GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-05T02:17:16+00:00

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".

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-07T02:51:02+00:00

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.

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-09T19:23:12+00:00

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.

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-06T23:01:32+00:00

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...

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-06T21:48:13+00:00

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

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-16T22:46:13+00:00

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.

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-16T02:45:07+00:00

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.

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-14T22:22:56+00:00

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.

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-09T21:55:06+00:00

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.

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-09T19:50:19+00:00

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?

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-06T18:55:33+00:00

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.

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-16T22:53:25+00:00

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...

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-16T02:53:36+00:00

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

BiologyIsReal