Tra/qt how is ‘examine your genital preference’ not homosexual conversion therapy? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Not that I'm a proponent of political lesbianism, but I must point out that political lesbianism is totally different to what's described in the OP.

The feminists who advocate political lesbianism do so amongst feminist women. Their view is that other feminist women should stop sleeping and life-partnering with men, and ally with women instead. This is something that some members of an oppressed group think other members of the same oppressed group who share a worldview should do together for the benefit of the group as a whole and the women in it. AFAIK, feminists who advocate political lesbianism are not suggesting it for all women, just for feminist women - and they're certainly not trying to get the opposite sex involved in political lesbianism.

The OP is about some males using QT and their special "gender identity" status to try to shame, guilt and coerce lesbians to have sex with them - and some females using the same rationale and similar methods to try to pressure gay men to have with them. These people are doing this for their own selfish aims. Those aims are to get their own individual sexual pleasure, to have their personal identities "validated" - aka for narcissistic supply - and to get the thrill of getting others to bend to their authoritarian will.

The women who espouse political lesbianism for feminist women say it will benefit the women who engage in it, advance feminism and advance women's rights and interests generally. Are QT people who are trying to trample the sex boundaries of lesbians and gay men saying that having sex with people they don't want to have sex with, and who are of the sex they are not attracted to, will be of benefit to lesbians and gay men personally and politically? I realize that they're probably using tired old lines likes, "Try it, you'll like it" and "Broadening your horizons will be good for you." But are they also saying that a good way to advance lesbian and gay rights and gay liberation is for same-sex attracted people to have sex with the opposite sex? That the best things gays and lesbians can do to further greater acceptance of and justice for homosexual people is to have heterosex?

When a trans activist says that they were born into the wrong body, what part of them was put into the wrong body? by Socialjustus in GenderCritical

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

The inquiries into brain structure you cite already assume that a person can have the brain of one sex and all the other body parts of the opposite sex. The people doing those studies already have singled out the brain and brain cells alone for special status that none of the rest of the body gets. In their view, the brain and its cells the are the organ and cells stand out as entirely separate and different to all the rest of the body and all the other kinds of cells. In fact, they see the brain and its cells as opposite to all the other non-brain body parts and all the other non-brain cells. Why and how would this be?

Also: if there were brain differences showing that some people are "born in the wrong body," then they would have to be present at birth. Gender vendors say that infants are capable of using nonverbal/preverbal methods of communication to tell adults they were born in the wrong body, and people who were indoctrinated into genderist gibberish woo from infancy claim they always knew from their earliest memory that they had the brain of one sex and the body of another. Jazz Jennings, for example, says he was born with "a girl brain in a boy body" and to back this up Jazz and his mum frequently claim that from the moment Jazz first learnt to string words together as a tot he asked his mum, "when will the (good) fairy come to change my penis into a vagina?"

The way to test the validity of the "born in the wrong body" hypothesis would be to do brain scans on a large number of human neonates prior to when the "mini puberty of infancy" begins at circa 4 weeks after birth in order to establish once and for all

a) if nearly all infants really are born with brains that have observable sex-linked structural differences that make it possible to tell male baby brains from female baby brains and thus validate the claim that we're all born with either a boy brain or a girl brain - and if this is the case, where in the brain these differences are, how they can be characterized, and just how pronounced they are;

b) if there really is a small subset of neonates of each of the two sexes who have brains that are not just distinctly different from the brains that nearly all neonates of their own sex have, but which are identical to the brains of neonates of the opposite sex. Aka "trans brains."

Since brain scans don't cause any harm, I imagine doing a large scale study involving scans on neonates could be justified ethically. In fact, since proving or disproving beliefs that we all have marked different brains from birth based on our sex would be of great benefit to so many people, I wonder why those whose belief in trandsgenderism rests on the belief that all humans are born with sexed/gendered brains aren't clamoring for this research to be done.

Given how much medical care and interventions people like Jazz Jennings have had in their young lives starting from early ages, I'm surprised that kids diagnosed with gender dysphoria in early childhood don't all get brain scans at the time of diagnosis and haven't been given brain scans at regular intervals ever since.

If Jazz Jennings, say, really was born with a "girl brain in a boy body," it seems odd that no effort has been made to learn and document what exactly Jazz's "girl brain" looked like when Jazz was 2, 3, 4 and so on - and to find out in what ways, if any, Jazz's "girl brain" changed in the months and years after Jazz started on GnRH agonists to block development when Jazz was 11, and started taking estrogen later that same year to begin "feminizing" Jazz's outward appearance. Also, I'd think Jazz, Jazz's horrible parents, Jazz's doctors and Jazz all would be interested in finding out if and how Jazz's "girl brain" changed following genital surgeries. From the outside appearance of Jazz's body, Jazz doesn't look like Jazz is doing very well these days. But maybe scans of Jazz's brain tell a difference story?

Both: Is gender dysphoria a mental illness? & Is being trans a mental illness? by peakingatthemoment in GCdebatesQT

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

To me- Im not going to take some dude who just says he trans as seriously as like- Blaire White or someone else.

The thing is, those changes [to law, public policy, social custom, etc] shouldn’t be based on what they think it means to be trans- it should be based on actual transition.

So do you think that someone like Blaire White should be in girls'/women's change rooms, loos locker rooms, hospital wards, refuges, prisons, sports? That if/when Blaire is ever in a dorm, shelter, nursing home, rehab facility, recovery program, hospital with double rooms, someone like Blaire should be placed with a woman as a roommate?

What if someone like Blaire became a home health aide or nurse, should girls or women requesting a female for intimate care have to accept such from the Blaire-like person because that person has factory-made spherical implants in the chest and is good at enacting stereotypes of "femininity"?

Trans should be clear, woman should be clear, man should be clear, sex should be clear. And the only way to make it all clear is to actually be clear on what everything means.

So what is your clear definition of "trans" then? Since you mentioned Blaire White as an example of someone whom you seem to think is sufficiently "trans," I can only assume you mean someone who tries to give the outward appearance of being the opposite sex by aping the most superficial, regressive, sexist, offensive stereotypes of the sex they say they desire to be, and who has extensive cosmetic surgeries to alter certain aspects of their appearance, yet nevertheless chooses to keep his dick and balls. Coz that's Blaire.

Margaret Atwood must be cancelled. She is the new J K Rowling. by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

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

Remember, the pitchfork and torch mob first started going after JKR because she liked a tweet they disapproved of! IIRC, the "bad tweet" JKR liked was from Magdalene Berns, or it linked to one of her videos.

I also recall for certain that when the pile-on started, some ageist nitwit pipsqueak from JKR's literary agency rushed in to "defend" JKR and try to calm the waters by volunteering the opinion that the Harry Potter author must have liked the tweet accidentally due to not understanding the buttons/symbols on Twitter, implying JKR too much of a doofus to know how to use tech & apps. Or, the "helpful" person added, JKR might have liked the "bad tweet" intentionally but mistakenly coz she must have been having a "senior moment" that caused her to be so addled and confused that she didn't know what she was doing.

Both: Is gender dysphoria a mental illness? & Is being trans a mental illness? by peakingatthemoment in GCdebatesQT

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

Being trans-

It’s just literally physically having "transitioned"

But what is "physically having transitioned"? Taking testosterone, getting your breasts removed, wearing your hair short and putting "he/him" on your social media and emails? Taking estrogen, growing your hair long, getting FFS, having factory-made sacs of silicone gel or saline solution surgically placed in the chest, demanding that others call you she/her?

Also, as I am sure you know, your definition of what being "trans" is has nothing in common with the position of all the trans/LGBTQ lobby organizations, gender therapists, medical practitioners, trans activists and many trans-identified people nowadays. They say that being trans "is just literally" the following: "identifying as" the opposite sex, claiming to be of neither sex or a combo of both sexes, or having a "gender identity" different to one's sex.

They say further that being trans is entirely internal and requires making no physical changes, lifestyle changes, costume changes, changes to identity documents, changes in relationships, etc - whether temporary or permanent. They say the only thing that should be needed for a person to be recognized as legitimately trans by others and by society, and for them to acquire the protected characteristic of trans legally where such exists, is a verbal self-declaration that the person is trans. Today, the belief that person must change anything about themselves in order to be trans is considered transphobic "gatekeeping."

I know some people think you can be trans without transitioning or because you want to, I don’t agree. That’s why I separate the state of physically being trans from the mental stuff.

I get your POV, but in turn I think we need to engage the positions that gender ideology proponents are widely in agreement with and are putting forward. Your personal definition of trans is not the definition being used as the basis for the profound changes that have occurred, and are occurring, in law, public policy, sports regulations, school regulations and social customs. It's also not what is being taught to children and adolescents.

GC: Do DSDs follow the binary? What percentage of people have DSDs and how do we know that percentage? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

For example, are people with ovotesticular disorder male or female? They have both ovaries and testes.

No they don't. They have a combination of ovarian and testicular tissue, not all of which is developed or functional. One kind of gonadal tissue will be predominantly functional.

If persons with OT DSD had ovaries and testes, they would have four gonads. Persons with OT DSD have the usual two.

Some males have been reported to have been born with three testes, but those males did not have DSDs. There's never been a single study or case report of anyone on earth born with four gonads.

Are people with persistent müllerian duct syndrome male or female? They have uteruses. They have both ovaries and testes. Maybe not most times, but sometimes they have ovaries.

No, persons with PMDS they do not have both ovaries and testes. They have testes and penises, and rudimentary Mullerian structures.

I suspect you are the same ill-informed person who has posted on the GC forum and on Ovarit about this because you have strong animus against persons with DSDs and want to spread misinformation about them in the hopes it will cause them to be further stigmatized, othered and monstered. Or you are just a troll trying to wind people up.

Mods, please take this thread down.

TIF goes on a board for caregivers for old people, rants about how she's gonna wear a tie in front of grandpa, and cause drama for the family by WrongToy in GenderCritical

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

I don't understand how your reply in any way relates to point I made in the post you were responding to. I was objecting to you characterizing the old man being prejudged by his grand daughter as "senile grandpa." The TIF says in her OP that he's "of sound mind," and in the comments she added,

Both my grandparents are mentally sound, handle their own finances, have home health aides, and make their own medical decisions and doctor's appointments.

Her claims that she is being asked to be a caregiver for her grandfather have nothing whatsoever to do with your decision to call him senile. What's up with that? To me, it seemed like straight-up ageism.

As to the rest of your reply: my impression of the comments is that most of people who replied to the TIF were genuinely trying to help her out as much as they were "trying to actually, um, help the senior" in the situation.

BTW, I noted that she specifically said it was her father who expected her to be a caregiver. Assuming for a second that this indeed is true, a big assumption I know, the first question that popped into my head was: does the TIF have any brothers, and if so, does the father have the same expectation of his sons?

I wonder if a central underlying issue not being addressed by the TIF's preoccupation with superficialities and her projections onto her grandpa is a resentful awareness that the burden of caregiving in families tends to get placed on the female members - and that unmarried girls & women without children of their own often get particularly taken advantage of by their families in this regard. On top of this, I suspect that given how sexist, misogynistic and in thrall to regressive, narrow sex stereotypes this TIF revealed herself to be in her OP and other comments, she is chafing at the idea that anyone might see her as a potential "caregiver." My hunch is that she disdains being a caregiver and being thought of as a caregiver equally because she sees caregiving as a woman's role, and she is horrified that anyone would associate her with the sex class she sees as lowly and yucky. After all, she made it clear that since she wears neckties and isn't into cooking, she can't possibly be a woman herself, LOL.

Do individuals with CAIS have female sex organs? Or do they have male sex organs? by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

Also, it's important to emphasize that males with PMDS have normal male genitals - meaning a penis with male urethra and testes - and all the other male repro organs like prostate and vas deferens too. Though their testes might be undescended, their testes are normally formed and functional in terms of producing male levels of T; and whilst some persons with PMDS have fertility issues, others produce viable sperm as well.

In other words, males with PMDS have a couple of extra parts they're not supposed to have because there was a failure in utero in the signals that should have caused disappearance of Mullerian structures. But they are not missing any repro organs, nor do they necessarily have marked - or any - physiological dysfunction.

Also, the uterus and Fallopian tubes that males with PMDS are usually rudimentary, under-developed or undeveloped and undersized.

Do individuals with CAIS have female sex organs? Or do they have male sex organs? by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

I'd like to respond to this part of your comment just to wonder out loud whether whether Olympic-level DSD athletes are representative of most DSD individuals appearance-wise, because just looking at the Tokyo games, two of the three DSD athletes (Margaret Niyonsaba and Beatrice Masilingi) are, in my opinion, easily identifiable as male. Christine Mboma looks more ambiguous.

Please stop conflating the DSDs that XY athletes like Niyonsaba, Masilingi and Mboma have with XY CAIS. None of them have XY CAIS! XY CAIS is not on the list of XY DSDs subject to the current World Athletics' DSD regulations. To be subject to the current regulations pertaining to DSD athletes' eligibility in women's competition, athletes have to have one of a small handful of XY DSDs - all of which are characterized by having male-typical responsiveness to the testosterone their testes pump out. In other words, these athletes are not "androgen insensitive." Whereas persons with CAIS are androgen insensitive, ostensibly completely. The acronym CAIS stands for "complete androgen insensitivity syndrome."

The unfortunate umbrella term "DSD" applies to approximately 40 different, discrete conditions that are distinct from one another in numerous ways. These diverse conditions and the persons who have them can't all be spoken about and lumped together as if they were all one and the same.

whether Olympic-level DSD athletes are representative of most DSD individuals appearance-wise

Your attempt to generalize about what "most DSD individuals" look like based on "Olympic-level DSD athletes" who all have a small number of XY DSDs characterized by testes, male levels of T and male-typical sensitivity to to T, aka male physiology, ignores that a) DSDs occur in females as much as in males; and b) most people with DSDs have outward appearances that fit in the normal range of what males and females normally look like.

Only a small handful of DSDs result in genital anatomy that might be ambiguous-looking at birth, and thus might cause a person to be mistakenly sexed. The vast majority of people in the world with DSDs are males and females with late-onset or non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which doesn't manifest until puberty or adulthood, and they all look like entirely normal males and females.

Persons with MRKH, Turner's, Swyer's, etc don't look anything like most of the XY athletes now competing, or who have competed, in women's elite-level athletics like Niyonsaba, Masilingi, Mboma, Seyni, Wambui and Semenya. Persons with the particular XY DSDs these athletes have are not representative of all persons with DSDs in their appearance, or in other ways either. If you took away the hair extensions, nail lacquer and other accoutrements that these XY athletes sometimes rely on to give them a more "feminine" appearance when competing in women's sports, they all look like typical guys - including Mboma, who has a body shape like CeCe Telfer's, not like a girl or woman of or near Mboma's age. In the photos of themselves taken off the field that these athletes post on social media, they tend to look like typical guys whose sex no one would question.

TIF goes on a board for caregivers for old people, rants about how she's gonna wear a tie in front of grandpa, and cause drama for the family by WrongToy in GenderCritical

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

If she is this concerned about clothing at this stage, she's possibly seen as female by, well, just about everyone. Let alone senile grandpa there.

Just want to point out that the account that you yourself posted says very clearly that the grandpa in this case is "of sound mind." Being senile doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with being old enough to be a grandparent. Whilst dementia is a serious problem amongst the elderly, it only affects 13-14% of people over 70. Lots of old people have their wits about them. Many are sharp as tacks.

TIF goes on a board for caregivers for old people, rants about how she's gonna wear a tie in front of grandpa, and cause drama for the family by WrongToy in GenderCritical

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

But to me, being tolerant of the elderly means younger people not projecting their fantasies and their own prejudices onto us seniors, and not assuming you know ahead of time what we think and how we will react to situations that haven't occurred yet.

To me, what stood out about this TIF's diatribe is that Gramps has actually not expressed any dismay or disapproval about her clothing style, "identity" or homosexuality himself because he hasn't been given a chance to see or talk to her in years. The claims that Gramps will be "upset" to see a woman in a necktie or learn that his grandkid is a lesbian are all imagined hypotheticals made up by other people in her family, her therapist and herself. They are not realities that have come from Gramps. All these other people are behaving as though they have powers of clairvoyance that enable them to read Grandpa's mind and predict with 100% confidence how he'll react to his grand daughter in any future dealings with her.

I am pressured to keep in contact with my grandfather. I am pressured to meet with him, but the family tells me to take off my ties. Grandpa is of sound mind. My parents and uncle say that the ties will upset him. I haven't seen or spoken to him in years, since knowing that I transitioned would hurt his feelings and I didn't want to cause him pain. My compromise was not to hurt his feelings but also not to hurt my feelings by pretending to be someone I am not. My parents can make something up for why I can't speak to grandpa, like I lost my phone or am out of the country. I don't waive it in anyone's face, but I don't change my style of dress for anyone. I am considerate, so if it's an event at a nice restaurant, I will wear "male" dress pants rather than "male" jeans, which I wear normally, but I will not wear a dress or skirt just to please someone's emotions. Because grandpa grew up in a conservative environment, my therapist said he is unable to understand. But, I think, it's more "unwilling." Regardless of how he grew up, if he wants to accept me, he will. If he wants to learn about LGBTQ culture, he can. It's a choice. But age and background aren't excuses for intolerance. But I know he won't accept it and seeing me in a tie will make him upset. Calling me by my male name will make him upset. So I just stay away. A therapist told me that I am being selfish and inflexible by refusing to take off my tie. My therapist said if I truly love someone, like a family member, I will take off my tie in an act of compassion. My therapist said I am lacking in compassion. Is the therapist right or is the therapist a homophobe?

As for your own comment that

Being old is very unpleasant for a lot of people, and we should try to be considerant of that.

The fundamental fact you are overlooking is that being old means you've been alive for a long time, and in the process you've seen, heard and dealt with a lot, including a lot of different kinds of people and a lot of social change, fashion trends, ideological movements and fads. Old people have a great deal of life experience, and have pretty much "seen it all." This attitude that that we need need to be handled with kid gloves and must be protected from exposure to the latest youth fad coz we can't handle it is, IMO, not "considerant" - it's condescending AF.

Do individuals with CAIS have female sex organs? Or do they have male sex organs? by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

If you go by outward appearance alone, yes persons with CAIS develop a largely female-looking phenotype. But that doesn't mean they have "female sex organs" as you claimed. By making that statement, you appear to be taking a very male view of what female humans are, implying that all it takes to be female is not to have a penis or balls and to have some kind of hole for males to stick their penises into.

I have no problem calling persons with CAIS girls and women. But still, it's not true that they "develop as a female" the way you say. They are in a unique position, very different to standard males and standard females. It insults them and us female people both to say they are exactly like us.

And no, persons with CAIS do not go through the same life experience as a female persons do, not even in childhood. Sure, there will be many similarities. But there will be many differences too.

For example, one of the major childhood milestones for girls is getting your period and learning to deal with it, and learning to cope with all the myriad changes that occur in the female body over the course of the 28-day ovulation-menstrual cycle. The average age for first period is shortly after turning 12, but many girls get theirs at 11, 10 or even 9. In my family, all the girls got our periods at 10 or just after turning 11. It's only considered too early and abnormal if a girl starts menstruating before age 8.

Periods and the monthly cycle are huge issues in girls' lives, and our lives once we grow up and become women - but persons with CAIS will never have to deal with any of that. Because their estrogen comes from converted testosterone made by their testes, persons with CAIS have the same steady state of hormones day after day - which is nothing like what females go through. Just as they will never menstruate, experience menstrual flooding and leakage, have cramps or have to deal with the passage of alarmingly large blood clots from their "vaginas," persons with CAIS will never go through the sorts of changes - which often include mood fluctuations, bloating, breast tenderness, insomnia, appetite changes, marked differences in libido and sexual response, etc - that girls and women go through each month as a matter of course.

Similarly, once they become sexually active, persons with CAIS who have sex with males never have to worry about contraception or deal with an unplanned pregnancy, which are issues that weigh very much on the minds of sexually active girls & women with female repro organs who have sex with males. Persons with CAIS have to deal with infertility, but so do many bog standard XX women with the full set of female sex organs. Moreover, in dealing with infertility, persons with CAIS won't have to go through any of the testing & treatments that are pushed on XX women, often to the detriment of their physical health and mental wellbeing. No one will ever suggest that someone with CAIS should consider undergoing grueling drug regimens and invasive procedures to harvest her eggs, withstand interventions like IVF and IUI or at-home "artificial insemination," or consider using donor eggs.

Persons with CAIS also don't go through menopause and all the changes that brings both during the menopause years (and before them during peri-menopause) and in the decades afterwards. The life experience of persons with CAIS is actually very different to the the life experience of us "standard issue" women with female reproductive systems and female physiology.

There are many other differences in the life experiences I could list, but I think I've made my point.

TIF goes on a board for caregivers for old people, rants about how she's gonna wear a tie in front of grandpa, and cause drama for the family by WrongToy in GenderCritical

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

Yeah, gramps probably never saw any movies, photos or videos showing women like Marline Dietrich, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Brigette Bardot, Audrey Hepburn, Diane Keaton, Chrissie Hynde, Annie Lennox, Grace Jones, Madonna, Julia Roberts, Beyonce, etc wearing neckties.

Gramps no doubt never took note of any women in the US military who wore dress uniforms with neckties going back at least to WW1 more than 100 years ago.

He probably never saw any of the zillion girls who traditionally have worn neckties as part of their school uniforms, either.

Do individuals with CAIS have female sex organs? Or do they have male sex organs? by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

If CAIS individuals do not have ovaries, and have testes or penises instead, as said above, they are not girls, women, or female. They are boys, men or male.

Where did you get the idea that persons with CAIS have penises? It's not "as said above" like you claim.

The way you speak of "testes or penises" makes them sound as if they are interchangeable and always go hand in hand. They are not interchangeable, and do not always go hand in hand. In a number of male DSDs, the testes function fine but remain undescended, and the penis does not develop fully, properly or at all. With medical assistance, some persons with certain XY DSDs who don't have penises can father children.

As a general rule, I think it's best to leave people with rare medical conditions over which they have no control out of the convo about trans completely. That's what people with DSDs have repeatedly asked TRAs to do. People with DSDs have a hard enough time as it is. I don't see the purpose in using them to try to score points in discussions and debates that have nothing to do with them.

I also object to the way that people who have not put in the time & work to become well-informed about DSDs often breezily make blanket statements about them that are often misleading or completely inaccurate - and mean-spirited to boot. To me, this only adds to the stigmatization, othering and monstering that persons with DSDs already face.

However, in convos about women's sport, the nature of XY DSDs are pertinent and require frank and detailed discussion - and IMO the actions of particular individual athletes with XY DSDs are fair game for criticism. Because the fact is, a large number of adults with XY DSDs like Caster Semenya and Margaret Niyonsaba have made the choice to "weaponize" their DSDs and use them knowingly to cheat in women's sports. Moreover, some athletes with XY DSDs have used their rare conditions to argue that female people don't deserve fair play in sports, and that eligibility for female competition should be based not on biological sex but on "gender identity," how "feminine" individual athletes claim to feel, and whether they were raised (or claim to have been raised) as females as in the landmark legal cases of XY athletes Maria José Martínez-Patiño and Dutee Chand, both of whom have some degree of AIS.

Do individuals with CAIS have female sex organs? Or do they have male sex organs? by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

they are also born with internal gonads but they're non-functional and are dormant.

Kai, the testes of persons with CAIS are NOT "non-functional" or "dormant." They work fine in performing one of the main tasks of testes, which is to produce testosterone. Persons with CAIS produce normal amounts of testosterone from their testes - and some of them produce T in levels that are much higher than males normally do.

However, because their androgen receptors don't work, their bodies can't use the T their testes produce - and the T gets converted into estrogen through a process known as aromatization.

It's not accurate to say that persons with CAIS "do possess female sex organs." They don't have ovaries, Fallopian tubes, a uterus & cervix, or a fully developed vagina. They have the lower portion of a vagina, and their vaginas have different properties to a normal woman's vagina. Persons with CAIS historically had vaginoplasties to create a cavity that was capable of having penetrative sex with a penis. Today, the custom of routinely doing vaginoplasties on persons with CAIS is going out of fashion. However, these persons still have to dilate if they want to have PIV, and my understanding is that they have to use exogenous lubrication as well. Coz whereas regular vaginas are muscular tubes that are highly elastic and lined with special mucous membranes, the so-called vaginas of persons with CAIS do not possess these characteristics.

Males with PMDS have rudimentary internal Mullerian structures, including an undeveloped uterus.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

the reasoning is everything except for sex. And that's actually just ridiculous, like completely absurd. But that is our reasoning.

Jane Clare Jones pointed out that the basic misunderstanding between genderists and the rest of society, particularly GC, is that for most people the words man, women, boy and girl refer to the physical sex of the body - but for genderists those same words refer to the sex stereotypes and sexist expectations associated with each sex - aka gender - and the ideas & "identity" that exist in the mind.

Unpicking "gender identity" even more, kids who develop gender dysphoria seem to grow up in settings where they are given the idea that there are two boxes of stereotypes - one labelled "girl," the other labelled "boy" - and that a fundamental task of childhood development & personality formation means deciding which box of stereotypes they as individuals prefer & feel most drawn to & in synch with. For whatever reason, they don't realize that most grownups don't fit either box, that they can pick & choose from the two boxes, or that the two boxes themselves can be ignored altogether - or smashed, stomped, set on fire and/or laughed at.

maybe most trans peoples' answers are just always going to be incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't experienced gender dysphoria, or at least gender confusion/dysphoria to that degree.

I think you're getting to something profound by adding in the word "confusion" there. My sense is that a core issue for a lot of kids who develop "gender dysphoria" is that they've been raised without an understanding of sex, biology and human bodies in general, and through no fault of their own they are unfamiliar with and uncertain about what used to be called "the facts of life," "the birds & the bees" and just "the basics." I think this deprives kids of a grasp of, and solid grounding, in reality, including their own material reality - and leads to a sense of self that is both disembodied and shaky. And a core bewilderment.

IMO, a further disservice has been done to people with gender dysphoria is labelling it "gender dysphoria." Coz in that word pairing, no one knows what either "gender" or "dysphoria" really means, and when you put the two words together the meaning of each one becomes even more obscure. Rather than elucidate and clarify, the term "gender dysphoria" seems intended to mystify and muddy.

I wonder if one of the reasons that people with gender dysphoria experience it as so painful is because the set of beliefs that GD is built on don't make much sense and are flimsy, and at some deep but unconscious or semi-conscious level kids with the condition know this. Kids & young people are desperately trying to make sense of themselves & the world - and everyone yearns for a worldview based on as firm a foundation as possible. But maybe at some level, kids with GD have a niggling sense that something is off, that it doesn't compute, as it were. And this leads to a great deal of anxiety borne of, as you said, confusion. Indeed, borne of perplexity and bewilderment.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

I imagine the emergence, spread & increasing popularity of cable TV, affordable home video players & tapes, in the 80s & 90s were a major factor, and with them the proliferation of often sexist & trite media and "children's programming" meant for little kids (by companies like Disney & Saban). And of course the introduction & popularity of home video games. Along with parents no longer setting any limits on the amount of time a day kids could spent staring at screens.

Used to be, there were only a handful of TV stations in any market, and kids at home could only watch the TV shows & movies that adults running the few stations/channels in their area decided to broadcast, and only at the time when that particular content actually aired. So kids would get to see their fave TV show for 30 minutes once a week, and their fave movie on TV once a year. Even kiddie fare that aired daily or most days, like cartoons or Romper Room, only aired for 30 minutes to an hour or two at one time or select times of the day. But in the 80s and 90s, more people got cable, the number of cable channels greatly expanded, and parents could also tape or buy their kids' fave movie and shows, park their tots in front of the TV set and let them watch the same material over & over. In such a situation, the imagery & messages of the mass-produced media consumed by young impressionable minds was bound to sink in deep, and to loom larger in their psyches than what those same little kids might have observed in and of the real world. If, that is, they had much chance to to observe in the real world - a big if because at that same juncture in history, kids became far more indoor-bound homebodies than ever before.

Which brings us to another huge shift that occurred in the 80s, in the US at least. The 80s marked the turning point when kids en masse stopped spending a lot of time, or any time, outside the home unsupervised and unchaperoned by adults. The highly-publicized and tragic cases of Etan Patz and Adam Walsh put and end to the sort of "free range childhoods" that kids of earlier generations had, when children in suburban, urban, small town & rural settings alike all spent a great deal of their/our free time on our own amongst other kids without any adult supervision & input - and when it was customary to walked to school or the bus stop on our own too starting in kindergarten.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm with you Sloane in not being any closer to figuring out this "identify as" phenomenon so it makes more sense.

Another thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around is the notion that boys can grow up thinking they are girls when their male gonads and genitals are right there in their laps/crotches where they can see them just by looking down - and they handle their penises each time they pee. Whereas girls' genitals are tucked between our legs in such a way that we never see them really until we get older and look with a mirror, we don't touch and hold them with our hands each time we pee - and of course, we never see or touch our gonads, unlike guys who are always scratching and "adjusting" theirs.

Then when boys start puberty and their dicks and balls start growing, they get spontaneous erections, have wet dreams, and start masturbating and intentionally ejaculating. I can't imagine how when all that stuff is going on that boys hold on to the idea inculcated early in childhood that they're somehow really girls. It's not that I don't believe it happens - clearly it does, from what peaking and Fleurista say. It's just that my powers of imagination are too limited...

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

rights and legality but that’s also not what’s important.

We aren’t going to move either way here. How people feel matters. More to me than you.

That sums up the difference between the clashing POVs here. The problem is, there's no way a society can function without rights and concepts being encoded in laws, and to make laws you need to rely on solid and widely agreed-upon definitions. It's impossible to make good law and policy based solely on each person's feelings, which can be mercurial and mysterious, and when each individual makes up the his or her own meanings for words.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

I didn't mean to be condescending. Sorry!

I am just so confounded by the whole "identify as" thing. It brings out the worst in me.

I also didn't mean to be dismissing socialization. Again, sorry!

It just seems that so many people who have fallen into gender ideology really took what they were told/taught as children totally to heart to a degree that stands out to me as unusual. And I am trying to put my finger on why this is. What changed in the culture between the time I was a kid and, say, the 1990s?

I had lots of strict traditional ideas about all sorts of things shoved down my throat as a kid. Everyone did. But I recall very distinctly being a child of 7-8 or so and thinking "this is BS" and rolling my eyes, and my siblings and friends all doing the same. For all the socialization and indoctrination that I recall happening - and there was a ton of it - amongst the kids I knew there was at a countervailing widespread skepticism, irreverence and a smart-alecky attitude of "of yeah, right, pull the other leg!"

Perhaps one reason is that I grew up in a neighborhood and community where a lot of people were very religious, but everyone practiced different religions - and so there was a lot of comparisons amongst us kids of the different religious lore, rites and rituals in each home, and in each different house of worship. Whatever the reason, we kids often discussed the stuff we all were being taught at home, in school and at church/temple - and something we agreed on from fairly early on - like 7 or so - was how we sometimes had to pretend to go along with stuff we were told by our parents/teachers/elders/priests/nuns, etc said so as to humor them and not distress them.

Again, sorry for sounding condescending and dismissive.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

Yeah, I know all about socialization. But even when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, the view of males and females I got (and other people I know of my age and several decades younger) was not as stereotypically and uniformly one-dimensional as the extremely narrow, shallow view that you and peaking seem to have gotten - and which you seem to think has always been the norm. Maybe it was because of bigger families back then, bigger school class sizes, the larger role that religion played in general society, the outsized presence of nuns in popular culture generally and in the particular the kind of education I got as a student at convent school, and the fact that kids spent so much time amongst one another unsupervised by adults and thus had the chance to let our true selves out ... I dunno what caused it, but most people I know who are over 45 or so did not get the idea when growing up that all boys were a certain very narrow way, and only that narrow way, and all girls were another kind of narrow way, and only that narrow way.

Also, in the milieu I was grew up "tomboy" wasn't much used. When not in our school uniforms or "Sunday best," most girls dressed and behaved in a wide range of ways, much of them not at all "girly" as it's defined today. Girls could be rough and tumble, sporty, feisty, nasty, loud, bossy, opinionated, obstinate, difficult, bratty, troublesome, adventurous, curious, challenging, irritable, selfish, tart-tongued, foul-mouthed, argumentative and so on just as much as they/we could be gentle, caring, docile, demure, dainty, patient, yielding, accommodating, obedient, considerate, soft-spoken, well-behaved etc. Girls in some milieus and situations might have been discouraged and shamed for certain behaviors that weren't stereotypically "feminine," but it wasn't like anyone thought that girls and women couldn't naturally have a whole range of personality traits that fall far outside the "good girl" or "ideal woman" box. Because we all knew girls who didn't fit those boxes, just as we knew women who didn't either.

When I was growing up, no one I knew seriously believed that girls were actually made of "sugar and spice, everything nice" because just as there were a lot of mean, fierce, powerful and terrifying mothers around, on every block, in every class room, and in the case of big families like mine, there were real live girls who were often mean, hard-edged and behaved in horrible ways. In fact, one of the poems that I heard most as a child was "There Was a Little Girl" by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

There was a little girl,

Who had a little curl,

Right in the middle of her forehead.

When she was good,

She was very good indeed,

But when she was bad she was horrid.

Now perhaps this poem was meant to shame girls, but to me it was a clear acknowledgment that girls' behavior runs the whole gamut from good to bad - and when we behaved badly, it was in our nature and power to go whole hog rather than just be a little bit bad.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

So now you've decided to seize and redefine the word "mother" too? And you've decided to redefine it in a way meant to sever the connection to being biologically female like you've done with the word "woman"? And you've decided to redefine "mother" so it has nothing to do with human reproduction, the way on another thread you've argued that women's breasts play no part in procreation? Sheesh, talk about arrogance, grabbiness and appropriation - and male entitlement.

Adoptive mothers enter into a formal, legal arrangement to be responsible for raising, caring for and seeing to all the needs of a minor growing up. Adoptive mothers are not in the same category as the other people you list, and throwing them in with all those other people belittles adoptive mothers.

someone who takes a kid in for years but doesn’t adopt them, a close older friend who cares for someone for a while, the nice lady down the block who makes sure no one on the street goes hungry and has a ride to the doctor? All these people may consider themself a mother as part of their identity

I know many foster parents who call themselves foster parents, foster moms and foster dads. Some go by uncle and aunt, or just their names. But none of them call themselves just plain mothers and fathers - the foster is key to their role. No foster agency would work with people who don't make the distinction between foster parenting and being a blood parent or adoptive parent. Boundaries and clear definitions are very important in fostering - it's damaging to kids in foster care to ignore the boundaries and blur the definitions. Also, no man I know or have ever heard of who has taken in kids has used the word "mother" for himself.

I have never heard anyone of either sex "who cares for someone for a while" saying that makes them a mother. A nurse, a helper, a carer, a companion, a sister of mercy, a Florence Nightingale - yes. A mother, no. Persons who do care for other people's children typically call themselves nannies, baby sitters, child minders - not mothers.

The nice lady down the block who looks out for the people on her street might say she is a good neighbor, a humanitarian, someone who is "people oriented," a concerned, caring citizen. She might even call herself a saint. But unless she's the head of a religious order with the title "mother superior," I highly doubt any "nice lady" would see fit to call herself a mother of anyone she has not given birth to, adopted or had a hand in raising from childhood on as in the case of stepmothers.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

According to you. And if that defines you as a woman cool but stop using your definitions to define me. I consider being called a man an egregious insult but you aren’t shy about plastering it on me. Define yourself stop trying to define me by an accident if genetics

No, not according to me. According to the whole world. I did not invent the definition of woman, just as I did not invent the definition of cow and bull, hen and rooster/cock, goose and gander.

You are the one inventing your own individual definition of woman. And when women say no, you can't have that word, it's taken and it belongs to us, you can't have it, then you come back and insist again and again that woman is your word, that you are going to define it how you want in a way that suits you, and you are going to take it and call it your own because you are the boss. Sorry, this sounds like male entitlement to me!

BTW, I have never called you a man. I have noted that you are of the male sex, you only seem to care about others of the male sex, and you seem to have lot of male entitlement reflective of male socialization and feelings of supremacy.

Whist we all might indeed have ended up as male or female because of "accidents of genetics" like you say, our genetics are not incidental to our physical reality - at all.

Except you explicitly contradicted this when you said health care should be controlled by sex.

But believing that sex matters in health care isn't the same as saying males shouldn't be nurses, SAHDs or do childcare, LOL. It means knowing that the lab reference ranges for males and females in many areas are entirely different, that males and females having heart attacks display different symptoms, that men have twice the chance of needing hospitalization and dying from COVID than women do, and that there are some health conditions - for example, enlarged prostate, hemophilia, pregnancy and cervical cancer - that affect only one sex and not the other. My hunch is that the only reason you are comfortable with the idea of sex being ignored in medical care is because you are of the sex which has traditionally been considered the human norm, that's been focused on in medical research over history, that drugs and treatments were historically tested on, and whose medical problems have received full attention and priority.

You really think all patients should have to answer questions about menstrual and childbearing history when seeking medical care? That before clearing males for X-rays, they should all be given pregnancy tests? That medications and doses should be prescribed without heed to a patient's sex?

You can get a depression, bipolar, bps, and many other mental diagnosis without any physical testing. Gender dysphoria is no different.

But no health care system or insurance plans advises or pays for people with these mental health conditions to attempt to treat those conditions by getting cosmetic surgeries and procedures or by taking massive amounts of sex hormones their bodies are not meant to produce or handle. People with anorexia aren't given liposuction as a treatment. People with depression aren't sent to the cosmetic surgeon to get their mouth sewn into the shape of a smile. People with other kinds of body dysmorphia are not given amputations and augmentations.

Also, people seeking diagnosis for many serious mental health conditions with a competent and thorough diagnostician do have to get physically checked to rule out physical causes for their symptoms. In severe and intractable depression, for example, it's common to do blood work, CT brain scans, neurological testing, and (in the past) the Schilling test, etc to make sure that the underlying issue isn't thyroid dysfunction, a brain tumor, pernicious anemia/B-12 deficiency, Alzheimer's, etc.

Identity by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

When I was little, I felt really strongly that I was a girl inside and was supposed to be one. Looking back, it seems like it was because my behaviors and interests that were labeled as feminine and I felt closer to girls. They were always my friends and we usually liked the same things.

But it wasn't that you "felt closer to girls" in general, was it? Sounds to me that you felt closer to the particular girls who were your friends and who "liked the same things." My hunch is that this means the girls you gravitated toward and became were friends with and "felt closer to" were precisely and solely those who had "behaviors and interests that were labeled as feminine" just as you did. Not any of the many girls who could be called "tomboys" or any of the the much greater number of other "regular girls" who might have been forced to wear "feminine" attire, play with "girl toys" and behave as "mummy's little helpers," but who amongst themselves away from adult supervision would express discomfort and disdain for the sexist expectations put on them - and who when left to their own devices did not necessarily play with dolls and other "girl toys" given to them in the kind, gentle, dainty and delicate "feminine" ways assumed of them.

Seems to me like big circle was operating in your life and psyche: as a little boy, you had interests and behaviors that the unfortunately sexist - and dare I say homophobic? - adults in your lives labeled "feminine"; and you were drawn towards and felt kinship with other children who had similar interests, behaviors and likes too, which is completely normal for kids. In your case, the kids you were drawn to and felt an affinity with happened to be girls. But not all girls - just the subset of girls who "liked the same things" as you, meaning things adults and you designated as feminine.

It sounds like something happened in your childhood that prevented you from recognizing that there are many types of girls, that girls can have all kinds of personalities and interests and behaviors. And from seeing that there are some boys who are "feminine," sensitive, delicate, fussy, timid, fragile, small and vulnerable - far more so than a lot of girls. Which is one of the big lessons in the way that in To Kill A Mockingbird Harper Lee depicts her own rough-and-tumble alter ego, Scout, and her more demure and, excuse the term, "wimpy" male playmate Dill, based on Lee's RL childhood best friend Truman Capote. Instead, for whatever reason you got the idea fixed in your mind that girls in general and in whole had/have the behaviors, interests and liking for what's "feminine" as you - in other words, that girls innately have/had the same sensibilities as you. From there, you somehow made the leap that having a "feminine" sensibility means having a female sense of self.

Sorry if I have made leaps here. I'm not trying to offend, just trying to get a sense of the reasoning that was at work. Coz like Sloane, I just don't get how people can jump from feeling an affinity for members of the opposite sex who fit the narrow stereotypes associated with that sex that they as children learned to place prime importance on to coming to believe that they themselves are that sex too, or have the mind, soul or "inner essence" of that sex - and to claim to be that sex later on in adolescence and adulthood.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

I’m expressly not. I’ve never claimed to be female. Just a woman.

Oy vey, there you go again. When you claim to be a woman, you are divorcing "woman" from being female, one of the core defining characteristics.

To be a woman, a person has to meet three essential criteria - be an adult, be human and be female. A person can't be a woman without meeting ALL three of these criteria, without having ALL three of the essential core characteristics. By claiming you are a woman, you are saying a woman can be a male adult human just as much as a female one. Which is fundamentally changing the definition of woman and erasing and eliding all the ways in which women are a distinct, separate sex to adult human males.

This is telling women that we are not distinct or different from males. Worse, it's telling us that we are simply an idea in men's minds, figments of male imagination.

You may not have invented it but you are saying biology should control our whole lives.

Can you show me where I or any other "GC" feminist has said any such thing? I believe biology determines sex - just as biology determines other basics like our need for water, food and air - and just as biology means we all are mortal and that whilst we alive, we are vulnerable to disease and injury.

But except in specific situations where biological sex is a factor - such as in health care, sports, safeguarding and facilities and provisions meant to accommodate male or female anatomy and physiology - I don't believe that people's options in life should be limited or controlled by their/our sex. I'm all for men doing child care, being SAHDs and working as nurses and women not having children, and working as police officers and air traffic controllers. If men truly could get pregnant, carry a baby to term, undergo labor and childbirth, and breast feed, I'd happily have shared the burden with the man I procreated with.

At the same time, however, I believe that sex is an important physical reality that matters a great deal to most people, that it's immutable, that it can't be waved away by choosing to "identify as" the opposite-sex, and that it has consequences that affect our lives in myriad ways large and small from soon after conception to our dying days. Whereas you prefer to take the position that the physical reality of your sexed body is far less important than your desire to have a body of the opposite sex, and that what matters most is the identity claims you make about yourself based on what you wish were true rather what is objectively, verifiably and measurably true.

Moreover, you appear to believe that cosmetic changes made to the human body can turn a male person into the opposite sex - or at least into a outwardly-appearing facsimile of the opposite sex that in your opinion is close enough to the real thing in the ways that count to you as to be pretty much the same, but again "the same" only in the superficial ways that matter in the eyes of some males.

And they are allowed to fix them without being persecuted.

People who identify as trans today are able to get all sorts of extensive cosmetic body modifications paid for by government-funded national and state health services and/or by private medical insurance. All they need is a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" - which in countries like the USA and many European nations is one of the easiest Dx's to get nowadays, and is also easy to get in places like the UK and Canada by going to private HCPs rather than through the state health care system. Moreover, when trans people make these body modifications, even the most superficial ones, they are widely and effusively praised and celebrated for it. This has been the case for quite a while now.

When Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn in 2015, Jenner immediately got featured on the covers of glossy magazines, given a TV show, and was showered with awards, including "woman of the year" and the Arthur Ashe "courage" award. How is this persecution?

When a career criminal with multiple convictions and incarcerations for fraud and theft (including of social security and welfare checks from the elderly and poor) who never worked an "honest" job named Kricket "Thunderpussy" Nimmons became the first person to undergo "MtF" surgery on the genitals to affirm Nimmons' identity as a woman that was fully paid for by NY State Medicaid in 2015, Nimmons' story was covered in a lengthy, fawning story and video, complete with professional photo styling, by the NY Times that was featured on the front page of the "paper of record." Nimmons also got a NYC subsidized apartment, government financial support and special health services because Nimmons is black, identifies as trans and has HIV. Nimmons got paid to be a professional "trans advocate" by a taxpayer-funded organization too. Moreover, Nimmons got free legal representation from not just the ACLU, but from a "white shoe" Park Avenue law firm. How is this persecution?

The NYT reported that because Nimmons was habitually non-compliant with the medical regimen meant to keep Nimmons' HIV in check and also did not comply with the post-op instructions after the "sex reassignment" surgery Nimmons got for free courtesy of taxpayers, Nimmons has required extensive hospital stays that could have been prevented - and also had to have the "SRS" redone. All at taxpayer's expense. How is this persecution?

Even back in the 1970s males who identified as trans weren't necessarily "persecuted" for it. When acclaimed historian, journalist, adventurer and father of 5 James Morris became Jan and wrote the best-selling 1974 memoir Conundrum, Morris was praised and accepted. Before Morris died in 2020 at age 94, Morris said never once in nearly 50 years living as someone publicly known to be trans had Morris suffered any discrimination or mistreatment for the identity Morris adopted and the surgeries and other body mods that Morris underwent.

Similarly, in the 1970s when ace male athlete, respected physician and father Richard Raskin, who grew up with every kind of white male privilege imaginable, became Renee Richards, persecution did not follow. Not even when one of the things Richards did immediately after "becoming a woman" was to sue - and win - the right to play professional women's tennis at a time when women were just starting to get a chance to have our own sports leagues. How exactly does this amount to "being persecuted"?

By contrast, people with disabling physical health conditions and mental health conditions that aren't "gender dysphoria" have to go through enormous hoops and intensive scrutiny in order to qualify for government financial support programs, medical interventions and equipment - and depending on the jurisdiction, people with disabilities often or customarily have to do this at regular intervals throughout their lives in order to keep qualifying for the programs they rely on.

Similarly, people with truly diseases that are severely life-limiting and life-threatening have to go through extensive diagnostic testing and provide tons of proof in the form of paperwork, scan films, lab results, etc and go through physical exams, personal interviews and sometimes even home visits in order to get their treatments and accommodations covered by public health systems like the NHS or private health insurers. But even then, most people have access to only some of the treatments available, rather than the treatment they prefer on demand. Moreover, before getting cleared for invasive and costly treatments like surgeries, many people have to try all other less expensive and non-invasive treatments first.

I don't believe anyone should be "persecuted" for having a physical or mental illness, or because they decide to claim they are something they are not. But the self-pitying way you constantly claim that trans people are uniquely put upon and that you suffer pain and persecution far worse than anyone else in the world is tiresome - and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

You might not be telling us whether we are women in so many words, but you are changing the definition and meaning of the category "women" so that it includes some males. You are also appropriating the word "woman" for yourself, ignoring the fact that it's a word that's already taken and not up for grabs. In the process, you are telling women that there is nothing about female humans that makes us distinct from and different to male humans. In other words, by claiming our name for yourself, you are erasing us and denying that we alone have a legitimate claim to the word "woman" and the category women.

You are the ones trying to tell me who i am.

Women didn't invent biological sex, or make it binary and immutable. Your beef is with biology, nature and evolution. It's not the fault of women, of GC, or of anyone else who doesn't believe in QT and the primacy of gender that you are not and can't become what you desire to be.

BTW, lots of people are deeply unhappy with the bodies they/we were born with and are stuck with. Many people feel enormous distress looking in a mirror, bathing, getting dressed, going out in public, getting through the day because of deep-seated bodily issues.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

I do too. The difference is that I don't think participating in society means making other people participate in, play along with, "validate" and "affirm" your/their own subjective self-image.

Also, I have a hunch that I've actually done a whole lot more IRL to help insure that oppressed groups have protections that allow them to participate in society to the fullest extent possible whether they are relatively small in number - like lesbians & gays, persons with disabilities and rare "orphan" diseases, people who are homeless, persons who are mentally ill - or they are large in number yet still oppressed - like girls & women, the majority black population of South Africa and Namibia who were subjected to apartheid, or the many millions of people around the world who in my lifetime have become refugees due to warfare, tyranny, famine and natural disasters.

QT/Trans: What do the language changes actually accomplish? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

When did the world shrink down to only be mumsnet and everyday feminism?

Houseplant, I don't get why you've brought up Mumsnet here. GenderBender mentioned Everyday Feminism and the Baby Center, not Mumsnet. Mumsnet is not like those other sites. Mumsnet is the place on the internet that I feel most at home. This is particularly true of the Feminism/Women's Rights section - which is widely known as the "radicalization portal" for the "terven" - and whose regular users are extremely well-informed and intelligent. But it's also true of the rest of Mumsnet too.

Mumsnet is place where millions of women - and many men - from a wide variety of backgrounds, walks of life and numerous different countries with highly varying points of view engage in vigorous debate about all sorts of topics - and do a lot of swearing too. It's not a site just for mums or parents, nor is it concerned solely with matters having to do with pregnancy, babies and child-rearing - though concern for children and other vulnerable groups is big on the site. But many users don't have children. I personally went to Mumsnet for the feminism, and it's the feminism that brings me back on a daily basis.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

No, that's not true, and you know it. I'm a pluralist and democrat. I want laws, public policy and social customs to be decided by all the various kinds of people who make up society working together and based on democratic principles and objective material and social reality that's measurable, verifiable and widely agreed upon. I want all sides to have ample opportunity to discuss, present evidence and engage in vigorous debate where everyone gets a chance to have their views heard.

Whereas you want laws, public policy and social customs to be decreed in dictatorial fashion by you and others who constitute a tiny, self-selected, self-serving special interest group and whose members all believe that a) the subjective feelings that individuals like you have about yourselves matter more than objective reality that the rest of society agrees on; and b) the desire/need of a tiny authoritarian minority to get your own way and to bend the world to your will should take precedence over other people with different views being able to have, hold on to and exercise their/our rights and freedoms.

I don't want to control you. I don't want you to be mistreated, either. I think you should be protected from discrimination and able to live your life as you wish without harassment, abuse or violence.

But at the same time, I also don't think the totally unverifiable claims you and others make about the "identities" you have in your heads are a good foundation on which to make law, public policy and to try to build a fair society. You're the one who wants a society based on coercive control, not I.

QT: Why do you care so much if other people believe your chosen "identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Houseplant, I am very sorry this happened to you

By saying you had "a moral duty" to help the rapist whose nose you broke, CMOV seems in my view to be suggesting that the broken nose a male experiences in the course of raping a girl or woman is just as bad as, or worse than, the injury/harm he has caused his female victim by assaulting and raping her. CMOV seems to think you should have put the rapist's wellbeing before your own or on the same plane as your own.

Also, CMOV is showing shocking unawareness of, or total lack of regard for, the abject terror, shock and trauma girls/women experience during and after rape. As if after rape, we're all so calm, cool and collected that we are capable of thinking in terms of our "moral duty" to others. Moreover, the suggestion seems to be that part of female rape victims' "moral duty" is to process our pain and trauma at warp speed so we can hurry up attend to our assailant's welfare and "be kind."

This reminds me of Mridul Wadhwa, the TRA head of Edinburgh Rape Crisis who called rape victims "transphobic bigots" and said women who've been raped have a duty to "reframe their trauma" so as not to feel or express any ire towards anyone male that might distress or discomfit other males.

Fuck that. A girl or woman who has just been raped has no "moral duty" to anyone except herself.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

Only two cases have been reported where individuals with CAIS are said to have breastfed. In both cases, the women had to take heavy-duty exogenous drugs that could be harmful to newborns - an unnamed galactagouge in one case, FDA-banned domperidone in the other. In each case, the women were only said to have "partially breastfed for one month." No details were given in the reports about the nutritional contents of the secretions that issued from the breasts and whether the stuff was indeed milk. The aim in both cases appears to have been to provide the CAIS women - one of whom adopted, another of whom hired a surrogate to bear a child - with a sense of emotional bonding with the babies and an "authentic motherhood experience." The physical wellbeing of the babies seem to have been of secondary concern.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

From what I've read, the breasts that males who've been through the male puberty of adolescence grow later in life when taking estradiol do not develop the lobules, ducts and milk glands that in female people mature and develop during female puberty. In male puberty, the breast tissue does not get the same signals as breast tissue gets in female puberty, and my understanding is that male sex hormones in males during puberty causes permanent atrophy of the structures in the breasts related to lactation.

It's not clear what happens to males whose development has been blocked with GnRH agonists aka "puberty blockers" at an early Tanner stage like Jazz Jennings.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

But that still doesn't make human breasts non-sexual or asexual as you say.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

FK, you might well have found a flaw in my reasoning, but I honestly don't understand what you are saying in this last post.

My comment was a response to COMV's claim that because infants nowadays can survive without breast milk, this means breasts aren't sexual organs that play or have played a part in reproduction. My comment wasn't a response to what you said about baby formula and can openers.

Also, just for the record, whilst the inventions and tech you mention - formula, cans, can openers, bottles, nipples, sanitizing equipment & refrigeration - have indeed been around longer than any of us have been alive, they have not been around everywhere on earth. Even today in 2021, a huge percentage of the human population can't use baby formula because they do not have access to clean water with which to make the powdered form, they don't have the means and funds to pay for the fuel to boil water to sterilize it, they don't have refrigerators in which to safely store the canned versions once the cans are opened, they live in shacks or huts where the conditions make it impossible to sanitize bottles & nipples. Nor can they afford to buy infant formula in powdered or pre-made liquid form.

According to WHO, as of 2019 one-third of the world's population do not have access to water that's safe to drink, and 3 billion people are unable to engage in hand-washing that would make their hands clean enough to safely prepare or handle infant formula or cleanse/sanitize items like bottles and nipples.

If you visit "third world" countries, you'll see that even in homes where people have electricity, they often only have power some of the time. Moreover, even homes with electricity 24/7 often are such that basic cleanliness is impossible.

Finally, baby formula can't provide the immune benefits that breasts do. It takes several days after birth for a mother's milk to "come in" - but before then, the breasts of women who've just given birth secrete colostrum that is rich in both antibodies and nutrients.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

Sexed means "having sexual characteristics" - which itself could lead to a discussion because a person like COMV would define a "sexual characteristic" is different to how I would define it.

Medicine (run by males) used to assume that only the reproductive organs that we call sex organs like the testes, ovaries, prostate, penis, vagina, uterus etc were sexed or had sexual characteristics. All the other organs they assumed were identical in the two sexes. But of course, all organs are made up of cells, and all the nucleated cells in our bodies (meaning all cells in our bodies except mature red blood cells, and one kind of cell in a part of the eye) contain sex chromosomes. Now that research is being done by scientists open to the idea that the sex of cells might lead to different characteristics in the organs that those cells make up, a vast number of differences are being found and proven to exist. It turns out that organs that outwardly look the same in the two sexes, and which perform the same tasks, are often different in innumerable ways and they go about performing the same tasks in different ways too.

Differences in placental cells of XY and XX zygotes have been found 5-6 days after fertilization, when the zygotes are implanting themselves in the uterine lining and the placenta is just starting to grow.

There's a big body of scientific research showing vast differences in the respiratory tracts and respiratory function of male and female humans. I've posted a lot of links before. I don't have time to pull them all out now, but they're in my posting history in convo with Fleurista especially. I know about these differences because of my interest in sports & sex differences that affect male and female sports performance, but even more because I had a brother and sister with cystic fibrosis - which is a disease that's been observed since it was first identified in the 1950s to affect boys & girls very differently from a very early age. The same exact disease caused by the same genetic mutation has a different trajectory in the two sexes, even in families where the children live in the same physical environment & have access to the same level of medical care, home care, nutrition, etc. This is turning out to be the case with a lot of inherited diseases, in fact.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm not telling you how you should conceptualize yourself. I don't care. I don't care how you dress or "present" yourself either. You do you.

My concern is that QT says your subjective psychological sense of yourself as a woman should have as much, or even more, validity in life, law, sport, medical care, public provisions, social customs, communal accommodations and services as the objective physical reality of me actually being a woman owing to the verified and verifiable fact that I am a human who is female and of adult age.

My concern is that QT says the general public - and girls & women in particular - need to give up rights and bend over backwards to accommodate, validate and "affirm" the subjective psychological sense of self that you and some other people have in your heads.

In exchanges with me and other female posters on other threads, you've not shown us much respect. You've also taken it as your right to define what being a woman is and means, and what specifically female body parts are for.

My own subjective self-image is not an issue here coz I am not trying to impose my internal feelings, thoughts and imaginings about myself onto the world and other people in it. I'm not demanding that other people take seriously what I believe about myself and show my ideas about myself respect. I'm not trying to use my inner ideas about myself to take away any other people's rights or remove safeguarding provisions put in place to benefit children, women and disadvantaged persons the way QT and trans activists are.

Also, I don't have an "identity" the way you do. I'm of a generation that doesn't do the "identify as" thing, and for whom the very idea of "identifying as" what we are not seems utterly alien. I just have a boring old internal self-concept. Or rather two self-concepts, one which represents who I think I am - my "as is" self- and the other that represents who I wish I were - my ideal self. But I can't imagine trying to impose my views of who I wish I were on other people, much less demanding that they take my idealized, indeed imaginary, self as true and show "respect" for it - especially when it contradicts what they can see for themselves with their own eyes.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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


So the deception that Alicia Estes committed by pretending to a be a heroic survivor of the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center matters less than her "identity" as Tania Head?

Donald Trump's self-identity as the greatest POTUS ever, the best dealmaker in history, and the winner of the most recent US presidential election matters more than his record, other people's views of him, and the verified vote counts?

Elizabeth Holmes' identity as a good person and a tech genius on par with Steve Jobs counts more than her actions at Theranos and all the lies and hoodwinking she tried to get away with?

Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter's long-claimed identity as Clark Rockefeller matters more than the murder and other crimes he committed?

Again, why?

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

The kidneys on the other hand is an organ common to all humans and thus it is not a sex organ at all.

This is true, but you know that kidneys are sexed, right? Male and female kidneys of many species have been found to differ not just in size and shape (in humans, female ones are smaller relative to body size and more elongated), but in the way they function too.

Also, although female kidneys are smaller, they have greater capacity than male kidneys as well as the ability to develop additional capacity when needed in order to handle the much greater blood volume that occurs in women's bodies during pregnancy. The difference in kidney capacity is one of the many reasons that males would not be able to sustain a pregnancy even if it were possible to implant uteruses into males. (In the gross experiment in which a uterus with an embryo inside was placed in a male rat, the male rat had to be connected to the female rat so he could rely on her kidney function.)

The differences in male and female kidney function helps explain the marked differences between the way kidney disease manifests in humans of the two sexes. Whilst male and female humans are equally likely to develop kidney disease, males progress to renal failure much more quickly. There are also marked difference in how the two sexes respond to treatments for kidney disease and related ailments. And there are great disparities in kidney transplants too. Women make up the majority - about 63% - of living donors of kidneys, but girls and women in need of kidney transplants are much less likely to be transplant recipients.

Most of the research on the difference in kidney function has been done on rats, but apparently rat kidneys are similar enough to human kidneys that legitimate parallels can be drawn.

[Researchers] found marked differences between sexes in the expression of genes associated with hormonal regulation, kidney disease and the kidney’s critical physiological activities. For example, they noticed differences between the sexes in the genes that code for enzymes that regulate blood pressure. The differences were especially evident in the proximal tubule region of the nephron, which is the workhorse tissue for reabsorption of essential factors such as glucose and metal ions, and the detoxification of drugs.

“These results highlight the need for a better understanding of sexual diversity within the human kidney,” McMahon said. “We know there are similarities between mice and humans in susceptibility to acute kidney injury — males are at a distinct disadvantage — and that sex differences can potentially impact drug studies and damage by kidney toxins.”

Indeed, the National Institutes of Health have emphasized that research needs to account for differences between sexes. Sex affects risk for disease, treatment and how people respond to medications. In the past, scientists studied male physiology and applied findings to women, so studies such as the new USC research underscore the importance of biological differences.

“Profound differences distinguish the male and female kidney,” McMahon said. “The kidney is the body’s regulator of fluid balance, and since women bear offspring, there are likely critical differences required in the mother for the benefit of both mother and offspring.”

The findings can benefit human health by improving an understanding of genetic programs that may influence drug trials, drug toxicity and cellular reprogramming, he said.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

First you said:

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

Now when challenged on that you say that before there was infant formula

They died.

So now dying is the same as surviving?

And how does this prove your preposterous and misogynistic claim that infants' need of breast milk to survive the first 6-8 months of life for all of human evolution and history until very recently "still doesn't make breasts a sexual organ"?

In addition to insulting all women who have breastfed their/our own children, and all those who have breastfed or provided breast milk for other women's children too, your claim that human breasts are not sexual organs that fulfill a reproductive purpose is basically the same as saying that humans are not mammals.

Also, if human breasts are not sexual organs meant to play a key role in reproduction; the nourishment, immunity & survival of young offspring; and the perpetuation of the species Homo Sapiens, what's their purpose then?

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

So is the bottom line that you don't believe that that objective material or social reality exist - only self-perception, self-description and self-identity? Or do you think that there is such a thing as objective material reality and social reality, but that objective reality is of little or no importance compared to the way individuals see and define themselves, the world, and the words/labels they use?

AGP for women? This is the cover of a conservative women's magazine by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

Women cannot have AGP. Coz AGP is a male's paraphilia defined as a boy or man's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought/image/fantasy of himself as female.

Women can participate in, and promote, their own sexual objectification. Women can be aroused by the idea of themselves as sexually alluring. But women can't have AGP because women are female, not male.

Common behaviors characteristic of AGPs is for males to masturbate in front of mirrors whilst dressed "as women;" to get erections and be brought to climax by the simple act of putting on any piece of clothing they consider "female," such as panties, a sports bra, an apron or fluffy slippers; to be sexually aroused by growing breast tissue; and to be so turned on by the sight and feel of their own breast tissue that when taking showers they orgasm when washing their chests. These are not behaviors that girls and women customarily undertake of their own volition - or at all.

ETA: The driving forces behind AGP that make it so powerful and insistent and cause boys & men to become totally overwhelmed by it are the male sex drive, male narcissism, male entitlement and males' preoccupation with pursuit of their own personal male sexual pleasure.

QT: Why do you care so much if other people believe your chosen "identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Calling someone something that they consider an insult or that doesn’t apply to them is something people don’t like. Even without bringing gender into it. Calling someone a geek or a Christian or a metal head or literally anything that they feel doesn’t discribe them or even more so something that they feel is exactly the opposite of them.

So big deal if people don't like it. Most of us have gotten called names and descriptors that we are not throughout the course of our lives, and yet we've managed to survive just fine. In fact, such experiences have helped us to develop resilience and a stronger sense of ourselves - and taught us to have a sense of humor, to be easy-going, to practice humility, and to work on our verbal parrying skills too. Such experiences have also taught us that we are not the boss of the world with the right and power to control other people.

I really wonder what kind of family, community, neighborhood, school background, religion and cultural milieu you grew up in where everybody has the right and power to dictate how everyone else perceives them, describes them and addresses them - and where everyone is so thin-skinned, so non-resilient and so unsure of who they really are inside that they can't cope with being called "a geek, a Christian, a metal head or literally anything [else] that they feel doesn't describe them or even more so something that they feel is exactly the opposite" of who/how they believe themselves to be. Did you not have any siblings? Playmates growing up? Friends and intimates? Didn't you know anyone with views very different to yours but with whom you learned to get along with anyways?

At minimum it’s putting a label on my I disagree with and consider an insult. I’m secure in my identity but that doesn’t mean I’m happy to be referred to by things that are incompatible with that identity.

But I've seen you insult others, especially women, quite a bit. How do you rationalize the disrespect you show other people with the respect you demand of them/us?

Please explain why people have to respect other people's chosen "identity" when that identity not only has no basis in objective fact, but it stands in opposition to what is verifiably true by objective standards.

Also, I don't understand how it is that so many males who wish they were women and claim to be women have no idea that getting called names we don't like and that are insulting and dehumanizing happens to girls and women throughout our lives. If you really were "secure in your identity" as you've now claimed you are, then it seems logical to think you'd know that getting mischaracterized comes with the territory of being regarded as a girl/woman. And you'd know that women are routinely mischaracterized in ways that go beyond being inoffensively inaccurate - as when someone who isn't a geek, Christian or metal head is referred to as such - and which are deeply belittling, disgustingly dehumanizing and thoroughly demonizing.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

I generally agree with not labeling other people's sexualities. But the OP directly asked us to.

Also, my lack of interest in labeling other people's sexualities comes from a different place to yours. You think anyone's sexuality is merely a matter of what they think and say it is, just the way you think that's true of everyone's sex and "identity." I disagree. Coz I think there is an objective reality to both sex and sexual orientation.

Therefore, I don't think it's accurate for two people in a male-female sexual relationship to be called homosexuals, even if that's what they say they are. Similarly, I believe it's a lie to call two males in a sexual relationship with one another either lesbians or heterosexuals, though some males in sexual relationships with other males today are claiming those very labels for themselves.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

In modern-day life, breast milk isn't essential for babies to survive. But before infant formulas were developed and awareness of germ theory led to the invention of sterilization methods, pray tell exactly how human infants survived without breast milk?

The fact that that breast milk is not essential to the survival of human infants nowadays still doesn't change the fact that breasts are sexual organs that evolution has equipped women with in order to fulfill a reproductive purpose.

You don't seem to understand what "essential" means in categories. The fact that bicycles, canoes and trains are not essential methods of transportation doesn't mean they're not modes of transport. Ice cream and lima beans are not essential foods, but they're still food.

I look forward to finding out how prior to formula infants survived from the neonatal period until they could eat and digest solids without breast milk.

As for my other points and questions, how come you avoided addressing and answering them the way you typically avoid addressing and answering most points and questions directly put to you?

QT/Trans: What do the language changes actually accomplish? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't know anything more about it. I just know it happens. I imagine it might have something to do with the way certain essential information and self-knowledge that gets acquired early in life and is of fundamental importance gets recorded and stored in the brain, which means it still can be retrieved even after - or especially after? - dementia sets in. It might be similar to how people who've had massive strokes and lost almost all their language skills, vocabulary, understanding of grammar etc still know and will say curse words - and the way people in fear or on death's door automatically call for "mama" (or the equivalent word in their native tongue).

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Just as you seem unable to grasp the difference between gender and sex, you don't seem to understand that there's a difference between the significance of terms & ideas put forward or referenced by specialists in rarefied academic fields and the journals/books/texts they wrote in the past that were little-read at the time and the significance of the language & ideas that at the very same era in history were in wide circulation amongst the general public and thus were used in the popular press and in everyday, ordinary parlance.

The niche language used in the 1960s and 70s by specialists in narrow fields like sexology, and the sexology of transsexualisn specifically, and by grammarians prior to that, did not reflect the zeitgeist of the time. Just as even today, the gibberish-filled, obscurant writings and pretentious, performative, material-reality-denying ideas of Judith Butler do not represent the way most people who live in the real world speak, communicate and think even though aspects of Butler's jargon and half-baked theories float through and have wormed their way into the collective consciousness and wider culture like dust motes or virus particles.

If you want an idea about everyday speech, go to a library and look up the style guides used by English-language journalists and editors in the 60s, 70s and 80s. All the major news outlets had them - AP, NY Times, Newsweek, TIME, the networks, the BBC. You won't find any one recommending that "gender" be used instead of "sex."

Also, to get an idea of how people actually spoke back then, listen to/watch press interviews and radio & TV reports from the era.

I don't accept that it was 2nd wave feminists who made the distinction between gender & sex, or that Judith Butler popularised the replacement of sex with gender, or that John Money was the one who started using gender to replace sex. Do you know of a 2nd wave feminist work that defines gender as not sex, but sex stereotypes?

I think you have reading comprehension issues. I said gender was not a term widely used by second-wave feminists. I said most of us never used the word at all. We made a distinction between sex and the sex stereotypes, sex roles and sexist expectations that culture/society impose upon the two sexes - or what is now known as "gender" because that's the terminology that has come into use in the past 30 years. But second-wave feminists discussed these issues without resorting to the word "gender."

Also, I don't care that you "don't accept" what I am saying about the 60s, 70s and 80s and second-wave feminism. You weren't there. I was.

What I find remarkable is that you seem to think you are an/the authority on issues you don't seem very well informed about - and that you apparently believe your views have more validity than mine or anyone else who sees things differently to you just because your views belong to/come from you. I wonder why that is?

You play into the trans cult's hands by saying "sex" in place of "gender", by helping them make biology obscene.

What? That hangup/neurosis is theirs and yours, not mine. I've never depicted biology as obscene. That's on you & the POV you're defending.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Please stop with the faux naiveté. No one has an issue with you being uninformed about DSDs. What I take issue with is your decision to exploit rare medical conditions that other human beings suffer from and struggle with, and you admit you know nothing about, in order to score political points & advance your ideology/POV. I also take issue with you making up statistics about the prevalence of these rare medical conditions out of thin air.

Similarly, no one takes issue with you not knowing much or anything about matters like human conception and human zygote, embryo and fetal development. What I took issue with is you making breezy reference to these topics to justify your use of "AFAC."

QT/Trans: What do the language changes actually accomplish? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

Everyone has a gender identity. If someone is born female and identifies as a woman, they are a cis woman. Same with cis men.

Talk about cultural imperialism! Nothing like a young person from a Western country of the "Global North" decreeing from on high that the luxury, niche belief she and her friends hold dear is a universal trait innate to all people everywhere on planet earth. This is akin to saying all human beings have souls, and souls stained with original sin too. Or all human beings believe in America and apple pie and enjoy playing video games.

When I talk about women's struggles, I include every woman who experiences that struggle. Trans women absolutely deal with unequal pay, not being taken seriously at work, street harassment, being expected to smile, etc. When I talk about pregnancy and periods I'm obviously not including trans women because they don't experience those things.

So pregnancy and periods are no longer "women's struggles" but presumably enlarged prostates, erectile dysfunction and ball sac chafing are? In this brave and stunning new world order, which group of women have to worry most about contraception? Which ones need access to abortion?

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

You're welcome! I have no idea how I know this stuff. I got pregnant right away the natural way. Never had to deal with or even think about IVF or other assisted reproduction methods. But it seems if you live long enough and pay attention along the way, certain info just sinks in somehow.

QT/Trans: What do the language changes actually accomplish? by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

Not to mention people who didn’t have access to the best education or aren’t well informed on anatomy/biology.

To the groups you mentioned I'd add people who might have access to education and information but still have retention/memory problems or intellectual impairments. There are lots of people in the world with sub-average intelligence or limited cognitive abilities, or difficulty with retrieving info they once learned - but one basic thing they all tend to know for certain is whether they are a boy/man or girl/woman.

The terminology that GenderBender favors is also exclusionary to trans-identified people who develop dementia.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

A woman who is exclusively attracted to other women is a lesbian. Aka an adult female homosexual or an adult homosexual female.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

Technically speaking if you have enough money you can choose to intentionally get pregnant with a male or female baby (I read about some famous couple doing this idk anything else about it)

When fertilization is done outside a woman's body in a lab as in IVF and the zygotes are grown into embryos, the sex can be determined prior to attempted implantation in a woman, or to freezing for future use. That way if you have several embryos, you can choose the sex of the one(s) you attempt to use to become pregnant with. But AFAIK, assigning sex by selecting either an X or Y sperm to fertilize the egg is not yet an available option to persons using assisted repro technology.

Both: How would you define my sexual orientation? by theytookourjerbs in GCdebatesQT

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

I only used AFAC instead of AFAB because it actually was appropriated from intersex people, and science can tell our sex when we're fetuses in the mother's womb!

But human conception when it occurs naturally in a woman's body doesn't take place in the womb. Conception occurs in a Fallopian tube, then the fertilized egg has to travel to the womb and become implanted in the uterine lining.

Moreover, after human conception occurs, several stages of development have to occur before the fertilized egg reaches the stage where it has turned into a fetus. The fetal stage of development doesn't start until 8 weeks after conception.

Also, when conception occurs in the natural way, no one "assigns" the sex. Sex is determined by whether the sperm that fertilizes an egg is X or Y. It's a matter of chance, not an intentional assignment - unless, that is, you believe the sex is decided by a divine being.

Even though intersex are one in five hundred million

What? Your figures are way, way off.

I would date one that is XXY because two x chromosomes= biological female.

No, a Y chromosome or SRY gene usually on the Y = male.

Two X chromosomes is not the only formula that = female. 45, X0 and 47, XXX = female too. There's also a syndrome known as XY female or Swyer's syndrome.

Finally, most DSDs - aka "intersex" conditions - do not involve unusual chromosome patterns like XXY. Most occur in people who have the usual pattern of 46,XX or 46, XY.

My unsolicited advice is that since human conception and what happens afterwards, and DSD conditions, don't seem to be areas you're knowledgable about, best leave them out of the convo altogether. Just say you're a female human exclusively sexually attracted to other female humans - no need to bring conception, embryos, fetuses, DSDs etc into it.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Pronouns are masculine or feminine, but they are used to describe even male & female animals respectively.

But in grammar, gender isn't just about pronouns. It's about nouns - the words for all living things and inanimate objects. And ascribing nouns a gender in the grammatical sense was because of their association with sex. Ships, for example, were seen as female, not as feminine.

The pronouns she and he are called feminine or masculine in the grammatical sense, but they are used to describe animals that are female and male respectively. I've never heard anyone describe animals as feminine or masculine. Though nowadays I imagine some genderists probably do this.

You can't say "sex-identity" without people thinking you're talking about a person's sex-life

No need to say "sex identity" when just "sex" itself will do. Such as in the questions that get asked of pregnant women all the time: Do you care what sex the baby is? Do you know its sex? Do you want to know the baby's sex before it's born?

what would happen to all the times you want to talk about sexual topics? Sexual is the adjective, but the noun is sex.

This is just silly. Lots of words have multiple meanings. Humans are easily able to distinguish which of the different meanings applies in any given sentence/statement by the context.

For example, when people discuss whether COVID-19 came from a bat or a lab, everyone knows that bat there means an animal, not the device used to hit a ball in cricket or baseball, and that lab means a facility where science is done, not a kind of dog. When someone says, "that's a novel idea or theory" no one thinks it means the idea or theory comes from or is related to fictional works of literature.

Speakers of English have no trouble instantly getting the different meanings of sex in the titles of such well-known books as The Second Sex, The Joy of Sex, The Dialectic of Sex and Sex and The City. Nobody has a problem understanding the difference between the word "sexual" in the title of the 1970 Kate Millet book Sexual Politics and the 1982 Marvin Gaye song Sexual Healing.

When a physician or sonographer asks a pregnant woman, "Do you want to know the baby's sex?" it's clearly understood by all that they're not asking the mum-to-be if she wants to have sex, nor are they referring to her baby having sex. Similarly, it's clear as day to all in that situation that the word "baby" in that specific context refers to the fetus the woman is gestating, not to herself as when her lover or a man might say, "hey baby" to her.

My passport, birth certificate and other documents, and those of my kids, say "Sex" before the M or F or Male or Female. No need to say "Sex Identity." Throughout history billions of people have filled out tons of forms in the course of our lives that had lines or boxes saying simply "Sex" not "Sex Identity" - and yet somehow we knew to fill in, check off or circle Female or Male, or F or M. Only 12 year-olds look at a form that says "Sex" and respond by filling in, "Yes" or "You Bet, just say when and where."

Since you brought up the term "sex identity": I believe the phenomenon of having a chosen "identity" that bears no relation to reality is a bunch of bollox, but if people are going to "identify as" the reproductive class that they are not, or pretend that they can identify out of being a member of a sex class, then I think the term "sex identity" would be better. Because that's what people are doing. The mantras TWAW and TMAM mean that people are identifying as the opposite sex and insisting the rest of the world play along.

I don't know what's stopping feminist theorists from just using the terms female vs. femininity, rather than "sex & gender". It eliminates most language issues & makes the theory more accessible to regular people.

Feminists of the first and second-wave type have always spoken in terms of sex vs sex stereotypes. That's worked fine and is very clear. I don't see any utility or benefit to your idea, which to my mind is suggesting that feminists should limit the scope of what we discuss to only one side of the fence, as it were. Female is not a substitute for sex; female is one of the two sexes, so half the convo. Similarly, femininity is not a substitute for sex stereotype; it just refers to one kind or section of sex stereotypes.

Second-wave feminists like me are not the ones who've created "language issues" by inventing unclear jargon; refusing to clearly define our terms; employing obscurant, ill-defined lingo and expressing our ideas in dense, impenetrable prose that's not "accessible to regular people." The genderists and queer theory crowd are the ones who have done that. It's their stock-in-trade, in fact. Incomprehensibility and gibberish are Judith Butler's hallmarks.

Genderists are the ones who've worked hard to sow confusion, and to make it appear that the word woman is indefinable, that women are "formless, limitless voids" and being a woman is an option for any man who claims to "identify as" or "feel like" a woman. Feminists of the second-wave ilk, or from that tradition, say that's malarkey. We say a woman is an adult human female.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Your own link "Chest Reconstruction and Chest Dysphoria in Transmasculine Minors and Young Adults" says most people who got top surgery as teens do not regret it. "Self-reported regret was near 0."

But that paper was about a 10-minute-long survey of girls & young women who had double mastectomies relatively soon after their surgeries; it wasn't an in-depth study that followed up patients long term. Of the 68 trans-identified double mastectomy patients surveyed, 59 had their breasts removed less than two years before they were surveyed. Moreover, 28% of the clinic patients who had double mastectomies and were intended to be included in the study did not participate - 24 because they "could not be contacted" and two because they "refused the survey." That's a lot of patients left out.

Nearly half (49%) of the 68 patients surveyed had been under 18 at the time they had their breasts removed, and nearly half (48%) of the ones under 18 were 15 or under when they had their double mastectomies. It's unrealistic to think that teenage girls and young women who have been through this sort of surgical trauma, and caught up in gender identity ideology for years beforehand, will be in touch with all their feelings about the surgery 12-24 months afterwards, and it's even more unrealistic to think traumatized girls & young women will honestly and forthrightly reveal all their feelings when someone from the clinic that caused to the trauma happens to call them on the phone for a brief survey. At the same time, there's good reason to believe that the clinic workers who called the surgery patients might not have been open to hearing and recording the responses of girls & women who tried to regrets or mixed feelings.

Also, it's telling that the paper doesn't provide a copy of the 10-minute-long survey showing exactly what it involved. We just know that it consisted of statements that the participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with and how often. About surgical regret, the paper simply says

All postsurgical participants (68 of 68; 100%) affirmed the statement, “It was a good decision to undergo chest reconstruction.” Sixty-seven of 68 postsurgical respondents reported no regret about undergoing the procedure. Only 1 participant (who was older than 18 years at the time of surgery) reported experiencing regret “sometimes.”

Seems to me such a format is intentionally aimed at not exploring any of the participants feelings except in the most cursory way without delving below the most surface level or allowing for the respondents to expound further.

If chest binding is done properly there are no risks. And it's not permanent like a double mastectomy.

A survey 1800 females who bind about the health effects found that negative health consequences were "nearly universal." And this was among a population where only 51.5% said they bound their breasts every day.

97.2% of participants reporting at least one negative outcome they attributed to binding. The most commonly reported outcomes were

  • back pain (53.8%),
  • overheating(53.5%),
  • chest pain (48.8%),
  • shortness of breath (46.6%),
  • itching (44.9%),
  • bad posture (40.3%), and
  • shoulder pain (38.9%) (Table 3).

Of the categories examined, skin/soft tissue and pain symptoms were most common with 76.3% of respondents reporting any skin/tissue concern and 74.0% reporting any pain-related concern.


Full text:

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Pidgeon Pagonis is a known intersex activist who identifies as non-binary and their birth sex is unknown.

No one said people with DSDs aren't allowed to adopt a "gender identity" or to "identify as non-binary" or whatever. They have just as much right to ascribe to gender ideology and adopt identity badges as anyone else does.

What others said is that a DSD, aka an "intersex" condition, is not an "identity." It's a diagnosable medical condition that's a matter of material reality. A DSD is a fact of human biology that involves verifiable differences of physical development that affect reproductive and urinary anatomy and often aspects of physiology such as endocrine function too.

When Pagonis was born in 1986, Pagonis was found to be 46, XY and diagnosed as having AIS, a disorder/difference of male sex development. XY PAIS can result in external genitalia that varies considerably from the norm in a wide range of ways. It usually means undescended testes, undeveloped or absent penis, hypospadias, and scrotal skin that because the testes didn't descend doesn't look like a ball sac, but instead looks flattened and empty/floppy and perhaps like (fused) labia. But AIS also can result in what looks somewhat like a vulva, with a shallow indented skin pouch that is mistaken for a vaginal opening.

Pagonis says that early childhood medical records describe Pagonis as a "XY pseudohermaphrodite" (a term no longer used). In childhood, Pagonis's parents decided to raise the child as a girl and Pagonis was wrongly subjected to several surgeries as a young child to "feminize" the genitals.

But it turns out Pagonis was misdiagnosed in infancy and instead has a mutation of the NR5A1 gene. More than 50 varying mutations of this gene have been found, leading to a range of effects.

NR5A1 variants have been identified in people with 46,XY disorder of sex development, also known as partial gonadal dysgenesis. Affected individuals may have external genitalia that do not look clearly male-typical or clearly female-typical (ambiguous genitalia) or other abnormalities of the genitals and reproductive organs. Affected individuals may also have abnormalities of the adrenal glands, which may cause hormone deficiencies, resulting in a variety of health problems.

NR5A1 gene variants that cause 46,XY disorder of sex development impair the function of steroidogenic factor 1, though likely to a lesser extent than variants that cause Swyer syndrome.

NR5A1 gene variants that affect gonadal development and function have also been identified in people whose gonads do not produce reproductive cells (eggs or sperm). These conditions, which are called spermatogenic failure in men and primary ovarian insufficiency in women, result in an inability to conceive children (infertility).

It's not clear exactly exactly what was done to Pagonis in the childhood surgeries, which IMO should never have been done; and it appears that Pagonis got poor health care and advice, and was lied to outright about their medical condition and sex, until Pagonis was in college.

Pagonis has a memoir coming out in 2022; perhaps that will reveal more of the story in detail. But it's erroneous to say that "their birth sex is unknown." Also, when Pagonis was born Chicago in 1986, I don't believe that Illinois offered the option of being identified as "intersex" on its BCs. I believe the option of getting an "X" designation, or having a BC changed to X, only became available in Illinois in 2020.

BTW, my impression is that the Pagonis story undermines the claims of gender identity ideologues as much as the David Reimer case does. But at any rate, persons with DSDs, whether or not they undergo the trauma of early childhood "corrective" surgeries and are gaslighted their whole lives the way Pagonis was, are entirely separate to those who identify as trans. People with trans identities do not have DSDs, though it's a fairly common ploy for some of them to claim to have a DSD when they think it might benefit them. -like Jessica Yaniv (now Simpson).

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

People are assigned male, female or intersex.

Please leave persons with DSDs/VSCs out of this. Your use of them is an exploitative cheap trick, one that others them and adds to the stigma of having a DSD, and to public misunderstanding of what DSDs are and how they manifest.

Having a DSD is not an identity. Persons with DSDs do not constitute a third sex, nor are they in between the two sexes or a combination of the two sexes. Persons with DSDs still are either male or female. Most DSD conditions are sex-specific, occurring only in persons who are either male or female.

Please also stop with "assigned" BS. Human sex is determined long before birth, and in most cases the sex of babies are known many months before they are born. When you spout this "assigned" nonsense you are simply showing that you know nothing about conception and the development of embryos and fetuses in utero; you've never attended or been involved in a human birth other than your own; and you're not familiar with the processes by which human births are registered with governments and birth certificates are issued/obtained.

We use phrases like "people with vaginas" because it's not only women who have vaginas.

Actually, your crowd uses such phrases, as well as "birthing bodies" and "bodies with vaginas," coz you're misogynists and authoritarians too.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Sex & gender are literally the same thing.

Many of us on the GC side, particularly those of us who are second-wave feminists, or had our ideas shaped by second-wave feminism, disagree. We see sex as biology and gender as the cultural overlay consisting mostly of stereotypes attributed to and associated with each of the two sexes. In our view, sex = male/female; gender = masculinity/femininity.

In the US where I'm from, everyone used to use the word sex when we meant sex. We used terms like sex roles, sex stereotypes, sexist expectations, sex-coded dress, and sexism when speaking of what today is known as gender.

Gender as an anodyne replacement for the word sex only started to come into widespread use in the US over the course of the 1990s. I worked as journalist and editor in the 1970s and 80s (and after), and it was customary back then when writing for general audiences to speak of people's sex, not their gender - and to use straightforward terms like sex discrimination, sex crimes, sex prejudice, sex roles, the sex pay gap and sexism.

In the late 60s and early 70s, sexologist Robert Stoller started using gender to mean the inner feeling/sense that some people have and the outward presentation/affectation/performance that signal sex which some people are hung up on, but he did so solely in reference to the transsexuals he studied. John Money was the one who invented the idea that "gender identity" is an inner sense that everyone has, but his view was not widely accepted initially. None of the English language style guides from the 1950s through the 1980s, and from previous eras, that journalists and professional wordsmiths relied mentioned "gender" except in terms of grammar in certain languages like French - where all nouns are masculine, feminine or neuter.

The USA's paper of record, the NY Times, only started substituting "gender" for "sex" in late 1990 - and the switch was vehemently protested at the time.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

But the DSM-V is way outdated. It took a full decade to write and was published and came into effect in May 2013 - before the big surge in female pre-pubescent children and female adolescents presenting with GD.

The surge in female minors seeking treatment at gender clinics began to rise gradually from 2009-2013. But in 2014-15, the rise suddenly became steep.

For example at the NHS youth GIDS clinic run by the Tavistock, the number of adolescent girls referred went from 15 in 2009 to 314 in 2014. But in 2015 the number jumped to 689, to 1,071 in 2016 and to 1,400 in 2017 and 1,500 in 2018. The number of girls referred in 2019 and 2020 has held steady at about 1,500. That's a huge jump in a very short space of time. None of which is accounted for in the DSM-V.

The number of "gender confirmation" surgeries performed on females in the US went up by 300% between 2016 and 2017 and has continued to climb ever since. Now the number of "gender confirmation" surgeries done on females each year far outstrips the number done on males. The single most common of these surgeries is double mastectomy.

As I said in my original reply: early-onset dysphorics are typically male homosexuals, according to the DSM-V.

Yes, when the DSM-V was written and published, nearly all patients being diagnosed with childhood and "GD" were male, and more than 2/3s of those diagnosed with adolescent GD were male. But the facts have changed enormously since 2013. Now 50% of those being diagnosed with childhood GD are female, and more than 2/3s of those being diagnosed with adolescent GD are females.

Since males and females begin puberty & thus enter adolescence at different ages, and puberty unfolds in the two sexes entirely differently and at different paces, it's no longer helpful to use the terms "early-onset" and "late-onset" that were developed specifically and solely to apply to boys for the entire population of children and adolescents. A boy who is seen at a clinic and gets diagnosed at 8 or 9 will most likely have childhood-onset GD. But a girl of 8 or 9 will most likely have adolescent-onset GD, or at least needs to be evaluated for it.

Suicide attempts ≠ suicide rates. Girls 12-17 ≠ men & boys who want to be the opposite sex.

I never said that suicide attempts and rates were the same. CMOV and I were disagreeing over whether self-reports of suicide attempts made in anonymous online surveys can be counted and taken seriously as suicide attempts that actually occurred, or might have occurred. You're the one who brought completed suicides into the convo, and tried to shift the focus back to a discussion solely of males with GD.

But thanks for making it so clear that your only concern here is with "men & boys who want to be the opposite sex," and what's happening to girls is not worth your attention.

Disappointed in Vanessa Vokey by shinnygummy in GenderCritical

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

She also called Blaire White an AGP which I think is ridiculous, he's just a gay guy.

No, Blaire White is not just a gay guy. BW is a gay guy whose whole life is based on aping the most superficial, regressive, misogynistic, sex stereotypes that men have created about women based on their own male sex fantasies driven by their male libidos, and who has gone to great lengths to alter his appearance so he looks like blow-up plastic sex doll/porn star version of what he and other sexist men think constitutes the ideal woman.

That's not "just a gay guy." Most gay guys don't do what BW does; and many find BW's LARPing to be as offensive as many women do.

Lots of homosexual transvestites and so-called "transsexuals" have autogynephilia along with their internalized homophobia. This has always been the case. And it's even more so today in the era of internet porn and "sissy/bimbo" fetishes. AGP might not be the sole or main driver of their behavior, but it's definitely there. These are men who are sexually aroused by the thought and fantasy of themselves as women. In their sexual interactions with men, gay AGPs like Blaire get off on the idea that they are being "fucked like a woman."

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

There are studies that show men and women have different brain sizes

You follow this by linking to an article whose title is:

Massive study reveals few differences between men's and women's brains - Neuroscientists conduct meta-synthesis of three decades of research

And which starts out with this:

How different are men and women's brains? The question has been explored for decades, but a new study led by Rosalind Franklin University neuroscientist Lise Eliot is the first to coalesce this wide-ranging research into a single mega-synthesis. And the answer is: hardly at all.

The article in the second link doesn't give enough detail to be able to make heads or tails of it. For example, it doesn't say how big the study it's describing was, meaning how many persons' brain scans were compared. Moreover, all the adolescents who were identified as trans were on GnRH agonists (development blockers). Finally, the results of the study hadn't been published & subjected to peer review at the time - the article was just about a a presentation given at a conference. It's not clear if the paper has been published & peer reviewed yet. I have done a search but can't find it. If you have a link, please provide it.

Here's the link to the description of the study presentation from the conference:

Someone on Mumsnet says the abstract says.

"In conclusion, we found that boys with GD overall showed neither a typically male – nor female pattern of white matter microstructure, whereas girls with GD predominantly had sex-typical white matter diffusion characteristics with only slight masculinization in fiber organization. Our findings provide new preliminary evidence for the hypothesis that natal boys with GD may have undergone atypical neuronal sexual differentiation and possess certain neurobiological characteristics of their experienced gender."

But the poster didn't give a link. Someone else noted on Mumsnet:

This study found no difference in brains of pre-teens who identified as trans compared to those who did not. But did find there was a measurable difference in the brains of adolescents who were taking the drug triptorelin and those who were not. The abstract ascribes this to the fact those taking triptorelin identified as trans not because they were taking triptorelin - a drug known to impact the brain. Indeed, it is strangely silent on the fact the ‘trans’ participants were taking anything at all...

There's more in the Mumsnet threat. I'm saying they're correct. I have no idea. I just don't think things are as B&W as you think.

Also, many people on your side, including influential experts at WPATH, pooh-poohed the study. Here's just one example:

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

Mods should enforce and not flaunt the rules. It’s pretty simple.

The word you mean is flout, not flaunt.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

The site I linked literally said trans women who have been on hormones for more than 5 years and are over 40 should get mammograms. You’ve just shown you didn’t even read it.

But that's not the line you quoted! The line you cited was "people with breasts over 40 should get mammograms." I know you think that males who have been on estrogen are the center of the world and the only people whose experience and wellbeing could possibly matter, but "trans women who have been on hormones for more than 5 years and are over 40" are not the same as "people with breasts over 40." Males on exogenous estrogen for more than 5 years are included in the phrase "a very small number of men do get breast cancer" that I used.

I also very much disagree that women’s breast are inherently sexual organs. The sexualization of breasts is a problem and it’s the main reason things like public breastfeeding has been objected to. Breasts aren’t inherently sexual.

Stop insisting that sexual means only what you and many boys and men think it means! You act like you and you alone are an authority on high who gets to define words the way you want to - all the world's dictionaries and everyone else on planet earth be damned. To people who understand, appreciate and respect human biology and the pivotal role that female people play in the perpetuation of the human species, the words sex and sexual don't have the limited meaning you and many others of your own sex give to these words.

And stop telling women who have given birth to children and breastfed that we don't know what we are talking about. You don't get to tell me and other women what our breasts are for and how we're allowed to conceptualize of their role in reproduction.

I don't care whether you disagree. You have no idea what it's like to have any female reproductive organs or to fulfill the female role in reproduction. Yet you want the last word in deciding how women should be described and defined, and how we should regard ourselves and our own reproductive organs. Many males tend to think of breasts as sex toys and "fun bags" - that's the male way of sexualizing them. Women do not regard our breasts like this. When we speak of them as part of our sexual anatomy as I have here, we are referring to their role in procreation. We are thinking of the vital role our breasts have played in keeping our children alive and in comforting them and emotionally nurturing them, not of the far less important role they've played in providing sexual pleasure whether to partners or own selves.

Imagine if women who don't find penises sexually appealing were spouting that penises aren't sex organs, they're just anatomy - and urinary anatomy at that. Wouldn't you think they have some nerve, and that they obviously don't know what they're talking about?

Where do you get off thinking you are the ultimate authority on female sex anatomy and the arbiter of the language we all should use in referring to such? How did you get filled with so much arrogance that you think it's your place to tell women how we should regard our own body parts and bodily functions?

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

Since when does anatomical preclude sexual? The anatomical parts you are choosing to call us female people by, and to reduce us to, are parts not of the human anatomy that you & I share; they are parts of the female reproductive anatomy that only one of can have: vagina, cervix, uterus. Those are anatomical parts that serve a host of functions in the way our species reproduces, which is sexually.

As for you claim that it's the same as saying

“people with breasts over 40 should get mammograms”. It’s not on a sexual sense.

No public health body, breast cancer org, oncologists, gynecologists or other physicians who treat breast cancer and those at greatest risk for it that I am aware of would ever say all "people with breasts" over a certain age should get mammograms. Because breasts are a universal human feature; men have breasts too.

But whilst a very small number of men do get breast cancer, most breast cancers occur in women - and in women breast cancer is a common problem. Hence, it's only women over a certain age for whom mammograms are recommended.

Women's breasts are inherently sexual organs because they serve a fundamental reproductive, procreative purpose: they provide human offspring from birth through the first six months of life or so with all the nutrients and immune benefits children of that age need not just to stay alive, but to thrive. How is that not an essential feature of the way our species perpetuates itself, through sexual reproduction?

Whereas the breasts are located far from the other female reproductive organs, they are considered accessory organs of the female reproductive system. The function of the breasts is to supply milk to an infant in a process called lactation.

It takes some gall to call women insulting, dehumanizing names that reduce us to our sex organs, and then when we object , to to tell us our female sex organs are not sex organs at all! They're just "anatomical" - meaning not specific to one sex, so you can have them too.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

What’s the difference between men & women?

That link is to an article that says men and women all have personality traits that fit a bunch of regressively sexist stereotypes that went out of fashion in the 1950s.

A woman’s sense of self is defined through their feelings and the quality of their relationships. They spend much time supporting, nurturing and helping each other. They experience fulfillment through sharing and relating.

Personal expression, in clothes and feelings, is very important [to women, not to men]. Communication is important. Talking, sharing and relating is how a woman feels good about herself.

Women are very concerned about issues relating to physical attractiveness; changes in this area can be as difficult for women as changes in a man’s financial status.

When men are preoccupied with work or money, women interpret it as rejection.


Men are more logical, analytical, rational.

Men have a much more difficult time relating to their own feelings, and may feel very threatened by the expression of feelings in their presence.

But at the same time:

Men are more at ease with their own angry feelings than women are.

Women are in touch with a much wider range of feelings than men, and the intensity of those feelings is usually much greater for women than men.

Men tend to be more functional in approaching problem-solving; women are aesthetically-oriented in addition to being functional.

Meta: Moderation and the rules by circlingmyownvoid2 in GCdebatesQT

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

The guidance you linked is written for and specifically aimed at the "LGBTQ+ community" - not the general public.

The prostate screening info that health authorities in Canada have written for the general public says very clearly:

  • Prostate cancer is the 4th most common cancer in Canada
  • 1 in 9 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime
  • About 23,300 men will have been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2020
  • In men, prostate cancer is the #1 cancer
  • 99% of cases occur in men aged 50+

No one has an issue when the language you like is used in materials meant specifically for trans people and others who place primacy on gender identities and see human beings as an assemblage of disconnected body parts. You do you.

What women and many men have an issue with is the fact that the language you like is now being used when referring to female-specific matters of biology and health in materials meant for the general public. And this is being done only to matters affecting female people, not in the case of any matters affecting male people.

For example, just days before the Lancet called women & girls "bodies with vaginas" on its cover, it ran an article about "men with prostate cancer" and how prostate affects men in which men were never referred to as "bodies with prostates" or in any other dehumanizing way.

You take great offense when others mention your sex. Yet at the same time, you think it's perfectly fine to call girls & women demeaning terms that reduce us to one of our sex organs like "bodies with vaginas" and "people with a cervix." And when say that we find this insulting and dehumanizing, you say we are wrong. Pray tell, how is calling your mum a "body with a vagina" or "a birthing body" not the same as calling her a "cxnt," "hole," vessel, or "baby maker" ? How is it less insulting than calling her "a piece of ass" or "tits & ass"?

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I literally never said that. I said nothing irreversibile was being done to those below their teens.

This is a lie. You said several times that nothing irreversible is being done to minors below their mid-teens. I asked you to say exactly what years you mean by "mid-teens" - 16, 17? 15, 16? - which you did not do. Various posters gave you evidence that irreversible interventions are being done on children not just before the "mid-teens," but in the early teens as well as before the teenage years even begin. The protocol used in an NIH-funded study sets 8 as the lowest age a child in the US can be put on both GnRH agonists (development blockers) AND exogenous hormones (estrogen or testosterone). We told you of boys - boys whose names were given: Jackie Green, Jazz Jennings, Trinity Neal - who were put on development blockers AND estrogen at 11 or 11-12. We also told you of girls who've been put on testosterone at 12, and on GnRH several years earlier, followed by T, and of girls in the US who have had their breasts amputated as young as 13.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

But "early onset" is too vague IMO because it doesn't make clear exactly what "early" refers to, though my guess is you mean chronological age. This ignores that kids of the same exact chronological age can be at very different stages of development. After all, puberty in girls is only considered precocious and abnormal if it begins before 8, in boys before 9. So some girls of 8 and a boy 9 can be adolescents, whilst many of their exact same-age peers will still be pre-pubescent. Some kids won't start puberty until 12-14, in some cases even later.

your latest link/excerpt which is about suicide ideation again, & it's not even on the demographic we're discussing

My last link was about young people age 12-17 who ended up in US hospital ERs due to suicide attempts and suspected suicide attempts, not due to suicidal ideation. These persons had done things to themselves sufficiently serious to warrant emergency medical care. Such as getting their stomachs pumped. Yes, some cases of nonsuicidal self-harm were included, but throughout the reports says suicide attempts and suspected suicide attempts.

CDC examined NSSP ED visit data, which include approximately 71% of the nation’s EDs in 49 states (all except Hawaii) and the District of Columbia. ED visits for suspected suicide attempts were identified by using a combination of chief complaint terms and administrative discharge diagnosis codes. ED visits for suspected suicide attempts include visits for suicide attempts, as well as some nonsuicidal self-harm visits.

My last link showed that since 2020 and particularly in the first months of 2021 there's been a major hike in suspected suicide attempts among distressed American girls aged 12-17 with serious co-morbid mental health problems such as clinical depression, based on records of the number and kind of patients who've been treated in hospital ERs for actions that the treating clinicians believed to be suicide attempts, or self-harm so serious as to possibly constitute suicide attempts.

Girls age 12-17 are the precisely the demographic, or squarely within the demographic, who are identifying as trans most commonly today. Females 12-17 don't represent the entire demographic, as there are girls and women younger and older; and of course, this demographic excludes males. But girls 12-17 constitute a large portion of the youth demographic most affected by the trans craze today; and 12-17 is sort of the "sweet spot" for females most affected. After all, middle-aged and elderly heterosexual women are not coming out and claiming to be men today in droves the way so many middle-aged and senior-age heterosexual men are claiming to be women. Straight older women are not doing this at all.

Moreover, American girls in exactly this exact demographic - 12-17 with serious co-morbid mental health conditions - are the ones who today are getting the most extreme and irreversible "gender affirming" medical treatments - they're being put on development blockers; prescribed exogenous T; using breast binders that injure their tissue, skeletons, reduce their CV capacity and injure their health in myriad other ways; and large numbers of them are having their breasts surgically amputated too. The single most common "gender affirming" surgery today is double mastectomy - and most of these are being done on teenage girls in the US, though double mastectomies are being done to girls under 20 in Canada and, recently released records reveal, apparently as young as 16 & 17 in Scotland too. Double mastectomies were also done on many teen girls in Sweden, Finland and Australia before authorities in those countries put the brakes on the rush to put minors on the "trans train" there.

My kindergarten class… by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

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

Also, seems to me that his current Twitter user name - Bend a Tran Fairy - is homophobic, references a sex act and signals what his preferred position in said sex act is. Some might say his user name is transphobic too.

B.C. server who was fired after asking to be addressed by correct pronouns awarded $30K | CBC News by Femaleisnthateful in GenderCritical

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

Just for the record, I've called male colleagues, employees and clients/customers "sweetheart" and "honey" at times over the years in the workplace and when socializing outside of work. Not to belittle or to be sexist to them, but because we had become close and were quite collegial and causal with one another at various points. And also to express sympathy when they were ill, disappointed, disgruntled. Sometimes in a jocular way too.

At the same time, I've been called "sweetheart" and "honey" by males in workplace settings in ways that were sexist and seemed meant to be belittling - and I've been called a whole bunch of other misogynistic terms in work settings that definitely had sexist animus behind them (bxtch, battle axe, sweet cheeks, feminazi, "lezzer," cxnt, cow). But at the same time, I've been called sweetie, honey, darling, love, lovey and so on also by both males and females at work in ways that seemed friendly and I took to be not at all sexist or belittling. The specific context is everything.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

It doesn’t matter. As I’ve said I’m speaking about people expressing trans identities in adolescence, regardless of onset.

But of course it matters! Not all "gender dysphoria" is of the same nature, nor does it have the same cause. GD of childhood onset is very different to GD of adolescent and adult onset. Both within each sex, and between the two sexes.

A same sex-attracted male of 16 who developed childhood GD because the adults in his life shamed and punished him for liking "the wrong toys" and for being what they considered "girly" or not sufficiently manly is entirely different to an opposite sex-attracted male of the same age who developed GD because when he was 11-12 he started borrowing the undies or intimate items belonging to his mum, sister or gran to masturbate in/with, and after finding he really got off on it developed AGP. And GD in each of them in turn is different to the GD of an awkward autistic boy of the same age who hasn't figured out his sexuality yet but in the past year has been groomed into wanting to be/thinking he's a girl by adult predators who search the internet looking for "eggs."

Saying "it doesn't matter" that what's going on with these different groups of young people is not at all the same and treating them as one undifferentiated mass is doing them great harm.

Moreover, GD in females is entirely different to GD in males. A 15 year-old female who developed adolsecent-onset GD because of sexism and internalized misogyny will have little to nothing in common with a male of the exact same age, class, locale, etc who developed adolescent-onset GD because he has an adolescent male libido and has been steeped in sissy porn.

As for people "expressing trans identities in adolescence" - that's a far, far bigger group than kids with childhood-onset and adolescent-onset combined.

Please explain how the medical interventions and cruel lies that gender ideology advocates insist minors be subjected to in pursuit of "early gender transition" doesn't amount to child abuse.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

What do you mean by "early-onset dysphorics"? If you mean "males/persons with early childhood-onset GD," please say that. It's already confusing enough when posters like circling keep using various terms loosely and as though they were interchangeable when they're not.


Also, whilst that Dutch study you cited (your first link) is interesting, I think it's too broad. It looked at medical records/patients' charts of all persons male & female who presented for "gender therapy" at any age of their lives and for any reason from 1972 through 2017. A 25-year-old male who sought care in a gender clinic in 1972 would have been been born in 1947 and thus can't be assumed to have much in common with a 25 y-old male who attending the same clinic in 2017, who would've been born in 1992 Similarly, neither would have much in common with a 15 year-old female attending the clinic in those same years.

The internet has made a huge difference in how widespread GD is; who is affected by it; how treatable or intractable it is; how transitory or persistent it is; and how common AGP is in males and issues like internalized misogyny and autoandrophilia are in females, etc. Young people growing up in the era of social media, internet porn, virutal reality, gaming culture are spending more time alone "living online" in a disembodied fantasy world than physically interacting with other people face-to-face in the flesh in the "real world." In the process, they seem to be developing more mental distress/illness, lower self-esteem, less stable senses of self, and more sexual dysfunction and so on.

The Dutch paper in your first link says:

Out of 5107 trans women (median age at first visit 28 years, median follow‐up time 10 years) and 3156 trans men (median age at first visit 20 years, median follow‐up time 5 years), 41 trans women and 8 trans men died by suicide. In trans women, suicide deaths decreased over time, while it did not change in trans men. Of all suicide deaths, 14 people were no longer in treatment, 35 were in treatment in the previous two years. The mean number of suicides in the years 2013–2017 was higher in the trans population compared with the Dutch population.

I think the last line is extremely pertinent. As is this from the USA's CDC more recently about the group who currently is being most affected by gender ideology and getting caught up in the GD and trans craze, namely adolescent females:

In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits for suspected suicide attempts began to increase among adolescents aged 12–17 years, especially girls. During February 21–March 20, 2021, suspected suicide attempt ED visits were 50.6% higher among girls aged 12–17 years than during the same period in 2019; among boys aged 12–17 years, suspected suicide attempt ED visits increased 3.7%.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Nah, mate, self reports in anonymous online surveys pitched to certain groups for the purposes of eliciting certain answers to get particular results are not reliable "accepted science." Especially when they consist of yes/no questions, and no definitions are given that make clear distinctions between such different things as thoughts of suicide, suicidal ideation, suicidal urges, suicide plans, genuine suicide attempts, feigned suicide attempts and carried-out genuine suicide attempts.

Many people who claim in anonymous surveys that they have made suicide attempts have actually had thoughts of suicide. Or their supposed suicide attempts consisted of indulging in acts of self-harm they knew had no chance of killing them, such as taking a few extra Tylenol or ibuprofen, cutting themselves nowhere near a vein or artery.

Globally, the availability and quality of data on suicide and suicide attempts is poor.

In some populations, actual suicides and genuine suicide attempts are under-reported. Amongst other populations, past suicide attempts are likely to be way over-reported. People answering anonymous on-line surveys lie all the time. Just as people lie in face-to-face interviewers and to telephone pollsters.

Moreover, information on actual suicides shows that there's an inverse relationship between talking about/threatening suicide and actually attempting and doing it. People who are the most serious about attempting suicide tend to keep it to themselves rather than sharing their intent with others.

Histrionic people who indulge in catastrophic thinking, are given to exaggeration, who are in denial about basic facts about their own sex and the reality of sex, who believe they are the most oppressed people on the planet, and think everyone is out to get them, are not reliable sources of information about their own life events/histories.

The most reliable source of information about suicide attempts is hospital ER records. In this regard, the most worrying trend is amongst adolescent girls - the same group being most affected by gender ideology today:

In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits for suspected suicide attempts began to increase among adolescents aged 12–17 years, especially girls. During February 21–March 20, 2021, suspected suicide attempt ED visits were 50.6% higher among girls aged 12–17 years than during the same period in 2019; among boys aged 12–17 years, suspected suicide attempt ED visits increased 3.7%.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

You're continuing to conflate different terms and groups, posting in what appears to be an intentionally confusing way. My hunch is that this is to cover up the fact that you really don't have much to contribute to the convo except complaints about the info you say others haven't provided - and gripes about research you whinge that others haven't done, in part because activists and ideologues on your side would scream bloody murder if they tried.

The study Fleurista linked to is about females who had been assessed between ages 3-12 and diagnosed at that time with what clinicians called childhood GID/GD, and who desisted later on during adolescence. You say this is "not the relevant statistic" - but that's because the only group you seem to think matters in the debate over youth with gender issues are males who develop GD during adolescence (and adulthood too?). Then you say

Childhood desistance doesn’t demonstrate that adolescent dysphorics will desist in any number.

When, LOL, the study at issue was not about "childhood desistance." It was about desistance in adolescence, FFS. Then you say

And since that’s [adolescence] when anything not simply reversible is even on the table.

WTF? How can you make such a claim after you've just been given ample evidence by me and others that children of both sexes are being put on medications (development blockers and CSH) that have irreversible effects as young as 8, and that girls are getting their breasts amputated as young as 13. Once a girl has her breasts cut off, there's no way to get them back. That's the definition of irreversible.

Also, when children are put on development blockers at 11-12 like Jazz, Jackie and Trinity, then they go on to take CSH, their gonads never mature, so these children end up sterile. Irreversibly sterile.

Since you seem only to care about males, then it should be of interest to you that the use of development blockers starting at 11-12 in males like Jackie, Jazz and Trinity, followed by CSH, left them with the penises and testicles of little boys - and with undeveloped sexual function and capacity too. This means impaired or no ability to orgasm (and in the case of Jazz, no sexual function, ability to orgasm or any libido either) AND it meant they didn't have enough penile and scrotal skin to use customary techniques when they had their "gender affirming" genital surgeries at age 16 (in Jackie's and Trinity's cases), and at 17 in Jazz's. Not having enough material to work with means these young males had to have surgeries using tissues from other parts of the body, which in the case of Jazz we know didn't turn out well. How this is supposed to help these young males "pass" better is beyond me.

As for young people who develop GD during adolescence, I agree more research is needed. But again, these kids are not a monolith, and they are developing adolescent GD for very different reasons. The females are generally fleeing from sexual objectification, whilst the males are generally pursuing what the females are running from. A lot of females who develop GD in adolescence do seem to desist from it later in adolescence or in early adulthood. But in males, adolescent-onset GD is a thornier problem that might well turn out to be more permanent because in males, adolescent GD is usually caused by AGP - and AGP is driven by two incredibly powerful forces: the human male sex drive and narcissism. Moreover, when indulged instead of being treated in other ways, AGP seems to be a progressive disorder that overtakes the lives of those who develop it.

B.C. server who was fired after asking to be addressed by correct pronouns awarded $30K | CBC News by Femaleisnthateful in GenderCritical

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

The decision says bar manager Brian Gobelle was particularly hostile, repeatedly and persistently referring to Nelson with she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like "sweetheart," "honey," and "pinky" — a reference to their pink hair.

But these are not gendered nicknames! Lots of people call other people of both sexes "sweetheart," "honey," "luv," "baby," "darling," "sweetie," "doll," "cutie-pie" etc all the time. Many of us call our kids of both sexes such names.

And "pinky" is just a reference to this person's hair color.

It might not be professional to call your workmates terms of endearments, but that's another matter. Yes, some terms like "sweetheart" and "honey" can be used in belittling, sexist ways meant to cause offense. But not always.

Moreover, the standards and protocols in bars and restaurants are often different to those in many other kinds of work settings.

This sort of case and the judgment make a mockery of the fights against genuine discrimination in the workplace that so many people have fought against going back decades.

Also, if one kind of "gendered" nickname or terms of endearment and casual address are to be outlawed in workplaces, then shouldn't all of them like "dude," "guys," "man," "buddy," "buster" and "boy-o."

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Suicide attempt rates for trans people who can’t access care have been measured at over 40 percent.

Evidence please. And by evidence I mean reports from impartial health authorities and researchers based on substantiated medical records, police reports, ER visits, etc. Not self-reports made by supposedly trans people responding to anonymous online surveys done by campaign groups that put out propaganda like the Williams Institute, HRC, Trevor Project, Mermaids.

And not the anonymous National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) from 2014 that the much-contested 41% figure originally came from.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Thanks for answering. But I still am not clear on what you mean. You think adolescence is simply a social stage? Not one when development of myriad kinds occurs - physical, sexual, social, psychological, cognitive?

Also, I wasn't talking about onset of puberty. I was talking about puberty as a multi-year developmental process and pointing out that puberty and adolescence are not the same, nor does adolescence mean the teen years. Whereas in my reading of your posts, you seem to use these terms loosely and interchangeably.

When puberty begins, adolescence begins - but adolescence continues after puberty is finished. Similarly, by the time a person becomes a teenager, puberty is usually well underway and sometimes mostly over - depending on the person's sex and individual developmental clock. My point was that in these convos about boys and girls growing up, the different stages of development and life phases - childhood, puberty, adolescence, teens, early adulthood, adulthood, etc - need to be spoken of very precisely. Whereas no offense, you seem to speak of these matters loosely and in ways that IMO are confusing and hard for others to follow.

The studies on desistance rates gc likes to tout is on 8 year olds.

Can you link to these studies that GC supposedly uses, or at least give the authors' names, so I can look them up? I have no idea what studies you mean - and I'm someone who's definitely GC who's been looking into this area for many years now.

It’s not sound to protect that onto someone who is during their teenage years expressing that they are trans. It’s an unsupported comparison.

So does this mean your focus really is on, and all along you have been speaking of, persons who develop(ed) GD solely in their teenage years - meaning they have adolescent-onset GD begun after puberty has started, not childhood GD? Coz that's how it comes across, and that's what I've been trying to get you to clarify.

I agree with you 100% that childhood GD is entirely different to adolescent-onset and adult-onset GD. But GC is not the group that's been trying to obscure the distinctions between those with childhood-onset GD and those with GD that develops in adolescence or adulthood. The people who are projecting are the adults, usually males, who say that because they and other adult males who are trans now wish they didn't undergo some of masculinization of appearance that occurs as a result of male puberty and adolescence, then kids with childhood GD should have their puberties blocked so they don't develop those characteristics themselves.

The QT and pro-trans adults are also the ones who have come up with the harmful myth of being "born in the wrong body," a narrative they not only project onto the stories of their own pasts and the pasts of other adults who now identify as trans, but which they foist upon - and tell to - little kids with childhood GD too.

The GC side are the ones who warn against "unsupported comparison(s)" in these convos. Such as the unsupported comparison between adolescent and adult males with AGP and teenage girls with ROGD. And the unsupported comparison between the discrimination and abuse that some males go through growing up and in adulthood because others see them as "sissies" and suspect them of being gay and the discrimination and abuse that females experience because of our sexed bodies and the misogyny and sexism we face. And the unsupported comparison between what happened in the childhoods and adolescence of adults who grew up and matured many years or even decades ago and what's gone on, or is going on, in the childhoods and adolescence of young people today or in recent years.

The child abuse and human rights violations done to youngsters like Jazz Jennings, Trinity Neal, Kai Shappley, Mack Beggs and all the young girls getting their breasts amputated in the name of "gender affirmation" nowadays haven't come about because of GC people projecting our issues onto kids, or us making unsupported comparisons. It's because adult genderists have done and are doing that.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

2 - 99% of the time it's what they have in their pants.

Sorry, but the idea that "the difference between men & women" is mostly "what they have in their pants" not only comes off as puerile, it's a completely male POV.

The most important of the sex organs insofar as being determinative of whether one is male or female are the gonads, which produce the female or male gametes (ova or sperm) and also produce most of the major sex hormones that each sex produces which gender ideologues are focused on, namely estrogen in females and testosterone in males. (Females physiology involves a lot of other sex hormones too, but genderists seem focused on estrogen as the female hormone that counts most of all.)

But the only people whose gonads are in their pants - or between the legs, to use the other phrase commonly used in these comparisons - are males. The gonads of female people are inside our abdomens.

There are thousands of physical differences between male and female human beings entirely apart from with "what they have in their pants." Like the size of the hearts and lungs; the differences in the cells and secretions of the respiratory tract; the shape, size and density of bones.

Also, it's not the norm in every culture for people to wear pants (trousers, breeches). There are a lot of places in the world even today where even males wear attire that doesn't involve pants.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

But the study that Fleurista linked to shows that all but 3 of the 25 girls - or 88% - diagnosed with childhood GID had desisted when seen at follow-up, at which point they ranged in age from 15-36 years old. So it very clearly shows, as other studies on boys do, that the vast majority of kids diagnosed with childhood GID in the past (what today would be called childhood GD) grew out of it as they went through adolescence and approached/entered adulthood - if, that is, they were allowed to just be, their opposite-sex gender identity was not affirmed but also not condemned or shamed, they weren't "socially transitioned," and their natural body and brain development was not impeded/interfered with by administration of the development-blocking drugs and exogenous cross-sex hormones in wide use for such kids today.

Again, there's confusion here because you seem to be lumping together childhood-onset GID/GD with adolescent-onset GID/GD. When the reality is that childhood-onset and adolescent-onset GID/GD are very different to one another even when they occur in the same sex, and when they occur in males and females adolescent-onset GID/GD are two completely, entirely, utterly different phenomena.

Moreover, a paper published in 2008 like the one Fleurista cited is unfortunately no longer relevant to what's going on now, or has been going on in recent years. At the time that study was completed, the subjects were 15-36, meaning they'd now range in age from 29 to 50. Born from 1971 to/through 1992, these girls/women are of entirely different generations and grew up in totally different worlds than today's "trans kids" and young adults. When they were growing up, it's true as you say that no one was getting medical interventions at 8 - or at 12, either. But since that study was done, there's been a sea change. Nowadays as in the past 5-10 years, kids are indeed being given blockers and CSH as young as 8, and girls are getting surgeries to remove their breasts as young as 13 (and now 12 in some cases).

The other thing is, at the time the girls in that study were assessed and diagnosed with GID, they had a mean age of 8.88 years, but an actual age range, 3-12 years. Which IMO means they should NOT have been lumped together as one group and all assumed to have childhood GID. Fact is, girls age 9-12 are usually entering or well into adolescence. It's common for girls begin to breast development at 9-10, and many have large breasts by 11-12. Same goes for periods, which many girls get at 10-11. For example, I got mine shortly after I turned 11 - which was completely normal. A girl of 3-8 who says she wants to be a boy will almost always be doing so for very, very different reasons than a girl of 9-12.

QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I think an issue here is the imprecise wording (and sometimes indecipherable spelling) of your posts, which often make it hard to figure out exactly what you are saying and what info you're asking for. Such as this statement of yours a couple of posts up:

Detransition Is vanishingly rare and noting irreversible is dibd before adolescence and I have never seen gc cite any statistics on adolescent desistance

When you say you've "never seen GC cite any statistics on adolescent desistance," do you mean stats regarding persons who had childhood GD (onset well before puberty) and who desisted during adolescence? Or do you mean persons who developed GD during or just prior to adolescence, and who desisted at a later stage of adolescence?

I believe GC has provided many sources showing that the vast majority of kids with childhood GD desist during the course of adolescence.

But it might be that you and other posters here are using the word "adolescent" to mean different things. Could you say what you mean exactly so to eliminate further confusion?

Finally, is "dibd" a typo or an acronym for some new gender term? Genuine question- it's not clear to me.

You say that

Hormones aren’t being introduced until mid to late teens at the earliest.

Again, please state what you mean by "mid to late teens." There are 7 different, long years between 13 and 19; it's best to be specific.

My impression is that you think adolescence = teens, or is roughly equivalent to the teenage years. When, in fact, adolescence usually starts well before the teen years. Puberty is only precocious if it starts before 8 in girls, and before 9 in boys. Most girls start developing breasts and begin menstruating well before they turn 13, often several years before. Similarly, most boys begin experiencing wet dreams and genital changes and growth, and engage in masturbation resulting in orgasm, well before they turn 13 too.

If my impression that you're conflating being an adolescent with being a teen is incorrect, I apologize ahead of time.

Another issue adding to the confusion here is that is that puberty/adolescence unfolds very differently in children depending on sex - and thus boys and girls of the exact same age are often at very different stages of adolescence. Not only do different processes occur in female and male bodies during puberty and the rest of adolescence , but these phases of development occur at a different pace in the two sexes, and where common events occur - such as the growth spurt that leads to adult height, adult shape and increased bone density - the sequence is different depending on children's sex. For example, girls go through our big skeletal growth spurt at the beginning-middle of puberty and usually achieve our adult height by 14, whereas boys do so towards the end of puberty or even during adolescence after puberty is over, achieving their adult height at or after 16. Though this varies in individuals. For example, I reached my adult height at 12, but my brother didn't reach his until 17.

But however you personally define what you mean when you speak of "the mid-late teens" and "adolescents," it remains the case that your claim that "Hormones aren’t being introduced until mid to late teens at the earliest," is simply not true. Nowadays, and for a number of years now, kids with gender dysphoria are indeed being placed on "hormones" in their early teens, and some before their teens even start.

A paper published in 2019 by Johanna Olson-Kennedy MD et al reported on a study funded by USA's NIH that began in 2016 that attempted to assess the impact of early medical interventions on "transgender youth." It says:

Regarding age, the minimum age in the inclusion criteria for the gender-affirming hormone cohort was decreased from 13 years (as stated in the original grant proposal) to 8 years in order to ensure that potential participants who might be eligible for hormones based on their Tanner stage would not be excluded due to age alone. Additionally, considerations were made for youth who were found to have very low bone density in the screening, which occurs with youths initiating blockers. Only 7 youths under the age of 13 years at the time of enrollment were enrolled into the cross-sex hormone cohort.[ "only 7" - WTF?]

Another study published in 2018 by Olson-Kennedy et al of 59 patients who presented for treatment at a youth gender clinic from 2011-13 and received "hormone therapy" states that the youths

ranged in age from 12 to 23 years at initiation of [exogenous estrogen or testosterone] therapy, with a mean age of 18 years. Thirteen (22%) youth started [cross-sex] hormones younger than age 16 years.

Transfeminine youth were started on hormone protocols that usually included a testosterone blocking agent and feminizing medications. Spironolactone (100–200 mg orally per day) or a GnRH analog was used for testosterone blocking and induction of feminizing features with 17 β estradiol, and in some cases, the addition of progesterone. At the time of this study, spironolactone and GnRH analogs were not covered by most insurance plans; therefore, seven (28%) of these youth did not have their endogenous testosterone blocked specifically in the first two years of treatment. One transfeminine young person was on GnRH analogs since early puberty. Eighteen participants used an escalating dose of oral estradiol ranging from 1 to 6 mg each day; four switched to injectable estradiol over the course of treatment, and one was off of hormones at the follow-up visit. Six participants initially started, and continued using injectable estradiol at doses ranging from 20 to 30 mg delivered intramuscularly every 14 days.

Transmasculine youth were all treated with testosterone cypionate via subcutaneous delivery at escalating doses ranging from 12.5 mg to 75 mg weekly. At follow-up, most youth were at a dose of 50–75 mg weekly. Two transmasculine youth were on simultaneous GnRH analogs that were started earlier in adolescence. Doses for both cohorts were adjusted based on clinical response and circulating levels of sex steroids.

Jazz Jennings started both "puberty blockers" and exogenous estrogen when Jazz was 11. Since Jazz turns 21 in a few days, that was a decade ago.

Jackie Green of the UK, child of Mermaids' CEO Susie Green, started both "puberty blockers" and exogenous estrogen at 12. Jackie is now 30, so that was 18 years ago, in 2003.

Helen Webberley the UK physician who operates Gender GP, an unlicensed online clinic, has been prescribing cross-sex hormones to children as young as 12 for at least several years now. This first came out in the investigations in 2018 that followed the suicide of one of Webberley's teenage female patients for whom Webberley prescribed testosterone, and more info about other patients has come out in the formal proceedings against Webberley by medical licensing authorities that have been held over the past couple of months.

Trinity Neal, the first child in the US state of Delaware to undergo "childhood gender transition" paid for by Medicaid, started exogenous estrogen in 2016 when Trinity was 13 and at 16 became "one of the youngest people" to undergo surgery to remove Trinity's testicles and reconfigure Trinity's genitals in "gender affirming" fashion.

Speaking of surgery, an intervention that is not reversible, another study by Olson-Kennedy et al published in 2018 showed that girls in the US as young as 13 are being given double mastectomies for gender dysphoria. In the sample studied, 49% of those who had double mastectomy for GD and "chest dysphoria" were younger than 18 years at the time their breasts were removed.

Battle Tactics by Bookshelf in GenderCritical

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

Good points. I'm at the point where I don't even want to use the term "trans" because it's become meaningless and using it seems to go along with and endorse the madness and pretense. I'm currently using males/females claiming opposite sex identities - or MCOSI and FCOSI.

To cover everyone claiming the wide range of gender identities from trans, non-binary, "queer," ace, aro vapogender and whatever new flavor is in this week , I'm just using phrases like "persons with differences of gender identity," "persons who don't identify with their sex," "persons who disavow/reject/deny their sex," "persons preferring their sex be ignored/overlooked" and "persons with gender identities."

Another one: HRT Hormone replacement therapy is not a very accurate description for taking cross-sex hormones. Instead we should call it Hormone Substitution or something like that. Regardless of what we call it, it should be more accurate than HRT.

Plus, "therapy" means "treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder" - and I don't think what most of these people are doing is either therapy or treatment. It's drug abuse and pharmaceutical self-harm.

"Hormone substitution" doesn't cover the fact that many males take T suppressants. I've seen the term TGHT and THT in papers - meaning "transgender hormone treatment" and "transgender hormone treatment." Problem is that those terms reinforce the whole idea of transgender.

I've also seen GAH, meaning "gender affirming hormones" which makes me say gah!

Racial makeup of people IDing as non-binary? by anxietyaccount8 in GenderCritical

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

Enter "black non-binary" into the search bars on YouTube and Google and lots of videos and articles about black non-binary people will come up. Same goes if you do an image search. I'm in the US, so most of the material my searches generated are from the US. But here's an article called "Black, British and Non-Binary" from Vice:

You'll find academic papers on the topic on Google Scholar.

TRA Argument, need some help (having to do with bathroom) by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

Also, depending on the child's size, a diaper can be changed by laying a kid in your lap/across your thighs at an angle - and since dads are generally bigger than moms, this is often easier for men to do than for women. Moreover, once children can stand, whether on their own by bracing themselves with their hands on something, diapers can be changed when they're on their feet, so no need to lay them down flat on their backs. Babies stand much earlier than many people unfamiliar with babies realize.

TRA Argument, need some help (having to do with bathroom) by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

I've never, ever seen this happen or even heard of it happen either, and I'm over 65!

TRA Argument, need some help (having to do with bathroom) by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

what do you think and how do you feel about fathers of new born babies using the women's room to change their baby's diapers? Only women's rest rooms have diaper changing stations, and areas, but men's rest rooms do not.

This person doesn't know anything about women's restroom facilities, diaper changing stations, or the customs around them.

Fold-down diaper changing stations like the now-commonplace plastic Koala brand only were invented in 1986. In the US and Canada, by the mid-late 90s they had become standard in all-access family restrooms, disabled toilets and men's rooms in the types of establishments frequented by families with young kids, such as supermarkets, popular big box stores, shopping malls, chain fast food restaurants, highway/motorway rest plazas, parks and beaches, libraries, airports, movie theaters, community centers, family-oriented recreational and leisure facilities, and so on. But they're typically not found in places where people don't customarily take little kids such as fancier restaurants with table service and no kids' menus, bars, night clubs and gyms/health clubs catering to adults and which don't provide child care services to allow adults to work out.

This guy's suggestion that only "new born babies" need diapering also shows he know nothing about young children.

FWIW, I know lots of dads who have done their fair share of diapering and childcare, including taking their infants and toddlers out and about on their own, but I've never heard of men going into women's rooms to change their kids' diapers. I've never witnessed this or heard about it ever happening from any women or other moms either. In fact, this thread is the first time I've heard that this might be a thing.

Most parents and carers of either sex carry diaper bags with changing mats in them so we/they can change diapers wherever when the need arises. Most people use whatever surface is at hand - the floor or ground, a bench, a chair - or the child's pram or stroller/push chair. It's not like diaper changing stations are absolutely essential. After all, there were lots of babies and diaper-wearing kids around long before such stations were invented. My hunch is, the majority of kids' diapers changed outside the home are changed in ad hoc circumstances without the luxury of a restroom or changing station.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So are you saying we should not deviate from what mainstream society says about bodily privacy? Every single social movement that gained rights for a marginalized group had to fight mainstream social conventions. Maybe they should have accepted social conventions that black people as slaves and LGBs as deviant subhumans.

Oh c'mon. Conflating very different issues like this is ludicrous. Of course the anti-slavery movement, civil rights movement, women's rights movements, and gay and lesbian rights movements all challenged laws and social conventions, but they did not seek to remove from any single group the right to bodily privacy from the opposite sex when using public or communal toilets, change rooms, locker rooms or showers.

Gay and lesbian rights were won by arguing that who people have sex with is their own private business - the state and society have no right to dictate what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms/homes (or bath houses, gay clubs, etc). Women's right to abortion in the US was won based on the idea that women have a right bodily autonomy and that what goes on between a woman and her HCPs is private between them, not for the government to intrude upon. Women succeeded in the effort to get sexual harassment at work and rape in marriage made illegal by establishing in law that women have a right to set boundaries.

When women entered previously all-male domains such as previously male-only colleges and universities, we sought - and obtained - equal access to the classrooms, libraries, labs, dining halls, student unions, sports facilities, etc - but we did not seek to make the men's toilets, showers, locker rooms and sports teams all mixed sex. We sought and obtained our own. Even though many schools had mixed-sex dorms, women didn't insist that males now must have females as roommates. Both sexes wanted to have the option of sharing dorm rooms and other intimate facilities such as loos and locker rooms solely with members of their own sex. Because boundaries around bodily privacy matter to most people of both sexes. Not to all people in all settings. But to most people in certain settings.

Same thing happened in all the other previously all-male workplaces and other institutions that women joined. Women in factories and offices didn't fight to be able to use the same toilets, change rooms and showers as men used; they sought their own. Because when women had to share with the men, some of the men were predatory and abusive to the women.

I think Gavin Grimm and any other female should have the right to use boy's toilets if they so desire

I also don't want men to have the same legal protections women have regarding their spaces.

Just as TRAs want to remove bodily privacy rights from female people, you want to remove bodily privacy rights from male people. You and the TRAs are just flip sides of the same coin.

Moreover, you are overlooking the practical realities. The half of the population you want to remove bodily privacy rights from just so happen to be the group that wield the most political power in society, and they are also the half of the population with bodies that are bigger and stronger than female bodies, and who have a far, far greater propensity for aggression, violence, sexual predation, territoriality, weaponry, warfare and physical fighting. Pushing to remove basic rights from boys and men might strike you as feminist, but to me it sounds imprudent, impolitic and puerile. I fear that pushing to remove bodily privacy rights from boys and men whilst asserting and ring fencing those rights solely for girls and women will result in a huge backlash - and thus will undermine rather than advance the safety, privacy, bodily autonomy, wellbeing and liberation of girls and women.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

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

Whilst it's true only males can have prostate cancer, I imagine it won't be long before some transmen want to join erectile dysfunction support groups. Just like some of the young ones are now demanding they be included in gay male spheres like bath houses and gay men's beauty pageants, and are also saying it's their right to slag off gay men with homophobic slurs.

Also, in my comment that I forgot to finish, I meant to add I think support groups solely for boys and men are often appropriate too, especially around issues like CSA, substance addictions, sex and porn addiction, fatherhood, divorce support, and helping each other stem their tendencies toward male violence, anger, sex offending, paraphilias and so on. I know a lot of men who in first coming to terms with the CSA they had suffered only felt comfortable disclosing in the company of other males. Later, they could discuss it in mixed company, but not initially.

I get what Obama was trying to do with "My Brother's Keeper," but I agree that he was extremely sexist in setting it up/embracing it without doing something analogous for girls and women. Not cool for a POTUS to be so biased. But despite having two daughters, Obama really seemed to have no concern for girls and women and our rights more generally. Which is why he used the power of the presidency to issue executive orders single-handedly eliminating the right of girls and women's attending US schools to female-only sports and to female-only locker rooms and toilets.

As for programs for LGB kids in schools, my impression is that now most programs are for LGBTQ students, not for gay, lesbian and bi students - and of course they're filled with enbies, kids who claim to be trans as well as to have other newfangled gender identities, along with kids who think having a quirky haircut is on the same plane as being homosexual. Also, in some places it's so popular to be part of the "alphabet people" that the kids who are feeling left out and marginalized are the straights.

I think people can be marginalized and disadvantaged in a variety of different ways. Girls and women across the board are put at a disadvantage because of our sex, or rather because of male attitudes towards our sex and the way society and culture have formed around those attitudes. But just as all girls and women are not on an equal footing with one another because sex is only one axis of prejudice and discrimination, not all boys and men are on the same plane as one another either. Boys and men can be disadvantaged compared to other boys and men - and to some girls and women - due to disabilities, poverty, race, sexual orientation, lack of education, family troubles, CAEs, etc. Also, I think in these sorts of convos, current social class as well as the social class of one's family of origin going back generations - not just current household income - is a huge factor that doesn't get enough attention.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

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

What I'm saying is I as a feminist do not cater to men’s wants and desires. Clearly other feminists do, but I don't because I'm a feminist and am only focused on the rights of women.

No one is expecting that you cater to men's wants and desires. The issue is that as members of a plural society, we're all supposed to show regard for the social conventions whereby members of both sexes are afforded privacy rights when toileting and changing. Coz otherwise we end up with a free-for-all, and all the safeguards put in place to protect women, girls and others who are vulnerable get lost.

You don't have to respect men's and boys' boundaries, or men and boys for that matter. You can hate them and think they're all pieces of shit. But what is expected is that when out and about in the world, you - and all the rest of us - behave in ways that respect the boundaries themselves. Because boundaries make it possible for people to exist side by side in the world. And boundaries are often there for reasons that aren't immediately evident. Chesterton's fence.

You seem to have decided that when it comes to single sex facilities meant to afford bodily privacy from the opposite sex, you're going to do as you want with no concern about how this will affect others. In fact, you seem to go out of your way to go into men's private spaces to demonstrate how much disdain you have for boys and men, and to show your disregard for longstanding social conventions. Which is exactly what the TRAs and QTs are doing. Every time you go into a men's toilet or change room or locker room to show how much you don't care about males or any social boundaries, you are lending support to the side that says males should be able to access female spaces whenever they want.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I understood the question to be only to a narrow range of circumstances, and that's why I said yes. I'd add that males should be able to have separate support groups too for problems specific to males such as prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction - or for

In other types of settings, the courts in the US have been very clear that neither sex can be barred from the public sphere - and that even in the case of private clubs, sometimes excluding females constitutes illegal discrimination.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I got that. And you must really be something if all the men you encounter get erections the minute they set eyes on you.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

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

Citations please.

Also, there are cases where trans women have beaten up men in men's restrooms. Paris Lees, now a celebrity trans woman in the UK, served time in a (male) juvenile detention facility for taking part in a gang assault of an elderly gay man who later died of his injuries. As a teen, Lees was in a crew of gay youths who hung around public loos known for "cottaging" looking for men who'd pay them for sex - and for men to rob and beat up.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

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

You can't keep your story straight. Within the space of minutes you've claimed:

In my experience most penis owners don't care if women are in their spaces. In fact, a great percentage get aroused by the presence of a woman, more than those who are bother by a woman's presence.


There were times were men were uncomfortable with my presence in men's facilities. I just accuse them of mansplaining or being racist and then they just move about.

So if people are uncomfortable with you barging into a space you shouldn't be, you harass them until they leave. Tactics straight out of the TRA malignant narcissist playbook.

Also, I wonder what you do to young boys. Never occurred to me before that unaccompanied young boys using men's toilets and changing facilities might be at risk of being verbally abused by a woman in those spaces.

Your use of the term "my feminism" makes it sound like you have your individual brand of feminism, or you think you own feminism. But your uncivil, anti-social attitude and boorish behavior, which you seem to be proud of, isn't helping girls and women. How can we hope to have our boundaries respected when women like you are hellbent on trampling the boundaries of others, and you insist no human being of the male sex has a right to any boundaries and bodily privacy in the first place?

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

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

So what's convenient for you and how you personally feel at any given moment are the only factors you think matter?

Virtue-signalling handmaiden gets ratioed by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

AOC tweeted:

The gutting of Roe v Wade imperils every menstruating person in the US, every person who engages in sex, and every person who values our constitutional right to privacy.

Just one reason Roe isn’t a “women’s issue” beyond the fact that people who aren’t women can menstruate too!

But it's women who are pregnant who might need an abortion, not menstruating women, FFS. Lack of menstruation is a sign of pregnancy. If AOC wants to dehumanize us by reducing us to a bodily function/process, she can at least get the right one by using a term like "people who can get pregnant"...

Also, using the term "menstruating people" as a woke codeword for girls and women of reproductive age makes it seem like female people continually menstruate day in and day out from the moment of menarche right on through to menopause.

GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

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

Yes. Boys and men have a need for bodily privacy too. In schools, I don't think many boys would be comfortable having to pee, change and shower in the presence of female students who now have decided they are nonbinary or trans. Especially not if they have known one another for years. I suspect the boys in Gavin Grimm's HS were none too pleased with Grimms' insistence on using the boys' facilities.

Also, gay men should be able to have places where they can get together for socializing and sex without any women there.

The Truth about Autogynephilia by BiologyIsReal in GenderCritical

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

I sympathize with your POV, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Why is the UK "Terf Island"? by Rage-Xion in GenderCritical

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

1) Mumsnet

2) The UK has a law called the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. Circa 2016, Teresa May when she was PM promised to reform it to institute gender/sex self-ID. The government instituted a public consultation - so interested women began to educate themselves and decided self ID had lots of problems and was at odds with women's rights.

3) The UK has another law called the Equality Act of 2010, which gives protections to persons who've gone through or propose to go through "gender transition." But the law also made sex a protected category, and allows for female-only spaces, services and sports.

4)UK health care is provided by the government through the NHS.

5) The UK has a system whereby ordinary citizens can challenge the actions of government agencies and bodies through "judicial reviews."

6) The UK has robust employment laws protecting employees, which allowed Maya Forstater to contest the termination of her contract.

7) The UK has some odd restrictions on speech and communications, which have been used by TRAs, the police and prosecutors to go after people like Marion Millar, Kate Scottow, Harry Miller, Miranda Yardley, Caroline Farrow and others for "gender critical" tweets and other social media posts. Scottow, who was breastfeeding when the police showed up at her house, was thrown in a jail cell and kept there for 7 hours, and denied the san pro she begged for.

8) The UK's major gay and lesbian rights organization, Stonewall, decided in 2015 to become a trans activist organization. Stonewall has had huge influence in the UK, signing up more than 750 major corporations and government bodies for a dodgy protection scheme: accept and abide by gender ideology or else! Stonewall's "training" sessions and bad legal advice have caused many in the UK to conclude that Stonewall's days are done.

9) The UK has a sophisticated system and philosophy of safeguarding

10) Karen White. Aimee Challenor. Jess Phillips. Rubber Man at the NSPC.

There are many other reasons too. Will try to post them later.

As the parent of two vagina owners by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Why own a vagina when you can lease? Vagina vacation rentals and time shares - they're the ticket!

"Trans woman" on egg_irl claims he practices "moaning like a woman" because it gives him "euphoria" by xxo1111 in GenderCritical

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

It's so sexist and Victorian to think that women only sound women make during sex is "moaning." Lots of women yell our heads off and can be heard blocks away.

How is this sort of drag not seen for what it is: misogynistic caricature of women? by swordinthestream in GenderCritical

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

And they just don't don breast forms to give the impression of having enormous breasts, they pad and use protheses to caricature women's hips, thighs and butts.

Some drag acts also caricature pregnant women and enact grotesque scenes of imaginary abortion, miscarriage and FT childbirth.