?

What?! I said threathening suicide sounds manipulative. You're are the one interpreting it as all trans identified people are abusing women just by existing.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Except transness is not a mental illness, it is a state of being. It's not negative. Dysphoria is negative, but transition helps alleviate it for many. Saying that you want to reduce the number of trans people is super paternalistic and presumes that you know better and should decide our healthcare.

If it is not a mental illness, why do you claim trans identified people will kill themselves if they don't have access to exogenous hormones and cosmetics surgeries? You cannot have it both ways.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

She is advocating for genocide, she is calling to reduce the number of people who transition.

If a resercher working in a cure for AIDS says in a interview she wants to reduce the number of cases, would it be reasonable to assume she is advocating for killing people with AIDS?

They didn't, not at scale. Some were lucky and some reluctantly lived with a hole in their lives they could never fill. I do not necessarily have their strength. Why should we return to that state though? We have access to hormone therapy now, we should not have to give that up.

Source?

Don't you think wanting to infiltrate organizations because you know will never get popular support, which is part of what Helen Joyce called for, sounds manipulative?

When has she said that? Infiltrating implies secrececy, which is more in like with what trans activists do.

Suicide is a cry for help, it's horrible to assume malice from someone who is suffering. It's us telling you "we need this and would rather not live without it" and you saying "well I don't care, you won't manipulate me into caring"

Ok, let's try the following example: a woman is tired of her abusive boyfriend and decides to leave. However upon learning this the boyfriend tells her that if she leaves he will kill himself. Does this sound to you like a cry for help or manipulation to you?

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]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.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Talk about misrepresenting what Helen Joyce said. For goodnes sake, she is not advocating for genocide and you know it. If you are going to claim trans identified people will kill themselves without exogenous hormones and cosmetic surgeries, then can you tell us how they survived before the 20th century? Also, don't you think threathening suicide to get what you want sounds manipulative?

I just need to know that it's not this bad, that there is still room for us all to compromise and sing together one day.

It's your side the one who rejects any kind of compromise.

QT: What is a rooster?

by BiologyIsReal to /s/GCdebatesQT from (self.GCdebatesQT)

QT: Oli London (a British man) has come out as a "Korean woman". Can you explain how being "transgender" is any different than being "transracial"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

CAIS women are still women. "Biologically male" is practically a meaningless designator.

Women don't have testes. But that is besides the point because males who identify as trans don't have CAIS, anyway. You're using this medical condition as a gotcha even though the experiences of males with CAIS and the experiences of males who identify as "trans" are completely different.

That depends entirely on your definition of what men and women "are", though?

It's not "my" definition. The two sexes exist regardless of of whether or not you want to give a name to the individuals who belong to the biological category able to produce large gametes and another the individuals who belong to the biological category able to produce small gametes.

Interesting how my being a woman to you depends on whether I bow down and stay quiet, something that women, cis or trans, have been fighting against since the dawn of agriculture.

First, I said nothing about staying quiet. I said you showed no concern for whether women may be hurt as consequences of pro-TRA policies.

Second, I stand by the definition of women a men being biology-based. What I said was a observation about your atitude (and the attitude of other people like you) towards women. An observation that was born from the frustation of hearing all the time about how women must include and prioritize "transwomen" in everything because they are "women" after all. And yet males who claim to be "women" way more often than not show no concern for the needs of women. So, how exactly is the dynamic between women and trans identified males any different from the dynamic between women and men?

Me being a woman is determined by others and what they think, not by me.

If you really think that you being a "woman" is not determined by you, then you should not get upset if someone refuses to view you as one.

It's been literally documented that trans women's breasts are histologically identical to cis women's at the tissue level: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773616/

This paper is about how the use of exogenous hormones affects the risk of breast cancer on trans identified individuals. It says nothing about breastfeeding. There is no evidence trans identified males are able to breastfeed babies as this article explains.

And no, it's not fair to assume that a trans mother is a porn addict just based on that. Breastfeeding is not a sexual act.

Breastfeeding is not a sexual act, but males cannot breastfeed regardless of how they "identify" as. And you can find countless examples of males who identify as trans explaining how they discovered their "womanhood" through porn.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't really think any of the GC posters here are "nice" traditionally save maybe worried.

QT posters are neither nice. FAR from it. I don't know why should I be "nice" when the only reason the other side don't call me a nazi or equivalent is because of a rule in the sidebar, which had to be written because of them. And GB is always feigning ignorance about what GC users meant by "women" and "men" even though we know what she meant by "afab" or "amab" despite disagreeing with her terminology.

Sorry, but I'm not a doormat. I'll only be civil enough not to get banned. That it's all.

Flippy left because biology didn't ban a qt user (who honestly i would have banned had I been a mod then)

I wasn't going to ban circling for something that happened before I became a mod right there in circling's thread asking for my removal of the mod team. I'd have never heard the end of it from QT posters if I had done that. And as usual no other mod was around. I asked houseplant if she wanted circling baned and she told me no. Then flippy decided to throw a big tantrum about it and started saying a lot of ridiculous things like my decision would make houseplant leave the sub (right after she said she won't leave because of circling).

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm not a mod anymore, so you really don't have to hold back because of what I told you months ago.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Any comment I ignored was because I didn't think it was worth of moderation. You evidently disagree with my criteria, that is all. There are very few spaces where you can question transgederism and I wasn't going to police every wording from GC users just so we have a few more QT users. I stand by my opinion that the lack of QT users is because they are not interested in debating.

Also they are too used to be in a bubble where any question or doubt about transgenderism is treated as heresy and where everyone is forced to use "inclusive" language. Of course they won't like this sub unless we apply the same criteria than elsewhere.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Then go through my posting history and see by yourself I was never the awful and biased mod that you and QT user think I was. Really, go through the mod mail and you can see that even Porcelain_Quetzal was forced to admit I've been fair after a QT user wrote us to complain about me.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Sorry you can't get away with whatever you want anymore.

That is not true. I've warned off Houseplant and even deleted her comments before. You could easily verify this by looking at the mod log. In fact, I remember that, as soon as I made you a mod, I had to warm both of you so you stoped arguing.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Except I didn't. I said you're right, im sorry, and then self edited. Yesterday. Because I'm not a 10 year old. You're clearly just looking to play the victim though because you completely skimmed over that.

Isn't this a thinly veiled personal attack coming from a mod?

QT: Oli London (a British man) has come out as a "Korean woman". Can you explain how being "transgender" is any different than being "transracial"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

There are no genes that an afab person has that I don't.

Just you know, there are about 6500 genes that expressed differently in women and men.

Hormones control many sexed development processes from the very beginning. If a male fetus is insensitive to testosterone, then it will develop as externally female externally regardless of an SRY gene.

No, you're wrong. Sex determination is the first step in developing a male or female reproductive system, and that is decided by sex chromosomes as I explained it to you. The actions of sex hormones comes later. Sex development and sex differentiation are quite complex process; so it's unsurprising there are many things that could go wrong. That is why some people have DSDs. In the case of male with CAIS, while they look like women, they are still biologically male and it would not be wise to treat them like females in a medical setting, for instance.

If hormones meant and did nothing, then trans women wouldn't have breasts and be capable of breastfeeding, trans men's voices would not drop and there wouldn't be changes to where and how the body stores fat, no skeletal changes when beginning cross-sex hrt early enough.

I've never said hormones did nothing. I said taking exogenous hormones won't transform a man into a woman or viceversa.

Because tbh I don't care.

Interesting how you call yourself a woman, yet you keep showing, here and in other threads, very little if any concern about how women are harmed by pro-QT policies. It seems like the only "women" you care about are thoses who are born with testes.

Obviously athletes who are just getting to be themselves will probably have more energy for a while.

And it's just an incredible coincidence that the only trans indentified athletes who experience a big boost after "transition" are the males ones, right?

They would undoubtedly create a hostile work environment for me and other coworkers through misgendering etc.

The fact that your first worry is about "misgendering" it's very telling because that has nothing to do with safety. And if you were secure in your own "identity", why would you be bothered by people refering to you by your sex? I've been mistaken for a man on the internet and also on the phone/interphone because I've a deep voice for a woman, and I didn't go through an identity crisis because of that and neither I've ever thought of punishing people for their mistakes.

You can hardly post anything positive as a trans person without some gender critical random saying YWNBAW or something equally inane. There was a trans woman who was beaten up at a protest in the UK. There are parents of trans kids who talk about wanting to punch them (saw this just this morning).

Please provide receipts.

There was a great article about a trans woman breastfeeding her kid and do you know what people said about her? They called her milk "sewage".

It' not possible for a trans identified male to breasfeed his child. You can indeed induce a man to lactate, but there is not evidence that his discharge could provide the same nourishment that a mother's breast milk or even baby formula. A trans identified male trying to breasfeed his child is puting his own feeling about the safety and wellbeing of the baby.

They called her awful things and said she was a fetishist just for trying to feed her kid. They took what should be a beautiful moment (because it really is so amazing to me that such a thing is possible; it gives me hope) and tried to squash it into the dirt.

Considering all the trans identified males who had admitted they discovered their "authentic self" through porn, I think it's fair to question whether a trans identified male has an ulterior motive to "breastfeed" his kid.

We receive plenty of your abuse too

Again, provide receipts, please. And I hope it's something more serious than "misgendering".

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

And some people want their perfectly healthy limbs cut off. Does this mean surgeons should affirm "transable" people, too? Should anorexic patients be refered for liposuctions, too?

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

How is HP calliing out derrple's unwinglingness to answer questions and derrple's self-admitted absolute lack of concern for the harms done by "medically transitioning" children and teens a personal attack?

QT: Oli London (a British man) has come out as a "Korean woman". Can you explain how being "transgender" is any different than being "transracial"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Sex is not just one single factor, it's not just chromosomes.

Actuallly, yes, it's sex chromosomes what determines which sex one developes as. Sex is about reproduction. We're an anisogamic species, which means we reproduce through the production of specialized cells with half the DNA (gametes) of different size. Male individuals are the ones who produce small gametes (spermatozoon) in the testes, and females are the ones who produce large gametes (ovum) in the ovaries. Then, a spermatozoon and an ovum fuse to form the zygote, restoring this way the normal amount of DNA. In humans, there are several genes involved in the process of sex determination, but one of the most important is the SRY gen. If this gen is present, then the embryo will develop testes. If not, then it’ll will develop ovaries. The hormones secreted by the testes drive the male differentiation pathway for the rest of the male reproductive organs. And the absence of these hormones drives the female differentiation pathway. As the SRY gen is located in the Y chromsome, XX individuals are females and XY individuals are males.

There are some people who have a disorder of sexual development (DSD), but they are rare and they are still either male or female, i.e. they don't produce a third type of gamete.

Who cares about what chromosomes trans people have when you will never see them?

First, we know trans identified people are mostly either unambigous 46, XY males or 46, XX females.

Second, we don’t need to examine someone’s chromosomes or gametes to tell their sex. Secondary sex characteristics don’t define sex, but they are usually a good way to tell someone’s sex. We have evolved to be able to tell the sexes apart. If we weren’t able to say who kind of humans are able to get pregnant and what kind of humans can impregnate the former our continuity as species will be quite complicated. Taking sex hormones and undergoing cosmetic surgeries in order to look more like the opposite sex may make this harder, but it's still possible to tell trans identified people sex in many cases.

Transition tech is focused on sex hormones which provide a great deal of physical changes, including fat redistribution and breast development for trans women.

But, as I said exogenous hormones can only bring superficial changes, which is why there are so many trans identified male athletes who experience a big boost in their carreers as soon as they switch into the female categories (a point you have just ignored). There was also a case of a trans identified female who, because she had her medical records changed to state she is "male", found out in the harsh way being treated as a male in a medical setting can put her health and life at risk.

but you should consider that the trans people more likely to "pass" to you are also more likely to not reveal themselves as trans to people, so it's just confirmation bias

Maybe, but I think this claim is throw around to make it seem like there are way more "passing" trans identified people than we think while providing no data to back it up. And at the end of the day, "passing" as the opposite sex doesn't make you the opposite sex. It only means you have successfuly concealed your sex, but I don't one can hide the truth from all people all the time even if one tried very hard to do so.

I mean I'd never tell my coworkers because what if one of them is GC? I'd never hear the end of it and I'd feel super unsafe.

On what do you base this belief that you would be unsafe if any hipothetical GC coworker were to learn your sex? Depending on where you live/work said coworker would have more basis to fear being fired or harrased for their political beliefs on these issues, particular if said coworker were a woman. For example:

J. K. Rowling and the trans activists: a story in screenshots

Etsy bans craft-maker from selling 'I love JK Rowling' items that 'promote hatred'... while promoting badges and cards carrying slogan 'F*** JK Rowling'

The children's author CANCELLED by her publisher after backing J.K. Rowling: GILLIAN PHILIP tells how she was left to fear for her young readers in a world where daring to speak your mind can spell disaster

New York literary agent who 'stands with J K Rowling' is fired for retweeting comment that read, 'being vulnerable to male violence does not make you a woman' on her personal Twitter account

LGBTQ Blog Publishes List Of Female Athletes’ Names, Harassing Them For Asking NCAA To Protect Women’s Sports

Transgender Activists Threaten Feminist for Focusing on Male Violence Against Women

Two Oregon Educators Fired After Speaking Out About Gender Identity Policies

Cancelled by Childline: Ex-barrister lost his job as a volunteer counsellor with the charity after raising fears over the way children confused about their gender are rushed into changing sex

The trans lobby can't bully me into silence: It’s the bitterest of ironies — how this academic studying violence against women was targeted by protesters with balaclavas simply for attending a feminists’ meeting

How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got a Leading Sex Researcher Fired

David Bell: Tavistock gender clinic whistleblower faces the sack

Oxford professor given protection following threats from trans activists

It wasn’t just the students spreading lies and hounding me... It was many of my academic colleagues too: KATHLEEN STOCK reveals what it’s really like to be vilified for your beliefs after being driven out of Sussex University by trans hate mob

Open University criminology professor who said 'male-bodied' trans women should NOT be in female prisons suffers public harassment and is compared to a 'racist uncle at Christmas dinner table' for her gender critical beliefs

Woman Brutalized for Refusing to Bow to Compelled Pronouns & Public Recognition of Transgender-Identifying Male

Police Do Nothing as Trans Activist Mob Terrorizes Attendees, Kicks Windows, Screams, at Woman’s Place UK Meeting

QT: Oli London (a British man) has come out as a "Korean woman". Can you explain how being "transgender" is any different than being "transracial"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Saying "transition" technology is just less effective for trans identified poeple is a big understatement. "Transition" is not possible because there is technology to actually change someone's sex. In order to do that, you'd need to change someone's sex chromosomes in their every cell and somehow undone the development of their reproductive system and trigger the devopment of the reproductive system of the opposite sex. Exogenous hormones and cosmetic surgeries can only provide supperficial changes, and the results of "medical transition" are often, particularly for trans identified males, not very convincing. It's not wonder that trans identified male athletes often experience a big boost after switching to women's leagues unlike trans identified female athletes who are far away from conquering men's sports.

QT: Oli London (a British man) has come out as a "Korean woman". Can you explain how being "transgender" is any different than being "transracial"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't know what motivates people like London beyond an unhappiness with their own bodies, but to me the way he talks about how he discovered his claimed "Korean" identity feels very simillar to the way trans identified people tend to talk about themselves.

I think if one accepts transgenderism as valid, it wouldn't be logical to reject transracialism. After all, unlike sex, race is actually a spectrum and there are far more biological differences between women and men than between people of different races. Culture is also malleable, again unlike sex, and can be learned, too. And much of what is understood by race rely on stereotypes made up to justify the domination of a group of people by another.

That said, I personally don't believe Oli London is Korean anymore than I believe Ellen Page is a man, i.e you cannot change your heritage anymore than you can change yoursex. Also, if "transracialism" became an accepted thing, I can see how racist people would use it in their own benefict and I understand why Korean people are entertained by his claims.

I don't think I'm qualified to say if there is such a thing as race dysphoria as a medical condition or if it's simptomatic of something else. But if it were officially recongized as a medical condition, I don't people with it should be treated with surgeries and affirmation. I don not think his cosmetic surgeons are making Oli London any favour by encouraging him to chase an impossible dream.

Should GC feminists stop associating with conservatives on topics in which they’re interests are aligned? by Heimdekledi in GCdebatesQT

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

I think it would be self-defeating for American feminists to limit their reach by not using conservative platforms. I mean, it's not like liberal media will suddenly allow any trans critical view. And they are going to be called conservative not matter what they do, anyway.

Then again, from my point of view, both conservativism and liberalism are right wing ideologies, and I don't trust liberal media anymore than I do conservative one. But for what I've seen many American women do care a lot about not being associated with conservatives. And in spite of how much they hate to be smeared as conservatives by TRAs, they don't have any problem in using the same tactics over anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. So...

QT: Oli London (a British man) has come out as a "Korean woman". Can you explain how being "transgender" is any different than being "transracial"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I think Oli London has likely a addiction to plastic surgery. I'm not sure whether he has came to identify as a "woman" as result of that or if he is just trolling the people who rejected his "Korean identity".

It's true that there is no a medical condition equivalent to gender dysphoria, but I'll argue that is because anti-racism groups have been more successful in arguing against "transracialism" than feminists have been in arguing against "transgenderism". So, if, for instance, the DMS were to add something like race dysphoria there would likely be a major backlash, and racial minorities would quickly point out they cannot identify out of their opression. I think, the problem if that for many people sexism is something that not longer exists or it only exists in "backward" countries. If sexism is acknowgeled, it's said often that women are not opressed because of our sex, but because of our "femininity".

Oregon's "Menstrual Dignity Act" will require schools to put menstruation products in boy's bathrooms by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Scottish schoolgirls ‘boycott gender-neutral toilets’

From the article (bolding mine):

The introduction of gender-neutral toilets in Scottish schools hasn’t panned out as activists hoped, with girls in one school reportedly refusing to use the facilities due to misbehaviour and vandalism by boys.

[...] Scottish Borders Councillor Harry Scott told a council meeting on Thursday that in one school, “there have been instances of boys waving sanitary products like flags and urinating in sanitary bins,” according to the Southern Reporter.

view more:
next ›