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

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

It's interesting to me that peakingatthemoment said:

If a male alters their body and is able to pass to people as female they are going to exist in society being treated as a female in most ways

And now Fleurista has said:

If a male experiences the world being perceived by most everyone as a woman, why would they feel they have more in common with trans people rather than women?

To me, these statements illustrate a major difference between the self-concepts of males who "identify as" women/girls and those of us who actually are women/girls. There's a lot more to going through life as a female human being in a female body than just being perceived and treated in certain ways by others.

I honestly don't know anyone female who derives her own sense of her sex solely or mainly from how others perceive her. Even if a female person lives a totally cloistered and solitary life as a hermit or shut-in who never leaves the house, or she only leaves the house covered head to toe face and all in a full-body burka like in Afghanistan, or she looks very "butch" and thus often gets mistaken for a male person by others when out and about in the world, she will still inhabit a body that is distinctly female in the thousands of ways that make human female bodies very different to human male bodies. And in my observation, what inhabiting a distinctly, unmistakably female body feels like to her internally in her own flesh and blood down to the marrow of her bones will be the major source of information that she relies for her knowledge that she is a woman or girl.

I think if those who believe women's self-concepts of sex is entirely or mostly about the perceptions other people have about us actually spent time speaking to a broad cross section women about this, they'd find that women's sense of being female usually has as much or FAR MORE to do with the physical aspects of our bodies that we experience and feel in every fiber of our being internally rather than how other people who observe us from the outside see and treat us.

Yes, the ways other people see and treat us shape and inform our self-concepts. But it is only part of the story of our sense of ourselves and especially our sense of our sex. For many of us, how others see and treat us is actually only a small part of the story insofar as our sense of our own female sex is concerned.

For many of us, our sense of ourselves as girls and women comes largely or even mostly from the physical issues we start dealing with once we start getting periods - which the majority of females start at 11-12 - and breast development, which most girls start even earlier. PMDD, menstrual cramps, heavy bleeding and clotting, period blood leaking all over, pre-menstrual breast tenderness, ovulation twinges/pain, female urethral problems like recurrent cystitis, vaginal yeast overgrowth aka "infections" when under stress, our vulnerability to pregnancy and all the intense worries and dread that come with that, pregnancy, miscarriage, termination, childbirth, breastfeeding, ovarian cysts, fibroids, uteruses perforated by IUDs, a lifetime of breast cancer checks and worries about various kinds of lumps, menopause, osteoporosis, gynecological disease, hysterectomy, bones that are easier to break than male bones, skulls that make us more susceptible to concussion and TBIs than males are, muscles and reflexes that make us slower and less physically powerful than males, female grip strength, a far greater likelihood of experiencing autoimmune diseases and Alzheimer's, a far greater risk of suffering lower limb injuries than males due to doing sports and wearing high heels, etc - these are the kinds of embodied, "lived experiences" that most female human beings rely on for the knowledge we are girls and women.

Catcalls, being groped, being ignored, being sexually preyed upon, getting talked over, getting called "miss" and "ma'am," being mansplained to, being told to swallow your feelings, being passed over for promotion at work, having your ideas stolen from you and credited to someone else, having your health complaints dismissed by doctors, being told you don't matter, being called a slxt, whxre, Karen, pearl clutcher, fat cow, stupid breeder, ugly mxnhater, old bag, a witch and TERF and so on - those sorts of experiences are reminders that we are female, and that in our society females are seen as second-class and second-rate. But for most of us, those kinds of experiences are not where our basic knowledge that we are female comes from. Most of us get our fundamental sense of our selves as female human beings, as girls and women, from a lifetime of inhabiting female bodies every second of every day, year in and year out - not from how others see us and treat us. Nor even from what we ourselves see when we look in glass mirrors.

The embodied experience of being a female human being with female DNA, female cells, female organs, a female immune response and so on is fundamentally different to, and totally separate from, how other people perceive us and how they treat us. It's entirely different to gazing at our physical selves in looking glasses too. These are points which seem totally lost on those who believe that being a girl/woman is simply - and mainly, mostly, entirely - a matter of giving off a certain outward impressions and being viewed and treated by others in particular ways.

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

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

If you had been born male, and you felt unable to get the rest of the male community to behave better, wouldn't you be ashamed and embarrassed too? Possibly to the point of wanting to hide it or make it ambiguous?

The premise here is that males who attempt to hide their sex or make it appear more ambiguous by getting on the trans train - or by adopting a non-binary or other newfangled gender identity - all only do so after spending years devoting a great deal of their time, energy and effort into trying "to get the rest of t the male community to behave better." I believe this is a false, totally unfounded premise.

My observation is that males who've gotten on the gender identity bandwagon and identity as other than their sex generally have absolutely NO history of spending any time or energy whatsoever engaged in trying "to get the male community to behave better." This is true whether they are homosexuals who were or felt bullied and shamed for being insufficiently "manly" in their formative years, or they are heterosexual autogynephiles.

Sure, some might have attended an anti-war protest or BLM rally and used online hashtags protesting some kinds of male violence, such as police shootings... But none of them seem ever to have spent any time and energy whatsoever seriously trying "to get the rest of the male community to behavior better" in any way or any context.

In fact, prior to announcing that they are not men, a lot of males who say they "identify as" trans or non-binary engaged in a host of behaviors emblematic of "toxic masculinity" in its traditional forms. A majority of the MA and older heterosexual autogynephiles devoted their lives prior to "transition" to "manly" pursuits: trying to become top dog in boys' and men's sports; serving as soldiers and officers in all-male or almost entirely male military outfits; spending their every waking hour in the company of other males as they sought career success in male-dominated fields like IT, business, medicine, technology, journalism, academic philosophy; fathering children; "ruling the roost" and playing "king of the castle" at home; consuming pornography and exchanging porn with other blokes; chasing and sexually harassing women; and pursuing their own sexual pleasure and other selfish interests with no concern for the impact of their behaviors on others, such as their wives, children, their own mothers and sisters, and the female members of the communities they reside in and interact with.

A considerable portion of the younger heterosexual males who have gone trans today seem to have previously been openly and proudly misogynistic MRAs and incels who themselves have long behaved in abusive and bullying ways to others, especially women and girls (starting with their mothers and sisters). Some were neo-Nazis. Many are blatantly racist.

As for the homosexual ones, my impression is that - again generally speaking - most of them are way too wrapped up in themselves, too obsessed with their appearance, too steeped in the sex stereotypes they are enthralled with, and too preoccupied with activities like trying to look and act "girly," trying to attract and bed men, playing the victim and whining and complaining about how oppressed and vulnerable they are, and intruding upon and demonizing female people - whilst simultaneously expressing envy, covetousness and ire towards us - for any of them to ever have lifted a single solitary finger in an effort to try "to get other males to behave better."

In fact, my impression of males who say they want to become women because they loathe men and don't want to be associated with men is that it's never occurred to any of them to try to get other males to behave better - either to males like themselves or to members of the female sex. Which is why these males direct their demands for kindness, acceptance and "inclusion" almost exclusively at women and girls, and they have expectations of women and girls they'd never dare have of other males.

Regardless of their sexual orientation, the vast majority of males who have adopted trans or non-binary identities supposedly to escape being men and being associated with men seem to take it as a given that female humans must be forced to sacrifice our rights, spaces, sports, safety, privacy, dignity, comfort, convenience, mental wellbeing and self-esteem to make them and other males with similar gender identities feel good about themselves and feel safe and "at home" in the world - but they do not place any similar or equivalent expectations and demands on other males.

If anyone can provide examples which show that most males who now identify as trans or NB only adopted those identities after previously devoting their lives to trying "to get the rest of the male community to behave better" but found their efforts were in vain, please do. I will then edit or withdraw this post and admit my impressions are wrong.

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

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

I guess that the reason that this doesn't seem contradictory to me is that I don't really see identifying as a woman as a way of being. It's not got anything to do with how a person acts,

I never said that being a woman has "anything to do with how a person acts," though. Nor would I ever make such a claim.

My view is that being a woman depends on three things: being human, a member of the species Homo sapiens; being female; and being of adult age (18 or over). Consciousness and acting/behaving in any particular way or doing anything are not necessary. To me, an adult human female in a coma, under anesthesia, with severe brain injury, in a state of catatonia or without the ability to see, hear, speak or move is as much as woman as any other adult human female.

I have been close to a number of adult human females as they died of various illnesses that caused them to lose their minds and be totally incapable of acting any which way. Several could not move at all. Yet to me and everyone else around them, they were still women. When they died, their bodies were the dead bodies of women. You are the one who says this can't be true, because you keep insisting that there is no way to be a woman without being conscious and "all there" mentally enough to engage in the cognitive processes required to "identify" and think of one's self as woman:

we conceptualise identifying as a woman in entirely different ways.

No, the fundamental difference is that you equate being a woman with "identifying as a woman" and I don't.

You say

identifying as a woman is basically just thinking "I am a woman".

I say an adult human female is a woman even if she can't "identify" or frame the thought "I am a woman" in her mind - even if she can't think at all. I believe that being a woman doesn't involve engaging in any kind of cognition, self-reflection or thought processes - or having any sense of "identity."

I believe that the word woman simply describes the physical reality of a kind of human body. You think woman refers to gender identity, that being a woman is simply a way of thinking about the self - a way of thinking about the self that can be engaged in by adult human males as well as adult human females.

I have no beef with you and other people having a gender identity. Just like I have no beef with people who believe they have souls. My beef is with you insisting that everyone else on earth has a gender identity. I am challenging the way you and other genderists project your own inner mental processes, your own preoccupations, and your own very particular way of constructing your own sense of self onto everyone else in the world. You keep saying that woman refers to a way of thinking about the self that you apparently believe is universal - when in fact, it's a way of thinking about the self that is specific only to some people on earth.

I am not telling you not to have a gender identity. I am pointing out that not everyone on earth has a gender identity, and not everyone else believes in gender identity ideology. Some people think gender ideology is a load of sexist, misogynistic, regressive shite, in fact.

I am also asking you to please stop insisting that everyone else must construct our sense of self the way you and other genderists do.

To me, identifying as a woman is basically just thinking "I am a woman". Of course there will be some neurological conditions that make this impossible, but it wouldn't be as common as you seem to think.

How common do these sorts of neurological conditions have to be for you to recognize adult human females with said conditions as women?

As I said before, there are more than 4 million adult human females in the US alone with Alzheimer's. In Australia, there are nearly a quarter of a million adult human females with AD, and dementia is the single largest cause of death for adult human females in OZ. Why cannot you grant full humanity to adult females who don't have the same mental faculties as you? Why sneer that in your view neurological conditions that make gender identity impossible are too rare for the inner lives of people with such conditions to be considered worthy of consideration?

Also, even if it were true that only a very few people are affected by neurological conditions that make it impossible to have a gender identity, why don't they matter in the genderist/QT world view? Why do the tiny percentage of people marginalized because of their gender identities deserve sympathy and respect in your view, but people with neurological conditions get dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant? Where do you get off dictating that just because people have conditions that you believe are "not as common as you seem to think," they don't count and shouldn't be referred to as women, men, boys or girls?

Maybe if you spent some time in a nursing/care home where people with Alzheimer's reside, a hospice where people are living out their dying days, or in the company of some adult human females born with severe mental disabilities, you'd have a broader view of who counts as women. Maybe then you'd find it in your heart to be bit more charitable to the many millions of people on earth who don't have the capacity to engage in the mental processes that are required to "identify as a woman" and necessary for "basically just thinking 'I am a woman'."

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

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

If a person considers that they are a woman because they are an adult human female, I would consider that to be identifying as a woman.

Again, what about all the adult females past and present who cannot and could not "consider" these matters because of mental impairments that make it impossible for them to grasp, reflect on and think about their sex, age, species, social status and "identities"? There are quite a few of them around. What about all the adult human females in comas?

It's incredibly ableist of you to keep insisting that being a woman is totally dependent on having fully-developed adult consciousness, cognitive capacities and powers of reasoning - AND also on having the very particular kind of SELF-consciousness that you and some others in today's world have.

You are assuming that the way current-day genderists with full mental faculties who inhabit materially-abundant environments full of mirror glass and surrounded by human-made imagery in certain Western cultures experience and conceptualize yourselves and construct your own self-concepts are the universal ways that all human beings everywhere on earth experience and conceptualize them/ourselves and construct our own self-concepts. This is not true, and believing and insisting that it must be true is cultural imperialism.

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

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

If you want to use women to refer only to adult human females then go ahead

Gee thanks, boss. It's so magnanimous and really big of you to deign to allow the adult human females of the world to use the word that describes us to a T.

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

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

Again, you didn't answer any of my questions.

I don't think there's anything wrong with referring to someone as a woman without having had their identity explicitly stated.

Huh? Earlier you said that any/all adult human females who don't explicitly "identify with" the second-class social status and sexist stereotypes associated with the female sex in various cultures cannot be considered or called women, and that instead we would have to be considered "men or non-binary people."

It's not dictatorial to refer to people by the language that they personally prefer.

But that's not what you are doing. You have been saying throughout this thread that unless someone states that they "identify as" a woman, which to you means accepting and embracing second-class social status and a host of demeaning sex stereotypes - and unless you personally have knowledge of this - they/we cannot be considered or called women. Instead, they/we must be called men or non-binary.

Most of us will meet and get to know only a very tiny sliver of the world's population, and most of us know only one or two or at most a few of the world's more than 7,000 different languages and dialects. So how can you know what term that everyone on earth "personally prefers" for themselves?

The half of the population in Afghanistan who aren't allowed out of the house unless fully covered from head to toe in portable cloth prisons - what word would you call them? How is it respectful to claim that they are not women because you personally don't know how each and every one of them "identifies" and because like most English-speakers, you probably don't know any of the words in their languages? How is it not dictatorial to proclaim that because you and a lot of other people on earth personally do not know the words for women in Dari and Pashto, it means there is no word in English, French, Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Arabic etc that can be respectfully used for the adult female population of Afghanistan?

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

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

I believe that any person that identifies as a woman is a woman. There is no correct way to be a woman.

To my view, those two statements totally contradict one another.

If there is "no correct way to be a woman," then how can it be that the only way to be a woman is to "identify as" a woman or claim to "identify as" a woman?

How can it be that there is "no correct way to be a woman" when you yourself have said on this thread that being a woman means "identifying with" the second-class social status and misogynistic stereotypes that misogynists and sexists for millennia have associated with humans of the female sex?

According to you, all the adult human males who today claim to "identify as" women are women, but the millions of adult human females on earth today who have Alzheimer's or other neurological conditions that make it impossible for them to "identify as" anything are not women.

According to you, all the adult males convicted of using their dicks and male power, strength and aggression to rape females who now say they "identify as women" are women, but none of their adult female victims can be women unless those female victims conceptualize themselves exactly as you and other males who claim to "identify as women" say adult human females must see ourselves in order to be considered women.

According to you, all the adult males who have fathered children who now say they are women are women, but none of the female people who bore and gave birth to any of the oodles of children fathered by men who claim to "identify as" women can be considered women unless they do as you command and "identify with" the second-class social status and sex stereotypes that misogynists associate with humans of the female sex.

According to you, the only people on earth who are women are those who have heard of, fully understood and decided to ascribe to, the cockamamie PoMo theories that you mistakenly seem to think are universally-held. Such as the theory that "people are whatever they say they are;" the theory that words like "women" have no collectively agreed-upon meaning; and that the theory the material reality of human beings' biological sex does not matter - all that matters are the claimed "identities" that some very privileged people with luxury beliefs claim to possess.

I have a hunch that you think I am not engaging honestly because I am truthfully telling you how offensive, imperialistic, arrogant and dictatorial your views come off to me and to many others. And I am telling you this in blunt and forthright language, not tip-toeing around so as not to ruffle your feathers, not pretending to dance to the tune of your misogynistic, imperialistic ideology - and not mincing my words so as to come across as "ladylike" and deferential to males the way sexists think adult human females should and usually do communicate. I suspect that getting pushback like this is not something you are accustomed to, so it perplexes and peeves you - and in your bafflement all you can do is take a combative "you can't tell me that" stance and harrumph that I am "not engaging honestly."

I am sorry if what I say is hard for you to to handle, but I think it's high time you were apprised of the true feelings and thoughts held by many of us who are members of the sex whose humanity you and the other adherents of the Church of Genderology aim to nullify, whose "lived experience" you insist on dismissing, whose views you are accustomed to talking over, and whose ways of constructing our own self-concepts you outright deny.

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

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

I didn't write the damn poem.

This is supposed to be a debate sub.

You're the one who decided to type out a child's poem on a debate sub, not I. Also, I never said you wrote the dumb poem. A childish poem that I still have no idea why you thought it a good idea not just to quote from, but to share in full.

If you're not interested in an honest discussion just keep out of it.

First you tell me that I and billions of other adult human females cannot be called women and have no right to that word because we do not regard ourselves in the way you and other misogynistic dictators insist we must. When I have posed questions in response to specific statements you've made in your posts, you've repeatedly come back with replies that pointedly do not answer any of my questions. Now after already telling me I am dishonest in other posts, you sneeringly suggest that I am "not interested in an honest discussion" and tell me to STFU by ordering me to "just keep out of it." Sheesh.

The arrogance, bossiness and total lack of self-awareness in your posts are very telling.

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

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

If a person didn't identify as a woman I wouldn't call them one, no. That would be disrespectful.

So if you were making a documentary or doing a report about the long, hard road to the USA's 19th amendment; the lives of long-reigning British queens such as Elizabeth I and II and Victoria; health issues like cervical cancer, menopause, uterine fibroids, pre-eclampsia, pudendal neuralgia and Alzheimer's disease; practices such as foot-binding in China, breast-ironing and FGM in Africa, forced veiling in Muslim countries and communities, and acid attacks in Pakistan and India; or the victims of such serial killers such as Ted Bundy, the Boston Strangler and the Yorkshire Ripper - you'd never, ever use the word women once because you haven't personally spoken to every individual involved or affected and thus can't be sure they "identify" or "identified" "with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

If you were to go to a country where you don't speak the language and thus couldn't communicate with anyone, you would never once think of or describe any of the thousands of female adults you'd see on the streets and in crowded public places like airports, city squares and bazaars as women? If pressed, you'd insist that all of them must be referred to the way you said I must referred to, namely as

men or nonbinary people

??? And you'd tell yourself that the reason you are doing this is to avoid being disrespectful??

If a person didn't identify as a woman I wouldn't call them one, no. That would be disrespectful.

What is disrespectful in my view is your arrogant, high-handed decreeing that not a single one of the billions of adult human females currently alive on planet earth and all the billions who have walked the earth previously cannot be referred to as women unless they/we all have made declarations - and declarations that you have personally heard or read, too - that they/we identify with the second-class position of women in human societies and also with all the sexist, misogynistic cultural associations - in other words regressive sex stereotypes - that men have invented to oppress, dehumanize, restrict and hobble the female sex. And which today's QT advocates like you now arrogantly insist we all must "identify with" or else you will deny us the name/word that for millennia has described us.

The dictatorial behavior and stealing of what does not belong to you that you try to pretty up and pass off as respect and politeness is, in my opinion, simply male arrogance, male dominance, male entitlement, male appropriation and pure unadulterated misogyny repackaged as QT.

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

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

This just proves my point about you not understanding what parts of speech are.

A thesaurus is not just for adjectives! A thesaurus lists synonyms for all types of words: nouns, verbs, pronouns, prepositions, articles/determiners, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions, interjections.

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

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

Just like you clearly don't understand parts of speech and how they function and work together in sentences and phrases, you don't seem to understand what cognitive ability means. You appear to take it as a given that everyone has the same exact mental faculties, ability to make sense of the world and thought processes as adults with normal-range IQs, fully developed brains and no impairments or neuro-atypical conditions. This is not true. Two-year olds don't think like adults do. People with dementia don't have the same mental powers as people without dementia. People with autism absorb information like everyone else, but it doesn't register in quite the same way.

Also, even those of us who have full mental capacities aren't firing on all cylinders 24/7/365. What any of us will take in from the world around us when we are are wide awake, on the ball and unstressed is very different to what we will absorb from the exact same input when we're drunk, stoned, drop-dead tired, or asleep - or when under great stress.

You said that

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

When I disagreed and claimed this is not true for the majority of female adults on earth, you said I was wrong based on your own personal experience. You said

In my experience it is a tiny minority

Who think the way I believe most adult human females regard ourselves.

My questions remain: what makes you think you are an expert on how the world's adult human females think about ourselves and see ourselves?

Why do you get to tell legions of the world's adult human females that we can't be considered women anymore?

Like most trans people I believe in self identification when it comes to gender and as such would never tell anyone that they can't use a particular word to describe their gender identity. That said, the word "woman" is culturally linked to these sexist and regressive ideas

But you've just told me that the word for any adult human female who does not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"

would be men or nonbinary people

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

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

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

Earlier you said:

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

Now you say:

I wasn't talking about sex except to mention that there is a cultural association between womanhood (by the definition that I gave) and the female sex.

So although in the space of two sentences you mentioned sex three times and the female sex twice, your new line is that you weren't talking about sex any of those times. Like I said before: you speak/type genderist gibberish.

It seems like you are conceptualising gender identity in a different way to me however if you think that the majority of female people feel this way. In my experience it is a tiny minority.

I am saying I don't believe most of the world's adult human females have gender identities. Go to some maternity wards, senior centers, refugee camps and ask.

By the way since you invoked your experience, what is your experience exactly? How many female people have you interviewed about their self-concepts? In what continents, countries and regions do they live? What is the range of their birth dates?

When exactly did you do all this talking to adult human females of the world that enables you to speak so authoritatively about the inner lives of billions of us?

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

No they don't. The fact that you claim this about 2 year-olds shows you have very little or zero experience raising or working with babies, toddlers and kids - and you know nothing about child psychology and early child development.

it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

How is it possible for people with zero or very little cognitive ability to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"? Just parsing that hard-to-follow phrasing and trying to make sense out of it does my head in - and I'm operating with at a pretty high level of cognitive ability. How can wee bairns and people with limited IQ, dementia and language processing difficulties possibly pull off all the mental gymnastics you say everyone not only does engage in, but which we all must engage in so as to deserve a name?

How can 2 year olds possibly have a good enough understanding of social class and the be familiar enough with the broad sweep of cultural associations even within their own culture to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" or the male sex for that matter? Have you ever spent time with any 2 year olds?

That said, why do you think it would be a bad thing for people [of the adult human female type] to be "left out" in this regard? There's nothing wrong with not being a woman.

The word woman has a meaning: adult human female. But those with deep-seated animus and covetousness towards adult human females have decided to appropriate the word for us and to totally redefine it. In your definition, a woman is anyone of either sex who identifies with the misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes that generations of women (the adult human female kind) fought so hard against. And according to your definition, anyone who does not identify with those misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes can't possibly be a woman. On the contrary, you say that all adult human females on earth who do not identify with the misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes that you insist all women must identify with

would be men or nonbinary people

I agree that "there is nothing wrong with not being a woman." What I think is wrong here is people with very sexist, regressive ideas and authoritarian mindsets who have not a clue about what a woman is suddenly coming along and telling all the adult human females on planet earth that we longer can be called women unless we identify with the very same sexist stereotypes that men have invented over millennia to dehumanize, limit, hobble and lord it over us. The arrogant, domineering, supercilious, colonialist sleight-of-hand thievery you are engaged in strips the half the adults on earth of our name.

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

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

I stand by what I said earlier too. Namely this:

I don't think you understand what parts of speech are, their function and how they work together in sentences/phrases.

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

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

First you say

We call certain people trans women because as well as being women, they are trans.

Trans woman != woman. Trans woman is a sub category of woman, a woman who is also trans.

Then when challenged you come back with

What "woman" means isn't actually relevant to this post at all.

Really? Do you truly think anyone is persuaded by your claim that the meanings of words aren't relevant? Especially on a thread where the OP asked:

So why are we calling certain people trans women?

As for this claim of yours:

You seem to be using the word trans as though it's a modifier on the word woman, when in fact it's an adjective describing a person who, in the particular example you are referencing is also a woman

I don't think you understand what parts of speech are, their function and how they work together in sentences/phrases.

Also, right before making that claim you yourself said:

We call certain people trans women because as well as being women, they are trans.

In that sentence you used "trans" as a modifier of women - twice.

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

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

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

So now sex is dependent on, or synonymous with, social class? LOL. Oh c'mon, mate. This is just more genderist gibberish. Misogynistic genderist gibberish that I find personally offensive to boot. I bet your mum and gran(s) would find it insulting too.

Since your definition makes being a woman entirely dependent on "identifying with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex," it leaves out vast swathes of the female human inhabitants of earth of adult age who do not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex." Which is probably the majority of the world's adult human females. Not very "inclusionary" of you.

What word would you use for those of us who are adult humans of the female sex but who do not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"? Or don't we deserve a name that describes us and only us?

Your definition is not just exclusionary, it's incredibly ableist. Because it automatically leaves out all the world's adult human females who for various reasons - very low IQ, limited language processing skills, brain injuries, dementia - are incapable of the kinds of cognition required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" - whatever the hell that bunch of misogynistic malarkey is supposed to mean.

At the moment, there are roughly 4 million adult human females in the USA alone with Alzheimer's disease. Most of them are mothers and grandmothers. But due to the nature of AD, they do not have the ability, or they are fast losing the ability, to engage in the kinds of cognition and mental gymnastics required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex." In fact, the vast majority would not have a clue about what your genderist gibberish is actually supposed to mean. According to you, these adult human females can't be called women - but males like Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine must be.

FYI: sex and being female aren't specific to humans. Other animals and plants are sexed, too. Female has a meaning that extends across all sexually reproducing species. A doe is a deer of the female sex. A mare is a horse of the female sex. A hen is a chicken of the female sex. A jenny is a donkey of the female sex. A woman is a human adult of the female sex.

Also: when you speak of "social class" and "culturally associated," how are others supposed to know exactly which societies and cultures you mean? And how are we supposed to know at what points/periods in history you're referring to? Fact is, social class is very different in places like the USA, the UK, Belgium, India, Russia, China. Moreover, within longstanding societies, the numbers, kinds and nature of social classes have changed over time. Culture varies markedly from place to place too, and cultures themselves change over time.

Leftist communist transbians in action by NoMorePatriarchy in GenderCritical

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

It's a lyric and name of a song by John Lennon AND Yoko Ono.

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

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

For instance a PPRI study found that 51% of men support requiring transgender individuals to use bathrooms corresponding to their assigned sex at birth, compared to 40% of women.

LOL, that PPRI survey you keep trotting out is now three years out of date.

Since early June 2019 when that survey was done, a great deal of information about the negative consequences of opening up female spaces to males based on male gender identity claims has come to light. This information has caused many people who want to "be kind" to people who identify as trans to have second thoughts about the wisdom of throwing all caution to the winds and granting males unfettered access to female spaces so long as they claim to "identify as" or "feel like" women/girls. I don't know exactly where public opinion on the matter of restroom access is now, but I know that a poll from three years ago can't be relied to reflect current thinking.

According to a poll, 59% of men support banning trans women in women's sports compared tp 46% of women. 29% of men oppose banning trans women in women's sports compared to 34% of women.

This second poll you cite is a Politico/Morning Consult online poll done March 6-8, 2021 - a full year before Lia Thomas won a women's NCAA national swimming title at the USA championships. Again, public opinion - and the views of sports policy makers - seem to have changed substantially since then.

A Gallup poll of Americans done two months later, in mid-May 2021, found that 72% of men and 53% of women thought that athletes should play in the sports category of their "birth gender," which presumably was taken to mean their sex.


Another poll conducted in June 2022 by The Washington Post and University of Maryland found only 3 in 10 Americans think males who identify as transgender should be allowed to participate in girls' and women's sports. A majority, 55%, said they were opposed to allowing males who identify as girls compete in girls' high school sports. Nearly 60% said they opposed to allowing males who identify as women compete in women's sports at the college and professional levels.


One of the reasons for the disparities in the figures is the way the questions are worded and framed/asked.

Women currently participating in elite-level sports are even more strongly opposed to allowing males to use gender identity claims to horn in on female competition.

In April 2022, the Cyclistes Professionnels Associés (CPA), which represents men’s and women’s professional bike riders, said it had sought the opinions of its female members before making representations to cycling’s governing body, the UCI, about "trans inclusion" policy.

“The CPA women ran a survey a few months ago and over 92 per cent did not agree with [male] trans athletes racing in the women’s peloton,” Marion Clignet, the French triple world champion track cyclist, is quoted as saying by The Telegraph.


The new transgender and XY DSD inclusion policy recently released by FINA and its supporting documents show the views agreed upon by world-renowned experts that FINA assembled and consulted over the past year in the areas of sports performance, sports physiology, sports law and policy, and international human rights law and policy. FINA also consulted hundreds of swimmers, and paid particular attention to the views of female swimmers - a very different tack taken to the approach of the IOC, which has repeatedly frozen female athletes out of the involvement in decisions about opening up women's competition to males based on their gender identity claims.

I suggest you take the time watch FINA's video presentation explaining its new policy to find out more. It's an interesting presentation. From circa 1:46: https://youtu.be/tiujU5nUq6A?t=6399

As for this:

Last year my sister and I (both cis women) overheard our dad misgender Rachel Levine while talking on the phone with his brother. As soon as the conversation was finished, we called him out on it and insisted he use "she" for Rachel Levine. He kept telling us that Rachel Levine is a "he" and is a man. My dad is a white, straight, cis, able-bodied and middle class male, basically he fits the definition of "privileged" in the social justice context

Oh c'mon. That anecdote you have told several times on various threads about how you and your sister once overheard your father call Rachel Levine "he" and a man and then you bravely "called him out on it" and insisted he use language that you dictated is just pointless virtue signaling which simply goes tp show that you and your sister eavesdrop on your dad's private phone convos, then hector him like scolding busybodies and authoritarian, finger-wagging speech-controllers. Viewing this exchange from the perspective of a parent, I think it would have been reasonable and appropriate for your dad to have responded to your attempts to educate him and get him to "do better" by calling "time out" and telling you and your sister to STFU, MYOB, show some courtesy and respect and get off his back.

But anyways, even if there were a point to that story which could be interpreted as advancing and bolstering your arguments, it still would be totally beside the point on this particular thread.

Another Argument for why transgenderism is real and valid by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

Actually, I reject the idea of "feminized" neurons - I was just using the terminology of the theory we're discussing.

The general points I was trying to make are:

1) Pregnant women's bodies don't manufacture hormones in haphazard and unpredictable ways wholly unrelated to and independent of the embryos/fetuses they are gestating at the time.

2) The hormones that pregnant women's bodies make do not get dumped in undiluted, unchanged form directly into the circulatory systems of fetuses - which is a key part of what would have to happen according to the theory that says some male and female fetuses end up developing all the anatomy and physiology customary for their sex yet somehow also develop brains/neurons/nervous systems of the opposite sex.

3) The idea that males might end up with a "feminized" brain because of exposure to too much estrogen during gestation in utero assumes that male brains are not accustomed to, and built to handle, estrogen and therefore when exposed to "excess" estrogen in utero, they end up "feminized." When in fact, male brain development and activity in utero - and throughout the rest of life - seem to be heavily dependent on and shaped by estrogen - a hormone that males naturally make in various parts of their bodies (testes, adrenals, fat and the brain). The main way that males make estrogen is by turning some of the testosterone originally produced in their testes into estrogen through aromatization (the same process that takes place in the placenta during pregnancy with a female fetus to turn the mother's elevated testosterone into estrogen).

There is a complex interplay between the blood chemistry, and the hormones, of pregnant women and fetuses; but each fetus makes its own endogenous sex hormones from its own gonads (ovaries or testes) and its own adrenal glands and those internally-made hormones (and the fetuses own genetics) are the dominant drivers of sex development. In other words, fetuses are not mere repositories that maternal hormones are poured into. In fact, fetuses are not mainly repositories for maternal hormones at all.

How a fetus develops in terms of sex appears to be primarily and most strongly affected and determined by the endogenous hormones that each fetus makes by and for itself - along with the other aspects inherent to the fetus itself, such as whether it has male or female DNA in each cell, whether it has male or female hormone receptors and physiology, and the fetus's own genetic profile/DNA, which is different to the genetic profile/DNA of the mother.

There is no evidence that if/when the ovaries, adrenals and fat of pregnant women's bodies make hormones that are atypical for pregnant women carrying a fetus of either sex that this leads to atypical physical or psychological development in the fetus.

A maternal hormone "imbalance" such as low progesterone might lead a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage. Higher than usual maternally-generated testosterone has been shown to be linked to premature birth and smaller-than-usual, low birthweight babies - this is because high testosterone (especially chronically as in PCOS) diminishes the elasticity of the uterus, reducing its ability expand to typical full-size in the latest weeks of pregnancy. But there is no evidence whatsoever that maternal hormones that are atypical, imbalanced, or go up in down in various combinations during fetal development somehow end up inside fetuses where they cause "surges," "spikes" and "washes" of opposite-sex hormones to rain down on the fetal brain cells, leading the fetus to develop a brain-body mismatch that will evince many years later.

But assuming just for the sake of argument that a male baby could be born with a "feminized" brain because his mother had hinky hormones when he was developing in utero, then yes I would think the impact of what happened to that child in utero would definitely be largely or entirely counteracted by the fact that in the first year of life all male babies go through male mini puberty of infancy, a 4-7 months-long period when their testes pump out huge amount of testosterone and their entire bodies including their brains are bathed/steeped in all that T. As anyone who has ever been around babies knows, the development that they undergo week by week after birth is really dramatic - and post-natal development in infancy and early childhood is at least as important as pre-natal development, in fact probably more so.

Another Argument for why transgenderism is real and valid by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

It occurs in prenatal development when the nervous system starts to develop - it can be affected by raised hormones in the mother's blood (testosteron for XX ferus and estrogene for XY fetus) and the brain will start developing as it should for opposite sex. (also the neuronal connection for your "gender" will be performed - idk how to describe it better in english im not native english speaker sorry).

This is hogwash. The med student who wrote the passages you quoted seems to think that during gestation in utero pregnant women pump out sex hormones willy-nilly that then pass directly to the embryo/fetus unmediated. This isn't the case.

The extent to which the mix and levels of hormones made by pregnant women's gonads and glands get into a developing embryo or fetus and match up to the hormones inside an embryo/fetus is unclear. For obvious reasons, getting samples of human embryonic or fetal blood is so risky that it's unethical and just not done, so there is much that science and medicine don't know about the relationship of maternal and fetal hormones in humans.

But the sex hormones that most heavily influence the development of human fetuses appear to be those made by each fetus's own internal organs - mainly the fetal gonads, which are either testes or ovaries, and develop at 7-8 weeks post-fertilization, and the fetal adrenal glands. If anything, it appears that the hormones a fetus makes from its own gonads and adrenals have at least as much - or even more influence - on the mother's hormones than the hormones made by the mother's own ovaries and glands have on the fetus.

Yes, of course a human fetus is exposed to circulating maternal hormones to some extent. But it's not like whatever hormones the mother's ovaries, adrenals and fat cells pump go directly into a developing fetus. This is because of the role of the placenta, the special endocrine organ grown during pregnancy that connects the circulatory systems of the mother and the embryo/fetus and serves as a protective interface between the two.

The placenta does many different things to insure that an embryo/fetus won't be harmed by things the mother ingests or is exposed to that get into her blood.

One role of the placenta is to prevent the mother's immune system from responding to the offspring she is gestating as though it didn't belong the way transplant recipients customarily mount rejection responses to transplanted organs. BTW, a sex hormone seems to play the most important role in suppressing the maternal immunologic response to fetal antigens - but that sex hormone is neither testosterone or estrogen; rather, it's progesterone.

Another role of the placenta is to protect female fetuses from exposure to maternal testosterone. A fact few genderists seem aware of is that pregnant women don't just have naturally elevated levels of estrogen, they have have naturally elevated testosterone. The normal range for women age 18 and up is 0.02-1.68 nmol/L. Pregnancy range is 1.7-4.2 nmol/L. When a woman is pregnant with female offspring, the placenta converts the high levels of the natural T in the mother's blood into estrogen through the process of aromatization.

During fetal development, aromatase converts androgens to estrogens in the placenta, which is the link between the mother's blood supply and the fetus. This conversion in the placenta prevents androgens from directing sexual development in female fetuses. After birth, the conversion of androgens to estrogens takes place in multiple tissues.


In the extremely rare event that there is an aromatase deficiency in the placenta, a female fetus will become androgenized. Aromatase deficiency used to be considered a disorder incompatible with life, but a few cases of the deficiency have been reported in children and adolescents. However, aromatase deficiency in females leads to a disorder of sex development in which the sex organs are visibly affected. The med student who wrote the passages you quoted seems to think that the excess testosterone could and would affect a female fetus's developing brain and nervous system without affecting the development of the genitals. But this isn't the case.

The role of the placenta in regulating the hormones a male fetus will get from the mother is less clear. However, studies of women babies in parts of the world with very high pollution and environmental toxins suggests the human placenta is capable of protecting male fetuses from exposure to harmful environmental chemicals and hormone disruptors that mimic estrogens and could interfere with normal male development, such as Bisphenol A.

The med school student who wrote the passages also makes the error of thinking that the development and functioning of brains in males in utero and later on in life are entirely dependent on testosterone. But that's not the case.

Male behaviors require both testosterone and estrogen. Circulating testosterone activates the androgen receptor (AR) and is also converted into estrogen in the brain via aromatase. This conversion is the primary source of estrogen to the male brain. It is unclear whether testosterone and estrogen signaling interact to masculinize neural circuits. Using a genetic approach, we show extensive sexual dimorphism in the number and projections of aromatase expressing neurons. The masculinization of these cells is independent of AR but can be induced by either testosterone or estrogen, indicating a role for aromatase in sexual differentiation of these neurons.

Testosterone is required for male behaviors in most vertebrates, including mice and humans. Testosterone mediates its effects by activating AR and male mice mutant for this receptor do not display sexual behavior or aggression (Ohno et al., 1974). Testosterone is essential in newborn and adult male mice for the display of sex specific behaviors such as aggression (Finney and Erpino, 1976; Peters et al., 1972; Wallis and Luttge, 1975). This testicular hormone is thought to masculinize neural circuits in neonatal rodents, and to act upon these pathways in adult males to permit the display of dimorphic behaviors (Phoenix et al., 1959).

Estrogen is also essential for male behaviors. The requirement for estrogen to masculinize behavior seems counter-intuitive as this ovarian hormone is essentially undetectable in the male circulation. All estrogenic steroids are synthesized in vivo from testosterone or related androgens in a reaction catalyzed by aromatase. Aromatase expressing cells in the brain convert circulating testosterone into estrogen, and it is this local estrogen that is thought to control dimorphic behaviors in males (Figure 1A) (MacLusky and Naftolin, 1981; Naftolin and Ryan, 1975). Consistent with a requirement for estrogen in male behaviors, aromatase activity is essential for male behaviors. Mice mutant for aromatase exhibit a profound reduction in male sexual behavior and aggression (Honda et al., 1998; Toda et al., 2001). Similar to testosterone, estrogen is essential in neonates and adults for the display of dimorphic behaviors in males (Finney and Erpino, 1976; McCarthy, 2008; Scordalakes and Rissman, 2004; Toda et al., 2001; Wallis and Luttge, 1975). Estrogen mediates many of its effects by signaling through the estrogen receptors ERα and ERβ, which exhibit overlapping expression patterns, and regulate masculinization of the brain and behavior in a complex, redundant manner (Bodo et al., 2006; Ogawa et al., 1999; Ogawa et al., 2000; Ogawa et al., 2004; Perez et al., 2003; Rissman et al., 1997). The role of a third estrogen receptor, GPR30, in male behaviors is presently unknown (Revankar et al., 2005


Another problem with the med student's theory is that puberty of adolescence is not the first time in a male child's life after his birth that he produces very high levels of testosterone that will reach and presumably impact his brain.

In the first year after birth, male humans also go through male mini puberty of infancy in which for several months their testes produce testosterone in adult amounts. So even if it were true that gender dysphoria results when a male child's brain somehow gets too much maternal estrogen during development in utero, then surely the baby's emergent "girl brain" and nascent opposite-sex gender identity would be counteracted by his brain, neurons and nervous system being flooded by the massive amount of testosterone his testes pump out for months during male mini puberty of infancy. Years before a male child would start developing secondary sex characteristics that the med student's theory says he'd sense as "errors" and would trigger gender dysphoria and a sense of being "in the wrong body," his testicles should already have generated more than enough testosterone for several months in babyhood to completely drown out and stamp out any incipient "feminized neurons" in his brain and any "girl/lady feelz" in his mind once and for all.

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

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

Or we didn't used to until males very recently started using gender identity claims to invad

Can you name one person who's done that, who's not trans and just faking it?

How can anyone tell who is legit trans, if there is such a thing, or just faking it?

But that's beside the point. If there are people who are "true trans," it still wouldn't explain or excuse why males who are "true trans" have to invade girls' and women's sport. There is no reason on earth that I can see why male TPs like Cece Telfer, June Eastwood, Lia Thomas, Rachel McKinnon, Terry Miller, Andraya Yearwood, Meghan Youngren, Laurel Hubbard, Chelsea Wolfe, Emily Bridges, Stephanie Barrett, Sasha Jane Lowerson and the hundreds more like them absolutely must participate in women's and girls' sports.

There are many male TPs who think it's wrong for males to use their gender identities to horn in on female sports. There are many female athletes with trans and NB gender identities who have continued to compete in female sports. Female TPs are not participating in male sports in anywhere near the numbers that male TPs are horning in on female sports. And the few who have entered male sports never, ever win. Most don't place or even make it off the bench. Funny that.

In sports, the only time people are ever allowed to move from one category to another is when they go up into a category in which they will have less advantage, not more. So a 14 year old who's really big and strong and fast can step up to the next age rung and compete with 15 and 16 year olds, but a 14 year old who's small and weak and slow can't step down to compete with the younger kids.

Only male TPs and their allies are demanding that male TPs, and they alone, should be able to use their gender identity claims - real or fake, it doesn't matter - to compete in a category of sport where male TPs have massive physical advantages over all other participants. Only male TPs and their allies are demanding that male TPs be given the right to punch down on, lord it over and unfairly trounce those who are naturally smaller, weaker and slower. Then when girls and women complain, male TPs and their allies turn around and call the girls and women names and say girls and women just need to "try harder."

Please explain how you justify this.

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

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

I mean you think I'm one of those so I'm just speaking against "my own kind"

So do you think that because I am a woman, it entitles me to speak against all women? That because I am a mother, I'm allowed to slag off all women with children? That because I live in certain country, I can cast aspersions on everyone who resides in my country? You get the point, I'm sure.

The only people who have been consistently kind to me are women and trans people.

But making sweeping judgments - good or bad - about entire populations based solely on the small number of people you have interacted with and who have been kind or mean to you personally is never a good idea. I think you need to broaden your horizons and stop seeing life solely through the lens of your own personal experience. Read some biographies. Study some history. Learn about life in other cultures, and other time periods. Thinking about me, me, me all the time is a recipe for misery.

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

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

None of us has control over our DNA or the cards we were dealt

So why stop people from trying to change their cards? Why treat them as if they're always what they were born?

But I don't see you as someone who is just trying to change the cards you were dealt. I see you as someone whose aim is to steal other people's cards - and grab all the poker chips so you can hog them all for yourself too. You are insisting that you and other males like you must be allowed to dictate the rules of the game for everyone in the world, and that you and other males must always win at all costs, even though you know that your winning means untold numbers girls and women all lose.

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

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

Thanks for responding. But since you admit you are "pretty young" and that you have no evidence whatsoever for claiming that there was "a panic about lesbian women in women's locker rooms" in the past, I really have to wonder: how is it that you can so comfortably and confidently say things that malign entire generations of older women? What do you think gives you the right to do this?

Do you think badmouthing entire generations of women like this really helps convince other people that you are a woman yourself, that you know what it's like to be a woman, and you have women's best interests at heart?

One of my favorite people is a lesbian friend of mine and she's wonderful, her and her gf are couple goals (and yes this person knows I'm trans and I've never shamed her for not being attracted to trans people, that would be v rude).

You really think that because you say one of your fave people is a lesbian, and you've never shamed her for not dating or bedding males, it means you're not homophobic against lesbians? Oy vey.

If you want to slag off older generations for climate change, have at it. But please stop spreading total lies about entire generations of older women that paint us all as horrible homophobes who had special hostility towards and were in a panic about lesbians. I actually think earlier generations were generally less homophobic and more accepting of diversity and nonconformity that younger people who've bought into and are peddling gender identity nonsense.

For a picture of what the past was like, watch the movie "Silkwood," based on the true story of anti-nuclear activist Karen Silkwood, who died in 1979 on her way to meet a NY Times reporter with information about nefarious doings in the nuclear waste industry. In the movie, Silkwood, played by Meryl Streep, shares a house with her boyfriend played by Kurt Russell and her best friend, a lesbian named Dolly played by Cher. Neither Silkwood nor her BF or anyone else in the movie has any problem with Dolly being a lesbian. Dolly is presented as a person who is as normal and as quirky as everyone else in the movie. The woman Dolly has a love affair with, a hairdresser played by Diana Scarwid, is like a zillion other "ordinary" women. No one in the film finds them odd or is in a panic about them being around or using women's change rooms. In the 1970s most women had no problem with lesbians. And there were lots of lesbians out and about back then.

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

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

Idk how you can claim that trans women are all dangerous r*posts and then later say there are male people you care about?

Yikes, you really need to learn abut categories and logic.

No one claimed that all TW are dangerous. Or that all males are dangerous.

Women don't want TW in our "safe spaces" because TW are male. Males commit nearly all sex crimes (98%), and the vast majority of those crimes (88%) are committed against females - and one of the consequences of male sex crimes for female people is that we can end up pregnant through rape. Moreover, males are bigger and stronger and faster than females, which makes us very easy prey for the bad guys - sitting ducks.

But even males who don't pose a physical threat to females are usually sexually interested in girls and women and are very very interested in looking at us when we are naked or partially undressed, and generally prying into our private business. Some males are fetishists and pervs. Other males are just pushy. Many males sexually harass and pester girls and women... And all males who stand to pee into toilets end up getting their stinky male urine all over the toilet seats and the floors, which creates a bunch of problems for girls and women since we have to sit to do our business.

So to protect girls and women from male sex assault as well as from unwanted male sexual attention and a variety of other bothersome, unhygienic male behaviors, the rule is to segregate restrooms, locker rooms and places like shelters and prisons by sex. It's easier to keep ALL males out than to have special rules that let some males in based on how nice they are as individuals.

Men and boys raised to respect girls and women have always understood that the best and most efficient way to keep the minority of males who are predatory, dangerous and creepy out of female spaces is to keep ALL males out. They've never had a problem with that.

But now there's this huge group of males who do have a problem with it. They find it outrageous that girls and women desire and traditionally have been allowed to have places where they as males can't enter and aren't wanted. They say they must be allowed into those places, and they don't care how women and girls feel about it. Funny thing is, the males who are demanding they be be allowed to remove girls' and women's right to safe spaces away from males say they "identify as" and "feel like" girls and women themselves. Some say they actually are us like you do.

If males who claim to "identify as" women had any compassion for girls and women, and any understanding of what it's like to be female, then they/you would see how distressing and scary it is to be on the receiving end of the onslaught of male aggression, intrusiveness and abusiveness that TW are dishing out to us on the daily. But it seems to be beyond you.

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

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

I remember being 6 years old and thinking about castrating myself with scissors.

Wow, you were precocious to know all about surgical castration when you were 6! Most kids that age don't understand the significance of testicles yet.

Also, in the retconned standard narrative TW tell of their childhoods, or mothers of trans kids tell, the line is usually that as a little boy so and so wanted to cut his penis off with scissors - or nail scissors in some versions. This is the first time I've heard someone say they wanted to go for the balls.

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

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

Is there some sort of problem with china making pharmaceutical products? It's possible to buy enough estradiol raws to last someone years, so I'm grateful for that backup plan if I can't ever get my medication through the medical system here.

No, no problem. I just was pointing out that you are naive if you think getting stuff from China is somehow avoiding big business and mass manufacturing. You made it sound like TW all are making estradiol from growing your own soybeans in yams in your own yard or buying it from from a craft compounding operation that makes up bespoke formulations from home-grown or artisan ingredients.

Sorry I was never in sports, I guess? I was a band and dance nerd in school

Just because you didn't personally do sports in school means you've never known or noticed any girls or women who did? I've never played American football, basketball or golf, but I've seen quite a few Super Bowls, NBA championships and golf tourneys on TV. I can reel off the names of big sports stars in men's sports that I've never played and never had a chance of playing. I've never competed in the Olympics, but I've watched a lot of Olympics coverage.

Lots of people watch and follow sports they don't do personally. I really don't get this kind of weird world view that you have. Life must be dull if you only pay attention to things that directly affect you personally.

Since you insist you are a woman and you say you have always believed yourself to be female, it seems odd to me that you have so little information and curiosity about female anatomy and physiology. To fill you in: teenage girls and women who do sports have MUCH higher rates of lower limb injuries than males. This is due to physical factors like the changes in ligaments, tendons and muscles over the course of the monthly ovulation-menstruation cycle and the greater Q angle that girls develop as they undergo skeletal growth and their pelvis and hips widen. And it's due to the fact that pretty much all sports training is based on and geared towards male bodies.

Female athletes are at a higher risk for ACL injuries than males. The risk of ACL injuries in female teenage athletes is up to six times higher than in male athletes of the same age, competing in the same sports. The risk of an ACL injury is highest in the 15-19 age groups and among those playing sports such as soccer, volleyball and basketball. The majority of ACL injuries are non-contact injuries resulting from landing from a jump, performing a cutting maneuver, or decelerating suddenly.

One of the biological reasons female athletes are at higher risk is that their hips are wider than males. This characteristic makes them great squatters but puts their Q-angle at a higher degree than males This Q-angle which is about 18 degrees, where as a male’s is about 12 degrees, tends to cause a Valgus position (shown below). Video analysis has shown that during landing, cutting and decelerating movements on occasions when injury occurred, the knee or knees tended to be in (or very close to) full extension; the body’s center of mass was behind and away from the weight bearing limb and the knee was in a valgus position — i.e., with the hip internally rotated and adducted and the tibia externally rotated.


Although the same anatomical and physiological factors that affect girls and women doing sports affect girls and women who dance, in some fields of dance such as traditional ballet the training that girls get starting in childhood is protective:

The increased incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in female athletes, particularly in sports like soccer, led to a similar analysis in dancers. The ACL is one of the four critical stabilizing ligaments in the knee, and an injury to it can be devastating, requiring surgical repair and/or 9-12 months of rehabilitation.

Interestingly, the incidence of ACL injury in female ballerinas is relatively low. At the Harkness Center for Dance Injuries, research showed that the jump training young dancers received in traditional ballet programs reduced their risk of such injuries compared to other female athletes. The emphasis on landing a jump with the balls of the feet first promotes a protective knee bend on impact. Indeed, research in female soccer players concurrently revealed that improper landing technique and a quadriceps/hamstring strength imbalance contributed significantly to their higher incidence of ACL injuries versus males. It is now recommended that female athletes learn how to land from a jump correctly (bending the knees to absorb the shock of landing) and undergo directed hamstring strengthening as part of a standard preventative program.

ACL injuries can and do occur in dancers—they are just at lower risk than other female athletes.


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

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

Males aren't deserving of trust and love

Who the eff do you think you are to tell me that the males in my life whom I know, trust and love aren't deserving of trust and love?

Also, why do you give yourself permission to say things that are openly, blatantly misandrist against all males, but you tell girls and women we are hateful and horrible for wanting to keep males out of a few select spaces and our sports for reasons of safety, privacy, dignity, wellbeing and fairness?

Why are males who want to be women allowed to be wary of other males, but women are not allowed to express the same sentiments? Why are you so adamant about asserting that personal comfort and protection from harm is your right whilst at the same time you are so insistent about denying this same right to girls and women?

You treating me as something I never asked for

Oh grow up. Some of your stock answers make you sound like you're 8. None of us asked to be born. None of us has control over our DNA or the cards we were dealt. Everyone has a cross to bear of some kind. Lots of people on planet earth suffer just as much or far worse than people with gender dysphoria. And you know what- no one gets out of our earthly existence alive, either.

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

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

You going into a women's bathroom is like an able person parking in a disabled parking spot. The disabled parking spot is not to limit you, it is to prevent someone else from being limited by a disability you don't have. The women's restroom is not to limit you, it is an accommodation for people who would otherwise be excluded from society -look up how girls in some parts of the world are not able to go to school during their periods if you don't get why this is necessary.

Well said! Also, derple seems oblivious to the fact that girls and women are not just more physically exposed and vulnerable when we use toilets due to our female anatomy, we are also physically far less likely to be able to fend off or get away from a male attacker than another male is - and when men rape girls and women, a common consequence we have to worry about and deal with is pregnancy. Derple seems to have no idea how much the fear and dread of unwanted pregnancy being forced on us via rape affects the outlook of girls and women.

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

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

Yet you would never say this to lesbian women. And people literally did, there was a panic about lesbian women in women's locker rooms, and it was absurd and homophobic. On what basis should the default be to assume that everyone is transphobic?

No one would ever say this to lesbian women because lesbians are women, FFS. Lesbians don't have dicks and balls. Lesbians don't have the male gaze, male entitlement, male pushiness, male rape mentality, male body strength, speed and power or male hand span, punching power and grip strength. Lesbians don't have form for menacing women, flashing their genitals and masturbating in public places. Lesbians don't have the ability to impregnate, either.

Also, can you please tell me exactly when and where this panic about lesbians in women's locker rooms occurred? I have been using women's locker rooms since I was a little girl in the late 1950s, and I never, ever heard of this or saw any evidence of this panic. Most of the women's locker rooms I have used have been in the USA. However, I have traveled a fair bit, and in my travels I've never seen or heard this either. But all the places I've ever been there have been lesbians around - and my recollection is that the vast majority of girls and women who are not lesbians themselves don't feel discomfort around lesbians, much less "panic."

I don't deny that lesbians have faced a lot of homophobia and discrimination. I know lots of lesbians, have lots of lesbian friends, and I had lesbian great aunts born at the end of the 19th century - so I have some sense of the prejudices that lesbians have experienced. I just have never seen this particular manifestation of it.

Maybe I'm blocking it out, but I honestly don't recall any time in the last nearly 70 years when there was a panic about lesbian women in women's locker rooms. On the contrary, similar to sports, women's locker rooms traditionally have always been a place where women of all sexual orientations got on just fine. One of the best things about the relationship between Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert in the 1970s was that they were fierce rivals on the tennis court, and great pals and sources of mutual support for one another in the locker room - and behind the scenes generally. Which is how it has always been between lesbians and the majority of straight women in the USA my whole life.

Now that I've wracked my memory, and asked a lot of friends if they recall this panic (including a number of lesbians ranging in ages from their 50s to late 80s), I have to say I really resent young trans activists today claiming there used to be a moral panic amongst women about lesbians in women's locker rooms and other female spaces. I especially resent when male TRAs inform me that this is how things used to be. You are smearing whole swathes of the female population much older than you by telling us we all felt and displayed homophobia towards lesbians that a great many of us did not feel or display. My hunch is that you are projecting your own homophobia and prejudice against lesbians onto entire generations of older women. Please stop. It's sexist and presumptuous of you.

Finally, the way you try to make it seem like TW and lesbians have common cause regarding restrooms and locker rooms is more forced teaming.

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

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

The people I know buy estradiol raws from China, the precursor to the oil-suspended estradiol that is usually prescribed to trans women. It's not really practical to manufacture raws on our own, it's a synthesization process that starts with purple yams or other phytoestrogens.

But you said the hormone formulations TW rely on don't come from Big Pharma. China is Big Pharma. China is the world's single largest supplier of basic chemicals and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) that provide the raw materials for the global pharmaceutical industry. From big industrial factories owned and operated by companies like J & J, Roche, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer, Bristol Meyer, etc to licensed compounding pharmacies to individuals with a chem lab in their garage or a meth lab in their RV - most everyone in the drugs trade nowadays gets their raw materials from China, a country with more than 6000 pharmaceutical companies.

Now China is increasingly focusing on the development and production of finished pharmaceutical products (FPPs), primarily to serve the domestic market - which is the second largest drugs market in the world after the USA - but also with an eye to making FPPs for export. But the new focus on FPPs isn't to supplant China's role as the largest producer of the raw materials for all the makers of FPPs outside of China, it's to supplement it. China wants to keep its position as the main source of APIs and other pharma ingredients as it also produces more and more FPPs.

Today, all of the world's major estrogen products - whether you buy them already in finished form, or as raw materials are made or derived from plants - soybeans or yams - except for Premarin, which still is made from horse urine.

I have a hunch you think that estradiol is the only estrogen women's bodies produce and that "bioidentical estradiol" means the same thing as "natural estradiol." Neither is true. Estradiol is the major estrogen women produce from the ovaries, but it's not the only estrogen we produce.

Also bioidentical estradiol doesn't mean natural; it simply means it has the same molecular structure as the estradiol made by human ovaries. Another name is17β-estradiol.

Everyone produces a bit of estradiol unless they have a condition otherwise.

Yes, this is true. And unless it's coming from ovaries, the most common way that estradiol is made in the human body is by aromatizing either androstenedione into estrone and then converting the estrone into estradiol, or by converting the androstenedione into testosterone and then converting the testosterone into estradiol. The testicles and other sites in the male reproductive tract are a main source of estradiol in males.

Estradiol is produced especially within the follicles of the ovaries, but also in other tissues including the testicles, the adrenal glands, fat, liver, the breasts, and the brain. Estradiol is produced in the body from cholesterol through a series of reactions and intermediates.[10] The major pathway involves the formation of androstenedione, which is then converted by aromatase into estrone and is subsequently converted into estradiol. Alternatively, androstenedione can be converted into testosterone, which can then be converted into estradiol.

The effect of estradiol (and estrogens in general) upon male reproduction is complex.

Estrogens have traditionally been considered female hormones. Nevertheless, the presence of estrogen in males has been known for over 90 years. Initial studies suggested that estrogen was deleterious to male reproduction because exogenous treatments induced developmental abnormalities.

However, demonstrations of estrogen synthesis in the testis and high concentrations of 17β-estradiol in rete testis fluid suggested that the female hormone might have a function in normal male reproduction. Identification of estrogen receptors and development of biological radioisotope methods to assess estradiol binding revealed that the male reproductive tract expresses estrogen receptor extensively from the neonatal period to adulthood.

This indicated a role for estrogens in normal development, especially in efferent ductules, whose epithelium is the first in the male reproductive tract to express estrogen receptor during development and a site of exceedingly high expression. In the 1990s, a paradigm shift occurred in our understanding of estrogen function in the male, ushered in by knockout mouse models where estrogen production or expression of its receptors was not present. These knockout animals revealed that estrogen's main receptor (estrogen receptor 1 [ESR1]) is essential for male fertility and development of efferent ductules, epididymis, and prostate, and that loss of only the membrane fraction of ESR1 was sufficient to induce extensive male reproductive abnormalities and infertility.

This review provides perspectives on the major discoveries and developments that led to our current knowledge of estrogen's importance in the male reproductive tract and shaped our evolving concept of estrogen's physiological role in the male.


The only time I have ever heard Q angles used in the context of trans people is by this infamous Twitter user bevvie112,

But the fact that you have never heard about Q angles anywhere else is a reflection on you, not on anyone else. Matters like Q angles come up in many discussions entirely separately to discussions about trans. Not everything is about you and the trans lobby.

Women and our bodies existed and we had issues in sports and other situations due our Q angles long before the current-day trans movement got going and long before males started using gender identity claims to horn in on women's and girls' sports. You seem to think the only reason GC women or anyone else would know about biology, human sex differences and female physiology in particular is so we can refute the claims made by QT and TRAs. Again, not everything is about TW or in reference to TW.

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

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

Well trans people are not going away, I don't know exactly what you hope to accomplish. If I'm going to get thrown in jail for taking hrt or wearing a bra someday then it'd be pretty clear to me who's in the right and wrong.

No one is saying trans people to go away. Women are saying that we don't want males in female spaces and sports no matter how the males claim to identify and no matter what alterations males have made to their bodies and appearance.

It's not personal. Most of us have male friends and relatives we love dearly. Some of us have male children. But we still don't want even the males we love and trust- and we know wouldn't hurt a fly or behave like pervs and predators - in women's spaces and sports.

In certain women's spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, fitting rooms, breastfeeding lounges, women's homeless shelters, some prisons, etc exception is made for male infants and young boys who are in the company of their mothers or other female carers. But even there we draw a very strict line. The fact that women and girls don't want to have to deal with our intimate bodily needs and get undressed in front of our male friends and with our tween, teen and adult sons, our fathers, uncles, fathers-in-law etc doesn't mean we hate them.

And in some cases, there is no allowance even for very young boys. We don't allow boys who are not as good as other boys in male sports to play girls' sports. Or we didn't used to until males very recently started using gender identity claims to invade and dominate in girls' and women's sports.

And please enough with the drama. No one is going to throw you in jail for taking exogenous hormones or wearing a bra.

The underlying issue here is that you seem to be unable to deal with women saying "no" to you. You think women saying "no" is the same as us saying we hate you. You interpret women setting boundaries as an expression of personal animus directed at you.

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

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

Then why do studies state histologically identical? Different cells could present the same tissue.

Studies are specific. The studies you cited were about what HCPs and scientists see when they use medical imaging to look at body parts. In the case of the papers you linked to, the imaging was of human breast tissue.

There are many, many studies done using microscopes to look at cells. There's vast numbers of studies and research papers on the ways cells behave. For example, the papers you cited were written to tell HCPs what tissue anomalies to look out for when reading breast scans. Whereas if you looked up breast cancer, you'd find a lot of papers about the behaviors of the cells in breast cancer.

If you search "human breast cancer" and "human breast cancer cells" you'll come up with different results. However, many research papers will deal with both tissues and cells because tissues are made of cells, and in cancer there is a problem with cellular growth and replication. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929267/

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

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

Pregnancy for trans women is actively being worked on and will eventually be a thing

Oh no my kidneys don't pass /j

Huh? How on earth will any TW be able to sustain a pregnancy without female kidney function? No offense, but you seem utterly clueless about what pregnancy involves.

female Q angles

Lol don't tell me you read that ridiculous transvestigation stuff which is literally the only place I see this term used.

Female Q angles are very important to those of us who do or did sports and are female, and who have coached or given sports instruction to female people. Female Q angles are a main reason teen girls and women are especially vulnerable to certain kinds of injuries in sports. My own female Q angles are a main reason I needed surgery in my 20s to correct injuries done to my knees from skiing and running in my youth.

Female Q angles are pretty important in human labor and childbirth too. The scorn and contempt you show regarding female Q angles makes you seem like not just a misogynist, but like a raving MRA. Do you show your own mother and gran such disrespect?

I dunno what "transvestigation" is - never heard of it.

Also everything you said about organs is just averages?

Yes, the stuff I said about organs are just averages. But there are no overlaps between the male and female averages I mentioned. In other words, when I said that male hearts and lungs are 25-38% and 10-12% larger and more powerful than the same organs in females, the bottom on of the male average is still 25% and 10% above the top of the female average.

I have faith that we'll figure out how to alter a lot of those in time, but I'm mainly dysphoric about stuff on the outside.

I think you would benefit a great deal if you considered why your unhappiness is mainly "about stuff on the outside." I think you might feel a lot less "dysphoric" if you stopped focusing and fixating on surface and paid more attention to substance.

Also big pharma formulations, u know a lot of dosing is community sourced right? A ton of us are obvi very invested in what we're taking and often it's us telling doctors because many just don't know the standards or the standards are, well, substandard. The actual hormone I take is bioidentical to what's produced by the body

Where are the ingredients coming for the "community sourced" hormone formulations you say you and other TW take? Please detail the sourcing and processes that go into their manufacture. Trace the supply chain from start to finish.

The actual hormone I take is bioidentical to what's produced by the body

How do you know? And to whose body exactly are you speaking of when you say it's "biodentical to what's produced by the body"?

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

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

testosterone could very well allow some to compete against cis men in many sports.

We know this isn't true because of widespread doping that's occurred in sports over many decades. The GDR in particular ran a program in the 1960s, 70s and 80s in which large numbers of female athletes took exogenous testosterone regularly throughout their tween, teen and adult years. The androgenized female athletes won all the top prizes and broke records in many women's events such as Olympic swimming, but they never came close to performing anywhere near the levels of the elite males in their sports.

Florence Griffith Joyner was believed to have been doping on androgens when she set her world records in women's sprints in the 1980s. For 33 years, no female broke her records in the 100m or 200m. But since the year 2000 alone, more than 3,600 males have run faster than her 100m record.


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

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

It's called milk you know.

Y'all literally believe we're disgusting abominations huh?

No it's not milk. Not everything that comes out of a nipple is milk. Both males and females can have all sorts of discharge from the nipples that need evaluation by a HCP.

Nipple discharge is the commonly-used medical term. There's nothing disgusting about it - that's your word choice, not mine. People of both sexes who have nipple discharge are human beings in need of medical evaluation. You're the one equating having nipple discharge with being "disgusting abominations," not me.

Nipple discharge refers to any fluid that seeps out of the nipple of the breast.

Nipple discharge during pregnancy and breast-feeding is normal. Nipple discharge happens less commonly in women who aren't pregnant or breast-feeding. It may not be cause for concern, but it's wise to have it evaluated by a doctor to be sure.

Men who experience nipple discharge under any circumstances should be evaluated.

One or both breasts may produce a nipple discharge, either spontaneously or when you squeeze your nipples or breasts. Nipple discharge may look milky, clear, yellow, green, brown or bloody.

Discharge that isn't milk comes out of your nipple through the same ducts that carry milk. The discharge can involve a single duct or multiple ducts. The consistency of nipple discharge can vary — it may be thick and sticky or thin and watery.


In males especially, nipple discharge needs to be investigated urgently. Because it's often a sign of cancer.

Fluid leaking from one or both nipples is called nipple discharge. Discharge from a man's breast is not normal and should always be checked by a doctor.

Nipple discharge may be a symptom of an infection, a side effect of a medicine, or maybe a symptom of breast cancer.

Nipple discharge occurs when fluid leaks out of your nipple. Sometimes it just happens, and sometimes it happens only when you squeeze your nipple. It can happen in both of your nipples or only one. The color and consistency of the discharge depends on what’s causing it. Nipple discharge in a man should always be evaluated by a doctor.

When he is born, a man’s breasts contain the same tissue and milk ducts as a woman’s, but because they are exposed to male hormones instead of female hormones during puberty, they become mostly fat instead of growing bigger. Some of the tissue and milk ducts are left though, so many of the causes of nipple discharge are the same in men and women.

Nipple discharge doesn’t happen very often in men. When it does happen, it’s very important that you see your doctor because it may be a sign that you have breast cancer.


Fluid leaking from one or both nipples is called nipple discharge. Discharge from a man's breast is not normal and should always be checked by a doctor. Nipple discharge may be a symptom of an infection, a side effect of a medicine, or maybe a symptom of breast cancer.

Treatment depends on what is causing the nipple discharge. You may need more tests to find out the cause.


Lots of women have had discharge coming from our nipples that we've had to have checked out by a doctor. This happens even to breastfeeding mothers. Because when women breastfeed for any length of time, it's common to get cracked nipples that bacteria can enter and to develop at least one breast infection as a result.

Heck, you know that men have lactated before right? Without any of the hormonal interventions that would make it way easier for a trans woman to.

No, I don't know that men have lactated before, LOL. I do know, however, that in the 19th and 20th centuries, some white Western travel writers and students of anthropology told some anecdotes about "exotic" peoples in far away lands were some men provided comfort for their babies by holding them to their bare chests and the babies sucked on their nipples. And the tellers of these tales decided to describe the men in these few stories as lactating and breastfeeding. But that doesn't mean the men actually were lactating.

Babies are endowed with a strong urge to suck - and as a result, they suck on lots of things: fingers, clothing, pacifiers, bibs, long hanks of hair, the corner of a washcloth or towel - their own hands and fingers, and even their own toes. Given the chance, babies will suck on their father's nipples when snuggled up against their naked chests. My kids did that with their father. It doesn't mean the men in these cases are lactating and nursing. Just as when a baby sucks on a pacifier, it doesn't mean the pacifier is issuing milk and providing nutrition and immunity.

BTW, if men could lactate and breastfeed, I'd be all for it. The father of my children would have loved to have breastfed - and like many women, I happily would have let him share the job of breastfeeding, or take it over entirely.

because when we do anything that's totally normal for a mother to do it's abuse just because we're trans I forgot about that detail x(

It's not normal for a mother to write articles or go on social media bragging that the first time we held our newborns in our arms and put them to our breasts, we experienced the greatest sexual arousal of our lives. I've heard and read lots of women discuss their experiences giving birth and putting baby to breast - and I have never, ever heard or read any say it gave them the female equivalent of a raging boner. I have only heard and read this sort of thing from TW.

At any rate, please stop being so cavalier about the breastfeeding of human newborns. The survival, health and emotional wellbeing of innocent infants is at issue here. You're really not doing your side any favors by showing that you couldn't care less about the newborns whose health and wellbeing are being put at risk by the TW you extoll - all for the purpose of providing selfish TW with validation and affirmation of their gender identities, and sexual thrills after their female partners have gone through the arduous, draining and often terrifying process of human labor and childbirth.

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

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

there are literally forums where trans women have figured out how to do so. There have been trans women who have breastfed.

No, some TW have taken drug regimens to cause them to develop some kind of nipple discharge while their wives were pregnant. A couple of these TW say they pumped the nipple discharge out, stored it, and later put it into bottles and forced the bottles into the mouths of hungry newborn babies who being babies with no other choice, ended up sucking the nipple discharge down. Some TW have said they put their newborn babies to their nipples and for a few moments their helpless newborn babies sucked on their nipples and in the process presumably ingested some of whatever the discharge coming out of the nipples was.

One TW who was written up in a medical case report claimed to have fed a newborn from the TW's breasts exclusively for 6 weeks - and that the baby thrived, and the baby's pediatrician heartily approved. But the doctors who wrote up the case report were gender clinic doctors with no medical expertise in obstetrics, postpartum maternity, neonatal care or lactation - and apparently no personal life experience with, or even a clue about, the care and tending of babies, either. The doctors who wrote up the case report never saw TW's baby, spoke to the baby's mother, or checked with the baby's pediatrician. For all they knew, there might not have been any baby or pregnant wife at all.

But a key fact about all these stories of supposed medical miracles is that NO scientific analysis was done of the fluid that came out of the nipples of the TW in any of the cases. Therefore, there is no evidence at all of what exactly was in the nipple discharge. The nipple discharge could have been simply pus. Most definitely it was full of the heavy-duty drugs the TW had been ingesting to stimulate nipple discharge - one of which is a drug explicitly barred in the USA for use by breastfeeding women because of the negative impacts on the health of the children. Negative impacts which the FDA says can include heart failure and death.

But whatever was oozing out of the nipples of the TW in those real or apocryphal cases, I would bet my house that it was neither colostrum nor breastmilk.

If there were any chance the nipple discharge of these TW were breastmilk or colostrum, then surely the TW and their doctors would have arranged for lab analysis to prove once and for all that it was. After all, lab analysis is not difficult or costly to do. It's done all the time nowadays.

For many years, milk banks have been testing donor milk for pathogens and to ascertain it contains the customary and necessary nutrients https://milkbank.org/faq/

A number of commercial labs now also provide of at-home kits that make getting an analysis of breastmilk easy as pie.



Given how easy it is to do a thorough analysis of breast milk and all other kinds of nipple discharge, don't you find it curious that no one bothered to do it in these cases? After all, proving that what issued from the breasts of TW in these cases was colostrum and breastmilk identical to what women make - and proving that it was totally sufficient to meet the nutritional and immunity needs of newborns - would be a huge win for the QT and TRA side. It would also give TW the kind of gender validation and affirmation that the T community seeks, holds so dear and is always demanding that others provide (or else). So it seems rather telling that no one bothered to do any lab analysis. Since TP and their doctors put so much faith in the wonders of modern medical science, it's odd that taking a sample to a lab never occurred to a single person involved in any of these tales.

Also, just for the record, many people believe that the TW who claim they have breastfed their newborns actually were engaging in clearcut abuse of the babies involved. None of the TW who have engaged in this activity and have written about it or spoken to the press about it, or have been written up as medical case reports, said they were motivated by wanting to do what's best for the child. On the contrary, all said they did it for personal gratification, "the experience" and "validation" and "affirmation" of their gender identities and their "femininity." Moreover, one TW who wrote about the experience for The Stranger bragged very openly that "she" found it very sexual arousing - the biggest turn-on of "her" life, in fact - and encouraged other TW to do it for the sexual thrills. As a result, many women feel this novel form of newborn "child care" that TW have invented constitutes not just child abuse, but child sex abuse too.

In response to me saying,

there are still many differences at the cellular level

Your response is

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical

Really? How can the tissue be identical when tissue is made up of cells?

what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

Okay, then. But can you share exactly what you mean when you say your receptors let your "breasts be breasts"?

BTW, perhaps it's my twisted mind, but the phrase "let breasts be breasts" immediately reminded me of the oft-heard expression, "boys will be boys."

Anyways, no one GC would dispute that males have breasts. Lots of men have sizable breasts - just go visit any beach and you'll see. We just say there are functional differences between male and female breasts. Just as there are functional differences between the breasts of a woman who has never had a baby and a woman who has, and there are especially marked differences between the breasts of a woman who has recently given birth and one who has not.

In fact, there are marked differences in women's breasts over the course of our lives, and depending on our childbearing status. My own breasts are very different now than they were at 18 and 35. When I was pregnant and breastfeeding, my breasts were different to how they were before then and the way they've been since I weaned. Now that I'm past menopause age, my breasts aren't what they once were looks-wise, either. I have a hunch that when it comes to meeting male standards of what breasts should look like to be considered sexually attractive and "hot and sexy" by men and boys, your breasts probably fit the bill far, far better than mine.

GC women also say that when male human beings take hormone formulations that result in them developing visible breasts that the whole world can see with the naked eye, and which might look similar or identical to the breast tissue of some women when viewed in medical imaging, it still doesn't make them women.

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

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

This article explains some differences,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5010345/ Such as the distinct lack of lobules. There is no evidence that estrogen causes the formation of lobules. There are mountains of evidence that the growth of breast tissue in males with excess estrogen is gynecomastia.

Generally, males do not have lobules. But some males with breast cancer have been found to have partially developed lobules. It's very rare, but it has happened.

One theory is that genetic factors cause the male androgen receptors in the breast tissue of some males to "express" in ways similar to estrogen receptors. Another theory is that during male mini puberty of infancy some male babies either make amounts of estrogen and progesterone that are higher than typical, or they respond to the normal amounts of E and P they make in atypical ways. Yet another theory is that for a time in infancy some males have excess aromatization that causes them to convert some of the massive amounts of T that baby boys produce during male mini puberty of infancy into estrogen. But no one knows.

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

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

Why would excess estrogen cause lobular growth in men with gender identity and regular gyno in men without it?

Good question. Maybe it's the head tilt, the pronouns insisted upon, or way the way the breast tissue bounces when going up and down stairs. TW frequently say on social media that the bouncing of their breast tissue makes them ecstatic with gender euphoria, but bog standard guys with gynecomastia are far less thrilled by all the jiggling their own breast tissue does.

Then again, the explanation could also be that the claims being made here are simply not true.

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary, it usually does not differentiate and undergo lobule formation unless exposed to increased concentrations of endogenous or exogenous estrogen.

  • The Differences between Male and Female Breast Cancer, 2010

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

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

Both the papers you linked to are about the kinds of pathologies that HCPs need to be aware of and look out for when doing imaging of breast tissue of TW who take exogenous estrogen. The fact that some TW who've had breast imaging show "development of ducts, lobules and acini" that on film or on screen appear "histologically identical" to some women doesn't mean they are capable of performing the same function, which is to make milk.

Pseudolactational changes have also been described

Just because the authors of this paper say "pseudolactational changes" in the breast tissue of TW have been "described" by some doctors doesn't mean this breast tissue is lactational tissue. It doesn't mean this tissue has lactated or can lactate. It means the total opposite, in fact. The clue is in the "pseud" part of "pseudolactational." Pseudo means "not genuine; spurious or sham."

Also, the first paper you cite itself says that the development of the specific kinds of tissue in the breasts that has been observed in some TW through imaging, and which you are so focused on, is the kind of development that occurs in females early in puberty, but only early in puberty. The tissue observed in TW has not reached the level of development seen in females who are in the final phase of puberty known as Tanner Stage 5.

Plus, not all breast experts would agree that the sort of tissue development that the HCPs who do breast imaging and who wrote the first paper say they have observed in some TW on exogenous hormone formulations have never been found in bog-standard males who don't take the same sorts of drugs:

Male breast pathology has a similar diversity as is seen in women. Although lobular carcinomas were not thought to occur in men because of the normally absent terminal lobular unit, several reports have identified both in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma.16,100,101 Virtually every histologic entity described in women has occurred in men.

  • "Gynecomastia" in The Breast, 2-Volume Set, Expert Consult Online and Print (Fourth Edition), 2009

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary, it usually does not differentiate and undergo lobule formation unless exposed to increased concentrations of endogenous or exogenous estrogen.

Because of the [usual] lack of lobules in the male breast, lobular carcinoma [in males who don't identify as trans and don't take exogenous estrogens] is very uncommon (1%), but has been reported in the literature.

  • The Differences between Male and Female Breast Cancer, 2010


Another issue is that imaging technology only goes so far and is limited in what it reveals. For example, when I had a concerning mass in one of my breasts, and a tumor in my head, the doctors who treated me guessed what the growths were made of - but they couldn't be sure until they actually took a biopsy of my breast mass, and removed the tumor from head, then sent the tissue to a pathology lab for thorough examination. In the case of both my breast mass and my cranial tumor, the doctors' guesses based on what they saw in the imaging turned out to be wrong. (ETA: these events in my medical history were separate, and did not occur at the same time. The times when I had a tumor in my head that had to be removed surgically and I had a breast mass requiring biopsy were years apart.)

The point is: even though males and females can and do develop breast tissues and pathology that can appear identical when viewed through imaging technology, there are still many differences at the cellular level. For example, the vast majority of the hormone receptors in male breast tissue will be male androgen receptors whilst the majority of the hormone receptors in female breast tissue will be female estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors. Yes, males have estrogen and receptors in their breast tissue too, as they do in other parts of their bodies. Moreover, in males who develop certain breast cancers, many of the male androgen receptors that are predominant in number will "express" in ways that cause them to behave a lot like female estrogen receptors. Yet at the same time, the male receptors that behave somewhat like female receptors will play a different role in male and female breast cancer even when the cancer is of the same type.

Scientific understanding of male and female hormone receptors is still in early stages. But what is clear from human and animal research is that whilst both sexes have androgen receptors, estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors (as well as receptors for other hormones), the ARs, ERs and PRs of males and females are different in nature, location, number, expression and function - and when hormone receptors are affected by genetic mutations, the impact of the same exact mutation on the affected receptors will be different depending on the person's sex.

Finally, the focus on breast development - on what a TW's breast tissue might look like to a casual observer on the street or what it might look like in medical imaging - is beside the point. Although human breasts serve a reproductive purpose that is extremely important, human breasts are still secondary sex characteristics. Lots of women have all sorts of breast anomalies. Lots of women have issues with their breast anatomy that makes it difficult or impossible for them to breastfeed. Lots of women have had one or both breasts removed due to breast cancer. But none of that has any affect on our sex. Many males including a majority of TW tend to see breasts as defining characteristics of women - in fact, many see breasts as women's single most important and most defining characteristic. But women don't see ourselves and each other that way.

The difference between how TW and women regard women's breasts has been illustrated on a number of Mumsnet threads where TW have expressed their belief that women size up and rate one another according to breast size, and that we see women with large breasts as being more genuinely female than women with small or absent breasts. The women of Mumsnet were aghast at this preposterous view.

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

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

What? You can consent to riding a rollercoaster or going skydiving right?

In the USA, to go skydiving with a professional, properly-insured skydiving operation you have to be 18.

Jazz Jennings was 11 when Jazz's parents put the child on "puberty blockers" and 17 when they had Jazz undergo genital surgeries.

The rules for roller coasters vary, but most roller coasters require riders to have reached a certain height. All prohibit adults from riding if we are wearing a sling, snuggy or other kind carrier on our chests, hips or backs with a baby or young child in it. Some roller coasters require smaller-height children to be accompanied by an adult.

All sports activities and amusement parks practice various kinds of gatekeeping for safety reasons. None of them have the total lack of precautionary restrictions the way you are implying.

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

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

It's very possible, humans are not as sexually dimorphic as many other mammals. Hormones control and influence a lot and we are only getting better at changing people's phenotype. The shape of people's bodies, our sex characteristics, the hormones we run on, that's all biology, all changeable to a growing extent.

If humans are not as sexually dimorphic as many other mammals, how come that even amongst those in trans community who have gone to the greatest lengths using Big Pharma hormone formulations (and sometimes surgeries) to alter their outward appearance to give the impression they have secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex, only TPs who are biologically female get pregnant and have babies?

If humans are not as sexually dimorphic as many other mammals, how come that even amongst those in trans community who have gone to the greatest lengths using Big Pharma hormone formulations (and sometimes surgeries) to alter their outward appearance to give the impression they have secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex, how come male TPs are winning and setting records in girls' and women's sports but female TPs are not winning and setting records in boys' and men's sports? How come male TPs are bumping girls and women off teams, out of competition, off awards podiums and out of record books - but not a single female TP has done the same to any boys or men? How come numerous male TPs have taken top place and won titles and trophies in women's and girls' sports, but no female TPs have managed to distinguish themselves similarly in men's and boys' sports. Is it because trans boys and trans men don't try as hard as trans girls and trans women?

The shape of people's bodies, our sex characteristics, the hormones we run on, that's all biology, all changeable to a growing extent.

Yes, some fat can be redistributed, but there is no way to make a male skeleton into a female on, or vice versa. There is no way to change male kidneys into female kidneys. Males who suppress T and take estradiol still have hearts and lungs that are 25-38% and 10-12% larger and more powerful respectively than female people of equivalent height, weight and age - and male twitch fibers, male tendons, male airway cells, male explosiveness. Females who take exogenous testosterone will get deeper voices, facial hair, male-pattern balding and much higher rates of CV disease - but they still will have female pelvises, and thus female Q angles; female hearts, lungs, hands and feet and all the rest.

Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. Or between outwardly appearing to be something and actually being it. Used to be, learning about Potemkin villages, animals changing coloration, trompe-l'œil, subterfuge, FX in media were standard parts of growing up. Used to be, most people grew up to understand that surface is not substance, illusion and reality are not the same thing, and there's often a major difference between the outer packaging and what's inside. Did you really reach adulthood not learning any of this?

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

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

I'm not asking you to prove you're a woman, you simply are, that's enough for me if you tell me that's how you feel and identify. Like you can claim it's based on biology but really it's based on you feeling that your biology defines you and is meaningful.

This is so offensive. You are saying that women are not women when we are asleep, under anesthesia, drugged senseless, dead drunk, suffering from Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia, with serious brain damage due to stroke. You are saying that women with the misfortune to have been born with severely low IQ are not women. You are saying that women on their deathbeds whose cognitive abilities and self-awareness have vanished due to CO2 narcosis, the brain and body shutting because of the ravages of terminal illness, and/or because of heavy sedation with morphine, are not women. You are saying that the majority of the world's women are not women because they have who have never heard of the theories of "gender identity" that you hold dear, and which you imperialistically and mistakenly assume are universal and you erroneously think describe something all human beings experience and agree on.

So all the men who have slipped women mickeys and drugs like Qualudes and Rohypnol in order to rape us - none of those men are guilty of raping women, because the at the time the women were unconscious and thus could not "identify as" and "feel like" women?

Women are not women because we feel we are women. It's because we are female. That's it.

Being a woman is not a feeling, an identity, a state of mind or a personal accomplishment. It's just a simple, basic, verifiable fact of material reality. Being a woman is not a matter of self-perception. A person with no capacity for self-perceptions of any kind can still be a woman. All she has to do is be a human who is age 18 or over and female.

I am as much a woman when I am asleep and under anesthesia as when I am awake and my brain is firing on all cylinders. Please stop insulting me and the large portion of the human race who are adult human females with your sexist, misogynistic bollocks. Stop telling women that we have no material reality, that we are merely projections of male fantasies and imaginary ideas in the minds of misogynists.

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

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

I'm not going to use the men's room (where I'm way more likely to both be uncomfortable and make others uncomfortable) just because someone might be uncomfortable

Sorry, but when I read that and your other statements, the message I think you are telling me and other women is:

I am not going to use the men's room where I as a male who wants to be a woman am likely to be uncomfortable myself, and where I think I might make other males uncomfortable, just because some female people might feel uncomfortable and unsafe with males in women's restrooms. Because as a male, I believe that males have a right to not to feel uncomfortable ever, but female people do not have any such right - nor do female people have any right to safety, privacy or dignity, either.

Therefore, for the sake of my own personal comfort and the comfort of other members of my sex, I am going to use women's restrooms whenever I want. If this causes some women and girls to feel unsafe, uneasy, uncomfortable, intruded upon and disrespected - tough noogies.

If my using women's restrooms means women and girls from certain religions and cultures such as observant Muslims and orthodox Jews no longer will be able to use women's restrooms and thus will have no place to tend to their intimate bodily needs outside their homes, and they thus no longer will be able participate in life outside the home as they could until recently, tough noogies.

If my use of women's restrooms means women's restrooms become inhospitable and off limits to women and girls in certain life circumstances or dealing with certain female-only physical issues that cause women and girls to feel especially vulnerable and to really, really need privacy from males - such as menstruation, pregnancy vomiting, pregnancy hemorrhoids and rectal bleeding, post-birth or termination vaginal bleeding and clotting, heavy vaginal bleeding due to fibroids or menopausal flooding, miscarriage, leaking breasts and amnio fluid, urinary and fecal incontinence due to aging and a history of childbirth, cystitis, vaginal yeast infections requiring application of medications, disrobing to wash off bloodstains, breastmilk and baby vomit from their clothing - tough noogies.

If women voice their objections to me and other males using women's restrooms, I will tell them

it's just how things are.

And as the coup de grace, I will add

It's allyship.

There are 3x more Trans 'Women' than Trans 'Men', Why Do You Think This Is? by HongKongPhooey in AskSaidIt

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

The vast majority of males who are trans aka "transwomen" are heterosexual, though - meaning attracted to women/girls. And they develop their opposite sex identity in adolescence or adulthood.

Yes, a majority (about two-thirds) of persons who develop sex/gender distress in childhood prior to puberty of adolescence will grow up to be same-sex attracted (gay, lesbian or bisexual). However, most people who have sex/gender dysphoria in childhood before puberty outgrow it in the course of going through adolescence. The exact numbers vary depending on the study, but all the longterm studies that followed people from childhood into adulthood have found that the majority - 73% to more than 92% - desist from having dysphoria as they mature physically, emotionally, cognitively and sexually. Out of every 10 kids who want to be the opposite sex as young children, most will have lost that desire by their mid or late teens - and only 1 or 2 will carry that desire into their 20s. Those who persist in their 20s often outgrow it after their brains have reached full development at 25 or so.

Gender dysphoria that develops in adolescence or adulthood, however, is entirely different to GD that develops in childhood before puberty - and in looking at later-onset GD, patients/people affected have to be divided into two distinct groups by biological sex. Males who develop gender dysphoria during or after puberty and in adulthood do so for very different reasons than females who develop gender dysphoria at the same ages and developmental stages. In fact, "gender dysphoria" in the two sexes is a completely different phenomenon.

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

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

A lot of those problems are also the problems of trans women and girls. Not biological ones, but the misogyny that's directed at everyone because of that biology or the assumption of it. We should be helping each other solve that and for the most part trans people are pro bodily autonomy unlike the religious right who so many GCs seem to be fine allying with.

This is forced teaming. It's a tactic abusers use.

You and I share common interests as human beings, and I am sure we are aligned on various political and social issues. But because we are different sexes, there are many experiences we do not share - and many places where our interests diverge.

You belong to the sex that for millennia has oppressed and abused my sex. I interpret the kind of attitudes you display as just more of the same sort of arrogant, selfish, male supremacist male entitlement that men and boys have been displaying for tens of thousands of years to lord it over women and girls, intimidate us, dehumanize us, bully us, keep us down and let us know that in their/your eyes we don't matter nearly as much as males do. I experience the intrusive, sex-appropriating and colonizing behaviors you are engaging as more of the same sorts of abusiveness that your sex has been dishing out to my sex for millennia.

You can tell yourself that you are a victim of misogyny until you are blue in the face. It won't make it so. Nor will it change the fact that I and many others think the attitudes that most males who call themselves TW have towards women and girls, the way you see and treat us, and the demands you are making of us, epitomize misogyny.

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

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

It's not just Cox's height, though. Cox is large all over. Large head, shoulders. Just a big person who tends to dwarf a lot of other people. Men as well as women, but especially the women.




























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

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

Tell me, who am I supposed to ask for permission to be a woman? You?

I know I'm a woman

Sorry, but even you don't sound convinced by your own rhetoric.

Being a woman isn't like gaining entry to a club. It's a matter of biology. Nature/evolution decided your sex when your mother's egg and your father's sperm merged. It had nothing whatsoever to do with me. Neither I nor any other woman or person on earth can grant you permission to be a woman just like none of us can wave a magic wand, say abracadabra and grant you three wishes.

Your sex and your unhappiness with your sex are not my problem. Nor are they the problem of the rest of the world's women and girls to deal with and solve for you. I am truly sorry for your suffering - I genuinely am - but the fact is, lots of people suffer with all sorts of psychological and physical problems that are just as bad or actually far worse than gender dysphoria.

If you genuinely want to find happiness, you've got to find a way to deal with your problems that doesn't require all of society be totally re-arranged just to suit you. You've got to find a way that doesn't demand that everyone else in the world help you feel feel better by constantly denying reality, denying our own perceptions, watching what we say and changing how we say it, biting our tongues, telling lies and forever walking on eggshells.

If you truly want to find happiness, you've got to find a way that doesn't require that the female half of the human forfeit our own safety, privacy, dignity, comfort and mental health for you.

Women and girls are not here on earth for your convenience and use. Women and girls need female-only spaces for ourselves for our own reasons.

The solution to your dilemmas as regards peeing goes is to campaign for additional spaces for people who don't want to use the single-sex spaces consistent with their/your own sex. The solution for your larger issues about social acceptance and other people being comfortable around you is to campaign for other members of your sex to be kinder and more tolerant toward nonconforming males.

I will support you in both campaigns. But women and girls have enough problems of our own to deal with. Moreover, the social changes and accommodations you and other gender identity ideologues are demanding create more problems for girls and women and make the material reality of our own lives much worse. It's unreasonable for males like yourself to ask and expect women and girls to give up the hard-won spaces, safeguards, services, sports and rights that generations of women fought tooth and nail for over hundreds years just because now in the 21st century some very entitled people with luxury beliefs have developed self-image and identity issues.

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

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

Idk what to tell u if you can't tell the difference between drag or panto as a performance and trans people wearing normal clothes and makeup.

I didn't say I personally couldn't tell the difference. I just gave examples of situations where males might be dressing and trying to appear "as women" and there'd be no way for someone who casually encounters them briefly to tell what their motives and reasons are. A stranger could guess, but there'd be no way to know for sure without inquiring.

Also, the fact of the matter is, there's often a huge discrepancy between what many male "trans people" regard as "wearing normal clothes and makeup" and what the rest of the world thinks is "wearing normal clothes and makeup."

For example, lots of TW dress in OTT, hyper sexualized ways; they wear outfits and makeup that most women and girls would not wear, unless those women and girls are porn actors, strippers, street prostitutes, Only Fans workers, Kardashians or entertainers like the rap artists like Cardi B or singer and dancer Jennifer Lopez.

Similarly, many middle-aged and older TW dress in ways that actual female people the same age do not - that we'd never be caught dead in, in fact. I've seen lots of TW in their 50s, 60s and 70s out and about in very short mini skirts, thigh highs and revealing tops that the vast majority of women their age would never, ever wear because the stage in our lives when we could get away with such a look ended many years ago. Similarly, some older TW like Sophie Grace Chappell and that infamous Stephonknee person who "identifies as" a child of 6 wear the clothing, makeup and hairstyles of little girls - Mary Janes, ankle socks, pig tails, party dresses with puffy sleeves, and pouffed-out skirts with crinolines.

I think most trans people have no trouble saying that there are scenarios where trans women can be distinguished. Just that for passing trans people what would be required to make that distinction would violate our privacy and you don't have a right to do that.

Maybe some trans people say that, but a lot of of TP and other gender identity ideologues refuse to acknowledge that there are any scenarios where TW can be distinguished. In fact, many TP and their allies say it's transphobic to acknowledge that some TW are clockable as males - even when they are naked and waving their penises and balls in girls' and women's faces. That's what happened in the Wi Spa case. Women who objected to seeing a naked adult male with a semi-erect penis in the women-only area of the spa were told time and again that serial sex offender Darren Merragher is a woman and thus Merragher's semi-hard penis on display was/is a woman's penis, because Merragher "identifies as" a TW - and TWAW.

It's also happened in the case of the many TW whose mug shots and other photos have appeared in the press due to them being arrested or convicted of violent crimes like murder, attempted murder, assaults with axes, hammers and knives and sex crimes like rape, possession of images showing children being sexually abused, and indecent exposure. Trans people and allies constantly say that observing and declaring "that's not a woman" in the case of TPs convicted or accused of heinous crimes is just as bad an offense as the many murders, assaults, rapes and other sex crimes these TPs have committed. In fact, some TPs and their allies say that "misgendering" of TPs who've committed criminal acts against other people - including child sex abuse and the rape and murder of women - is a far worse offense than the horrible crimes they've committed.

Just that for passing trans people what would be required to make that distinction would violate our privacy and you don't have a right to do that.

But the scenario that Genderbender brought up was about a women's restroom. By going into such spaces, TW are violating the privacy - and jeopardizing the safety and denying the dignity - of female human beings. Where do you get the impression that you and other males like you have the right to do this?

That's a serious question. I think if you look into it, you'll find that the right that some males believe they have to use women's restrooms on account of their gender identity claims and gender presentation is a right that some males decided simply to declare and take for themselves, without ever bothering to ask women if it was okay with us. Now after the fact, males who arrogantly assumed that women's restrooms and other female spaces are theirs for the taking are finding out that lots of women are not okay with this kind of male interloping - and this discovery is causing you/them to feel outraged. It never occurred to you/them that women would push back and say "this is not your space, you do not belong here" because virtually none of you gave a moment's thought to the issue of how your actions would affect female people. In the calculations of most TW, the feelings and perspectives of actual women are never factored in, because most TW see us as objects, inferiors, and lowly service providers whose purpose in life is to center and cater to males - not as full-fledged human beings with needs and perspectives of our own who deserve rights as much as anyone else.

But even if TW had bothered to ask permission to horn in on female spaces, the fundamental problem is that especially as more and more people declare they are trans - and being trans has no concrete or fixed definition - it becomes harder and harder for the world to agree on exactly who counts as

passing trans people

Especially "passing trans women." However, the fact that you yourself use the phrase "passing trans people" shows that even you admit there are some who don't pass even in your own eyes. So the thorny issue at the heart of the matter remains: when people don't see eye to eye, whose perceptions count? Why should the idealized images that TW see when they gaze at themselves in their mirrors take precedence over what other people see when they encounter them out and about?

More to the point, why should the claims of male persons who say that they are now women be taken more seriously and given more weight and credence than the claims of actual women who say no they/you are not?

There are 3x more Trans 'Women' than Trans 'Men', Why Do You Think This Is? by HongKongPhooey in AskSaidIt

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

At the genetic level it may be the case the fetus starts as female, but that doesn't say anything about the target morphology of the adult version of the fetus. Human females are not just smaller, they have a different morphology. This gap is relatively recent in evolutionary timelines for humans.

When you say that in humans "the fetus starts as female," I think you mean embryo. A human embryo becomes a fetus at the time that gonadal differentiation occurs, which happens at 7-8 weeks.

Fetuses by definition will have male gonads, testes, or female gonads, ovaries. So the idea that in humans "the fetus starts as female" is nonsensical.

Also, your claim that "at the genetic level the fetus starts as female" gives the impression that during gestation in utero humans change DNA and sex chromosomes. This is not true. A human being's chromosomal sex, genetic sex and genetic profile is determined at conception. Some di novo mutations can occur when the first cells divide in the hours after sperm and egg merge and the blastocyst is forming, but the genetic sex of humans is set in stone from the get-go. It does not change as the blastocyst becomes an embryo, as the embryo grows into a fetus at week 7-8, or as the fetus develops from week 8 through 40.

It's not true that human embryos and their precursors, blastocysts, "start as female" either. Human embryos appear sexually undifferentiated when observed visually from the outside because they have not yet developed male or female gonads or the other urogenital and reproductive organs that are obvious to the eye. A male embryo who that not yet grown testes, penis, scrotum, prostate, vas deferens etc is NOT female; the embryo is merely an undeveloped male, or a male in primordial form.

When the cells of human embryos and blastocysts are examined with microscopes and other technologies that allow for a more accurate picture of what's happening, physical sex differences can be seen. In fact, marked physical sex differences in the cells of human blastocysts have been found just days after fertilization, at the time when the blastocyst is implanting in the uterine wall and begins to grow a placenta.

For the record: whether human fetuses have male or female external genitalia can be ascertained with 100% accuracy by sonograms taken from the exterior of pregnant women's abdomens at 14 weeks. Since full term pregnancy is 40 weeks, this means that the gonadal and genital sex of fetuses is easily discernible for the vast majority of the time that a fetus is a fetus.

Moreover, the genetic sex of human fetuses can be determined with 100% accuracy by testing a pregnant woman's blood drawn from the arm or finger in the standard way at 8-9 weeks of pregnancy; this common test is called the NIPT. The sex of a fetus can also be ascertained at 8-9 weeks of pregnancy by testing a tiny piece of the placenta taken in the invasive procedure called CVS (chorionic villi sampling). CVS has been in use since the mid-late 1980s; I personally had it when pregnancy more than 30 years ago.

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

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

Genderbender asked GC people who use women's restrooms:

How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom?

Or someone who appears to be a trans woman?

Both these questions are based on the assumption that GC users of women's restrooms (who are presumably female) can tell just by looking that TW are TW sometimes, often or always. If TW always passed, how would anyone else be able to discern that a TW seen in the ladies' loo is a TW and not a W?

The second question is based on the further assumption that it's sometimes, often or always impossible for observers to tell the difference between a TW and a male who is dressed "like a woman" for reasons other than gender identity. Such as because he's a drag queen or performer who does British-style panto; he's dressed up for a costume party or stag night; he's simply exploring and expressing his "feminine" side; he's wearing a disguise because he's on the lam as in "Some Like It Hot;" he is an autogynephile but one who does not actually "identify as" the opposite sex, like Grayson Perry; he's an attention-seeking "character" who's a bit of an oddball like Corporal Klinger; he's an attention-seeking entertainer trying to get media coverage; or he's a sexual predator who's decided to dress "like a woman" due to nefarious motives much like the ones that caused the Big Bad Wolf to put on grandmother's clothing in the story of Little Red Riding Hood.

If Genderbender didn't think GC women could tell the difference between TW and W at least some of the time, why would she have asked these questions? Clearly, Genderbender posed these questions after imagining in her head a scenario in a women's restroom where GC women see a person we can clearly clock as a TW, or as someone who appears to be a TW.

If Genderbender truly believed what the holy writ of the gender ideology creed says - which is that no one can tell that males who "identify as" female are not actually female without "looking in their pants" and testing their DNA - she wouldn't be conjuring up these sorts of scenarios in her mind's eye in the first place, and she'd have no reason to ask GC women what we'd do in the situation she clearly has invested time and energy watching unfold in her head.

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

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

I saw Laverne Cox in person once. Seeing someone in 3 dimensions in the flesh is very different to seeing them in a still photo or on screen. IRL, I don't think Cox passes at all.

When photographed standing alone in a still shot, like in the famous TIME magazine cover, or when Cox is filmed or taped alone in a position where Cox isn't moving around too much, like in the recent video Cox did promoting a project on women's history, maybe a few people here and there might think Cox passes for a second or two. But when seen amongst other people, and especially when seen next to or near adult human females, Cox stands out like a proverbial sore thumb.

Cox is huge, with very broad shoulders, a very large head, giant hands and feet. Even when Cox is wearing the usually big head of store-bought, teased-up hair grown by impoverished, downtrodden girls and women in the third world, Cox's skull and the way Cox's head sits on Cox's neck are unmistakable tells that Cox is male - especially when Cox is seen in profile or partial profile rather than straight on from the front. Then when Cox gets moving on Cox's feet, there is no way anyone on earth would think that Cox has the gait, stride or foot plant of a female person.

I say none of this as diss on Cox. It's just that evolution has caused the males and females of our species to develop innumerable physical features that make it easy for most people to tell the sex of adolescents and adults pretty much instantly on first sight without any or much conscious thought. Due to evolution, our female socialization growing up, and years of lived experience always having to be on the alert, most women are really, really good at instantaneously sizing up and sussing out the sex of the adolescents and adults we encounter. Our safety depends on this skill.

Does dysfunction affect the definitions of male and female? by KimiORabu in GenderCritical

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

If their body is designed to produce small mobile gamates, they are male. If their body does or does not work properly is irrelevant. If their body is designed to produce large immoble gamates, they are female. If their body does or does not work properly is irrelevant.

Just to be clear: evolution has arranged things so only the bodies of human males are meant to have the capacity to produce small gametes, sperm, over the course of the whole life span from puberty of adolescence to death. Human females are meant to have the capacity to mature and release large gametes, ova, only for about 40 years of our lives, from menarche circa age 11 to menopause circa age 50.

An adult human female who can't generate gametes (or any gonadal hormones either) can't be assumed to have a body "that does not work properly," so it's inaccurate and unfair to use that kind of phrasing for members of the female sex. Most likely the body of such a woman works perfectly fine, it's just that she's probably 50 or older and thus has been through menopause - like 63 million women in the US today.

Moreover, during the phase of women's lives known as the "childbearing years" or our "reproductive prime," we can't and don't generate gametes all the time the way males do. From puberty through to old age, human males are constantly making sperm in vast amounts - typically millions of sperm each day. By contrast, during the approximately 40-year span of time (or less) when human females usually have the ability ovulate, we only generate and release a single gamete once every 28 days - an average of 13 a year.

So whereas the average human male in good health will produce billions of small gametes in his lifetime, a healthy human female will generate and release a much, much smaller number of large gametes in her life - about 500 in all.

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

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

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

So? If you posted points you've made on this thread on social media sites frequented by TRAs, I suspect they'd call you transphobic in a flash.

Passing ultimately doesn't matter

Then why are you making such a big deal about it? You seem to divide TW into two groups based on your own personal assessments of whether they pass, as you demonstrate here:

Some trans woman do pass, like Jazz Jennings, Laverne Cox and MJ Rodriguez. Caitlyn Jenner doesn't pass but that's just my perception.

Seems you view Jennings, Cox and Rodriguez as having a more valid and legitimate claim to call themselves TW than Jenner does. That's transphobic because it runs counter to the QT commandment that says trans people are whomever and whatever they say they are.

Why do you give your own perceptions more credence than Jenner's claims? Why do you count your own perceptions at all in the case of Jenner or any other TW? According QT and trans dogma, not to believe the claims made about themselves by anyone who calls themselves trans is transphobic.

Moreover, to continue to have and to place trust in your own perceptions of TW when those perceptions cause you to regard some TW in ways that aren't exactly in synch with how they see themselves and they have said they want to be seen by others is not just deeply transphobic - it's arrogant and oppressive.

Your assessments that certain TW pass and others don't are transphobic and oppressive also because you are judging TW based on whether their outward appearance as you perceive it lives up to superficial aesthetic standards that you hold, but which the TW you are being judgmental toward might not hew to. In fact, the TW whom you declare "doesn't pass" might not just disagree with and reject the aesthetic standards you are judging them by - they might experience those standards as harmful and negating of their identities. A true ally would not be so judgy. A true ally would pay no attention whatsoever to how any/all TW appear in any circumstance. A true ally would never, ever have the nerve to believe her own eyes if those eyes spot even a glimmer of evidence that flies in the face of the dogma that all trans people are exactly who/what they claim to be and all TW are women.

In case it's not crystal clear: I am not saying that in my opinion some of the views you have expressed on this thread are transphobic. I'm just pointing out that according to QT and gender dogma they are.

a passing trans woman will of course not be questioned in the woman's restroom

How on earth do you know this?

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

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

The fact that you refer to trans women as "males" will more likely cause people to accuse you of transphobia.

Yeah, so? I've been called worse; and I can take it. It's you I was talking about. I thought appearing transphobic is something you'd want to avoid at all costs, and being accused of transphobia is something you might be concerned about.

Tellingly, you didn't address any of my points. Instead, you immediately brought up Keira Bell and tried to make it seem like the issue you raised is whether

someone like her in appearance and voice could be mistaken for a trans woman.

Which is ridiculous. Look at Bell's face, hands, feet, body shape, bone structure and the way Bell moves and walks.

Keira Bell is also totally beside the point in this particular convo, which you started. Because you specifically asked

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

Or someone who appears to be a trans woman?

Now you say:

I think its obvious I'm referring to trans women who don't pass.

But I thought passing didn't matter? That trans people don't owe it to the world to do anything to change their appearance to try to pass as the opposite sex. Because everyone is just supposed to believe that trans people are whatever sex they say they are.

Also, since you brought up "passing": who decides who "passes"? Most males who identify as trans think and insist that they pass, but many female people like me disagree. Whose perception do you think should win out here?

The central point remains: the questions you raised are a tacit admission that you believe women (who are GC) can always, usually or frequently tell when males are in women's restrooms, no matter how those males identify or present. This goes against the fundamental part of the QT creed which says that none of us can ever tell because it's impossible for anyone to figure out if adult and post-pubescent males are actually male without "looking in their pants" and doing DNA tests.

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

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

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

Or someone who appears to be a trans woman?

Huh? These questions show you believe women can always, usually or frequently tell when males are in women's restrooms, no matter how those males identify or present. This stands in stark contrast to the standard QT party line, which is that none of us can ever tell.

The fact that you asked about

a trans woman in the women's restroom


someone who appears to be a trans woman

In the next breath also is an open acknowledgment that there's no way for women to know if a male is "genuinely trans" or not.

Genderbender, I hate to break it to you, but the questions you've posed would cause many to accuse you of transphobia.

“What is a Woman” by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

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

Matt Taibbi has a good article on his Substack that reviews the movie. Taibbi in his piece also discusses Walsh's politics, the pushback against gender ideology from GC feminists (he features Kara Dansky), the public positions of so-called "progressives" on so-called "trans rights," and what he believes is a growing discomfort amongst liberal Democratic Party voters with the extreme consequences of today's trans activism.

Taibbi has a sense that a lot of otherwise tolerant and "live and let live" types are now increasingly concerned by such developments as

  • the dramatic surge in the numbers of children, tweens, teens and young adults being labelled trans;

  • arrogant males like Lia Thomas being allowed to invade and dominate in women's and girls' sports, and then being given national media platforms to crow about their victories and complain how oppressed and victimized they are;

  • new, poorly-thought-out prison policies that place male convicts - including rapists, murderers and predators of women and girls - in women's correctional facilities where some of the male convicts have immediately taken the opportunity to sexually assault, rape, menace, verbally abuse, lord it over and generally frighten the pants off incarcerated women, policies that already have led to numerous lawsuits as well as to pregnancies.

What happened to Derple's thread accusing Helen Joyce of advocating "trans elimination"? by MarkTwainiac in GCdebatesQT

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

Thanks for the info.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

women who are entering menopause can take estradiol to make their lives a bit easier.

This just goes to show how little you know about the experience of older women (female humans, I mean). Since the big study was published in 2002 showing that estrogen replacement for menopausal women leads to higher rates of diseases like cancer, it's actually been pretty difficult for most women in peri-menopause or full menopause to get prescriptions for estrogens. In the first 10-15 years after 2002, it was pretty much impossible for older women in and after menopause to get prescription estradiol from a qualified, competent gynecologist, endocrinologist or other specialist in women's health care.

Also, one of the consequences of the study results published in 2002 was that the particular HRT formulations devised expressly for young and middle-aged women who had the ovaries removed or experienced ovarian failure prior to age 50 were taken off the market and went out of production. One good example is Estratest, a pill form of HRT that in the US used to be commonly prescribed to younger & MA women who had oophorectomy or disease that caused premature ovarian failure before reaching the age of natural menopause. Estratest tried to match and replace the natural hormones produced by the ovaries of younger and MA women by adding a small dose of testosterone to the estradiol that it mostly consisted of. Estratest was a godsend to millions of the women who used to take it, and many suffered horribly when it and all similar formulations were suddenly denied us and then yanked from the market.

Even today, when doctors have finally begun to ease up and stop being so completely withholding of estradiol scrips for female people, women (female ones, that is) with menopausal symptoms are usually made to go through a number of hoops and forced to try every other remedy under the sun before HCPs finally relent and prescribe Big Pharma estradiol, particularly in higher-dose forms administered orally, by patch or by injection. Moreover, women in their 40s and 50s who can get these scrips for peri- and full menopause symptoms are usually only allowed to stay on HRT at very low doses for very short periods of time. Only males who claim to have female gender identities are given prescription estradiol at high doses on demand - and since 2002, only they/you are allowed to stay on high dose Big Pharma estradiol for life.

Older women long past menopause who could benefit from estrogen therapy in their 60s, 70s, 80s and beyond to counteract health issues that are common in senior citizen-age women like chronic UTIs, vaginal pain and itching due to atrophy and osteoporosis are routinely denied HRT. If older women manage to get a prescription, it's typically only for very low-dose creams - and again for a very short time. If you don't believe me, I suggest you visit some care homes for the elderly and ask the old women there about their own "lived experience."

If you paid any attention whatsoever to the experiences that female human beings go through, and have gone through over the past 100 years, you'd know that in recent decades it's actually become much, much easier for males to get estradiol prescriptions for reasons of "gender affirmation" and "transition" than it is for actual women "of a certain age" to get scrips for estradiol because of genuine physical issues related to menopause. These days, a 72-year-old male like Caitlyn Jenner will be given high dose oral or injection estradiol for "gender transition" and "gender affirmation" just by asking. But a 72-year-old female who seeks estradiol for physical problems that commonly occur due to lack of estrogen in elderly women long past menopause like painful urination, urethral inflammation and bleeding, frequent UTIs and urinary incontinence will be told that those are just ordinary problems of female aging that she'll just have to learn to live with.

Continuation of Gender-affirming Hormones Among Transgender Adolescents and Adults by pcpmasterrace in GenderCritical

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

This study analyzed 2009 to 2018 medical and pharmacy records from the US Military Healthcare System over a 10 year period from 2009 to 2018 to see how many people who were prescribed "gender affirming hormone regimens" (GAHR) and remained in the military health system were still getting GAHR prescriptions filled 4 years after their prescriptions were filled for the first time.

We identified TGD patients who were children and spouses of active-duty, retired, or deceased military members using International Classification of Diseases-9/10 codes. We assessed initiation and continuation of gender-affirming hormones using pharmacy records.

The study sample included 627 transmasculine [female] and 325 transfeminine [male] individuals with an average age of 19.2 ± 5.3 years.

The 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-76.5).

Transfeminine individuals [males] had a higher continuation rate than transmasculine individuals [females] 81.0% (72.0%-90.0%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%).

So 10-28% of males and 27-44% of females who started taking prescription "gender affirming hormone regimens" (GAHR) between 2008 and 2018 were no longer getting prescriptions for GA hormones filled 4 years later. Presumably because they stopped taking them.

This would seem to indicate much, much higher rates of desistance and detransition than TRAs and gender vendors admit.

People who started hormones as minors had higher continuation rate than people who started as adults 74.4% (66.0%-82.8%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%).

So people roped into the trans cult as minors and started on hormones under age 18 were more likely to continue with hormones.

Still, it seems newsworthy that fewer than 3/4s of those who started GAHR as minors were getting prescriptions for them filled 4 years after the hormones were first prescribed. That means more than 25% had decided to stop.

And the reason for stopping doesn't seem to have been due to lack of money or changed living conditions and relationship status.

Continuation was not associated with household income or family member type.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Oy vey. I said:

You yourself have advocated subjecting all children and young people with gender and sex distress to medical treatments that will make it impossible for them to have children.

And you respond with:

"Subjecting"? We choose to have those treatments, it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Once again, you've switched the subject from

all children and young people with gender and sex distress

To You and other adults like you!

Tell me, how did the individuals formerly known as Jaron Jennings and Xavier Neal choose the treatments they got when they were little boys? Jaron was 2 when his mother decided he was trans; he was 3 when officially given the label by a gender therapist. Xavier was a severely mentally ill and autistic boy age 4. Both were put on blockers when they were pre-teens. Both had their testicles removed and their penises surgically reconfigured when they were minors too young to give legal consent. One was 17; the other 16. How did they choose?

BTW, the Xavier Neal's two younger brothers have now become "trans girls" too - one in early primary school, the other in kindgergarten. Only one of their mother's four children is not trans - and that's probably linked to the fact that he's older, and has a disease that has been causing him to lose his sight, and he is now nearly totally blind.

Which raises an interesting point: not many trans people are blind. This seems to be an identity found almost exclusively amongst people with decent eyesight. Hmm, now why could that be?

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

  • Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

For many years, trans activists have been openly advocating that the above activities done to women, meaning female human beings, particularly those of a certain age, life experience and POV like Helen Joyce, JK Rowling, the women of Mumsnet and me.

In fact, some trans activists advocate that all "cis" people be put to death by grisly means such as "in a grease fire."

The activities below are exactly what many trans activists advocate be done to others in the "trans community":

  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

You yourself have advocated subjecting all children and young people with gender and sex distress to medical treatments that will make it impossible for them to have children.

Trans activists routinely tell children sex and gender distress that their parents are their enemies, and advocate that they be forcibly removed from their families and handed over to adult gender activists who are part of "the LGBTQ+ rainbow community." Adult TRAs like Jeffrey Marsh and Rachel McKinnon/Veronica Ivy routinely use social media to tell kids they are their "new" mothers/parents/aunties now. TRAs who work in schools do everything they can to drive a wedge between children and their parents, telling kids that parents are distrustful and want to harm them. Thousands of anonymous adults seek out gender and sex confused kids online to groom them and turn them against their families, often encouraging them to reject their parents, run away from home, and to get their way by telling their parents that if they don't do exactly as the kids demand, the kids will commit suicide or take legal action accusing the parents of child abuse.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm only grossed out by my own, not others'

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People who are grossed out by their own biology, body parts and bodily functions end up communicating their disgust to their children in myriad ways - many of them unconscious and unintentional. Having and raising children involves intimate contact with their bodies, and all their body parts - and there's a lot of gross stuff involved such as blood, vomit, meconium, and tons of foul-smelling, weird-colored and strange-textured shit. Not to mention the occasional bout of head lice when little kids are in school - and the crusty spots on sheets, undershorts and tissues left around when male children reach a certain age.

I fear your negative feelings about your own body would inevitably get transferred to your kids, and would very much mess us any male child you have. I suspect your views on sex and female human beings would screw up any daughters you have too. I don't mean you would make this happen on purpose, but it would happen all the same. Look what happened to Howard Hughes.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I said please let us know about the surgery/ies so we can cross our fingers for you, and root for you. Some posters might even say a prayer for you too. On the quiet, of course. Also, to let us know that you are okay afterwards.

And if it goes swimmingly and turns out as wonderful as you hope, so you can shout in our faces: See, I told you so!

But no pressure. I didn't mean to be prying. The important thing is to take care of yourself.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I appreciate you engaging. You have put up with a lot of opposition here in the past couple of days, and you have been a really good sport about it. You could have just packed off in a huff long ago.

Since I've given you negative feedback, here's a bit of positive: you're showing a considerable amount of "good faith" and resilience. I find that very impressive and admirable. I tip my hat to you.

I really do wish you well. Please if you go ahead with your surgeries, let people here know. Take care.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Huh? I specifically said that

this particular phrasing - which is routinely used by genderists in discourse about sex and gender identity - reflects a distinctly male POV and framing.

I made no assumptions or statements whatsoever about your own sex as an individual. None at all.

Lots of the language and framing members of both sexes use about sex and gender issues, and many other issues, reflect a distinctly male POV and framing. Because for all of recorded history, it's been a man's world and most of the important texts written over history that influence us all were written to reflect a distinctly male POV and framing.

My comment was not a personal diss of you. It wasn't about you personally at all. It was about the terminology and framing. Sorry you took it as a comment about you.

FWIW, most everyone uses lingo that reflects a male POV and framing to some extent. Because we all grew up learning and citing famous phrasing like "no man is an island," "all men are created equal," "man's inhumanity to man," "hey man" and "man alive!" Medicine, law, philosophy, literature, art, criticism, history... all the major works in all fields reflect a male POV. Two books on the table next to me as I write this are Frankl's "Man's Search For Meaning" and Ellison's "Invisible Man."

I see a lot of GC sentiments centered around whether or not transwomen have penises and how that is the primary indicator of how their gender should be defined. They also talk a lot about how their vaginas are what make them women. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, as that is how sex is defined - by the sex-based organs.

Yes, the reproductive organs are a major component of what defines and differentiates sex, but in weighing the importance of the reproductive organs in human sex determination and definition, the gonads always will be in first place because gonads play more central and fundamental roles than either the penis or the vagina. The gonads are where the gametes are made and stored, and the gonads are also the organs that produce most of the sex hormones that cause a fetus to develop as distinctly male or female.

Moreover, during gestation in utero, the gonads develop and differentiate into ovaries or testes first - and it's only after the gonads have differentiated into either testes or ovaries (at about 7-8 weeks) and then start producing the gonadal sex hormones specific to testes or ovaries that rest of the reproductive organs develop.

In a male, after the testes develop, the testes will then produce both anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and testosterone. These will cause the fetus with testes to develop other male repro organs.

In a female fetus with ovaries, the lack of testes, testosterone and lack of AMH will result in the fetus developing female repro organs.

About eight weeks after conception the human foetus has two sets of ducts, one of which can develop into the male reproductive tract and the other into the female reproductive tract. If the foetus is genetically male (XY chromosomes) then the embryonic testes will produce anti-Müllerian hormone. This causes the Müllerian (female) ducts to disappear – hence the term anti-Müllerian hormone, whilst testosterone produced by the testes causes the male (Wollfian) ducts to survive.

The Wollfian ducts go on to develop into the different parts of the male reproductive system: the epididymis, the vas deferens, the seminal vesicles and the prostate gland.

In a female fetus (XX chromosomes) the Wollfian ducts disappear (because of the lack of testosterone) and the Müllerian ducts develop into the fallopian tubes, uterus (womb), cervix and the upper part of the vagina.

Anti-Müllerian hormone may also have a role in regulating sex steroid production in puberty and in the adult ovaries and testes. In the ovaries, anti-Müllerian hormone appears to be important in the early stages of development of the follicles, which contain and support the eggs prior to fertilisation. The more ovarian follicles a woman has, the more anti-Müllerian hormone her ovaries can produce, and so AMH can be measured in the bloodstream to assess how many follicles a woman has left in her ovaries: her ‘ovarian reserve’.


BTW, the talk of penises and vaginas that you have you have correctly observed many with "GC sentiments" commonly engage in also reflects a distinctly male POV and framing. It's a framing that mistakenly regards the penis as the primary male sex organ, when in reality the male testes play a much more important role. And it's a framing that reflects the primacy of PIV intercourse in much literature and thinking about human sex over the course of history too.

Apologies for not choosing my words more carefully so as not to cause you personal offense.

QT: What is a rooster? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

people don't care about what people have between their legs

Just want to point out that like a lot of QT terminology, this particular phrasing - which is routinely used by genderists in discourse about sex and gender identity - reflects a distinctly male POV and framing. Because only the male gonads are between the legs. Women and girls don't generally describe our primary physical sex characteristics in ways that indicate we conceptualize and experience being female as something that's solely or principally about what's between our legs. Men and boys think that way - women and girls, not so much.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

But being a parent is at its core most fundamentally about raising a child. It's not about being a father or a mother. Weighed against the long span of time it takes for human offspring to grow to full maturity and be able to function on their own and support themselves, the 40 weeks it takes women to gestate a human child is small potatoes - and the teeny-tiny amount of time it takes to conceive a child is nothing. The human male biological role in bringing "life into the world" in particular usually takes just few minutes to accomplish from start to finish.

the idea grosses me out so much.

In my opinion, anyone grossed out by any aspect of human biology is not fit to be a parent.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Why shouldn't everyone get to choose their bodies?

Sheesh, talk about ableist, arrogant and entitled! And the kicker is that in the next breath you say that your unhappiness with your sexed body is

something that I hold so closely to myself that I won't yield it up no matter what. I wouldn't take a "cure"

On the one hand you say you and other trans people must be permitted go to whatever extreme lengths you want to alter your body, even if doing so has terrible negative impacts on self and others, all supposedly to alleviate the distress of "dysphoria," a distress you see as so special, singular and unique to trans people that you insist no one "cis" can possibly imagine it or have ever experienced anything like it. But on the other hand you say you relish and revel in your distress and hold it so dear that you you're never gonna give it up. Sounds to me like you're in love with being "dysphoric." Reminds me of the famous Rick Astley song:

Never gonna give you up, Never gonna let you down, Never gonna run around and desert you, Never gonna make you cry, Never gonna say goodbye

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Hormones worked for me : P

You are one person, though. Your experience is not representative of the experience of the rest of the human race, FFS. Your personal experience is especially not representative of those who are female, with female anatomy and physiology, or those who have experienced severe clinical depression with genuine suicidal ideation in a seriously life-limiting/disabling way for a sustained length of time.

As one of the tens of millions of women summarily yanked off and then denied exogenous estrogen for menopause because of the findings of the Women's Health Initiative Study released in 2002 - as well as one of the many people who's had to make do and muddle through despite experiencing severe treatment-resistant clinical depression for a lot longer than you've been alive - I find the way you talk of suicide and the sex hormone estradiol to be very flip, superficial, callow, massively entitled and very insensitive. Indeed, it comes off to me as kinda callous. I know that's not what you intend, but since you are so hyper-focused on, and worried about, how others perceive you, I think it's worth mentioning.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

You know, lots of people who aren't trans hate their bodies. Lots of people who aren't trans are lonely and isolated. Lots of people who aren't trans feel disconnected from others, and have a deep sense of wrongness. Lots of people feel, as we used to put it, that the words and music don't match, that there's an intolerable gap between the "as is" or real self and the "should be" or ideal self.

Sorry, but the whole idea that you get to chose your body and you can become a woman just by doing some remake/remodel work seems very male and pie-in-the-sky to me.

Most important, the vast majority of people who feel incredibly insecure and base their sense of self on how others perceive them grow out of it. Because it's a way of thinking that is most commonly found amongst adolescents and young adults. But it's far less common amongst people who are older and more mature because people's sense of self really does change with time. Most people feel very differently about themselves at 30 compared to at 21. There are good reasons that the process of maturing is often described by such phrases as "coming into your own" and "growing into your own skin" and "finally feeling at home with yourself."

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Whether people who are suicidal are in need of help is an entirely different issue to whether some people use suicide as a way to get attention and help. I was disagreeing with your claim that suicide is a cry for help.

I think that many people who are seriously suicidal do not want help, and some are beyond help. But in the case of those who can be helped, a hug won't do it - nor sex hormones, either.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I meant in terms of vaginal flora and structure.

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

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

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

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

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

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Derple: please know that as much as I take issue with many of the things you say, that I do not want to see you harmed, hurt or eliminated. I think most people on the "GC" side would agree.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Suicide is a cry for help,

No it's not. Please don't say that. Yes, some people who make suicide attempts and threats are issuing a cry for help. But many people who consider, attempt and actually commit suicide simply want to end their lives, and they are, well, dead serious about it. They aren't trying to get other people's attention, and they don't want help. They want out.

Not everyone thinks and operates the way you do. Not everything that everyone else does is a way of trying to get other people to pay attention to them.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Except transness is not a mental illness, it is a state of being.

If transness is a state of being, why not just be then? Why the demand for Big Pharma hormones and surgeries, and your claim that medical interventions are absolutely essential for trans people?

Why the desperate, never-ending need for others to validate and affirm your state of being by giving signs and signals that you can choose to take as evidence that in their heart of hearts and hidden recesses of their minds they really do see you as you wish them to see you? Why so much dependence on the perceptions and judgments of others - or rather what you imagine and assume to be their perceptions and judgments?

Why not just be in your state of being and try to be at peace with it?

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Oh and the Nazi comparison is highly apt, considering the Nazis burned much early trans research done by Hirschfield and that LGBT people were also targeted by them during the Holocaust.

Since you brought up the Nazis and Magnus Hirschfeld, you should know that some of the doctors who worked with Magnus Hirschfeld also joined the Nazi party and became prominent in it.

In fact, the physician Hirschfeld arranged to do the first "sex change" surgeries in the 1920s and early 30s, Erwin Gohrbandt, went on to become a big-time Nazi doctor who did experiments on prisoners in Dachau. In February 1945, Gohrbandt was awarded the Ritterkreuz des Kriegsverdienstkeuzes (Knight's Cross of the War Merit Cross with Swords) courtesy of the personal authority of Adolf Hilter.

In 1922 Magnus Hirschfeld arranged for Gohrbandt to do the castration on Dörchen Richter. In 1931, Hirschfeld had him to do the castration and penectomy on Einar Wegener/Lily Elber of "The Danish Girl" fame. No doubt Gohrbandt's work with Hirschfeld had influence on fellow Nazi physician, Josef Mengele, aka the "Angel of Death" at Auschwitz, who tried to do "sex change" surgeries on prisoners there - without anesthesia too.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

She claims that one goal of the GC movement, or at least, one of her goals, is to "reduce the number of people who transition".

How is that the same as wanting to kill/exterminate/eliminate people like you?

There are many people who think society and individuals within society would be better off if "we" reduced the number of people who

  • smoke tobacco
  • are addicted to alcohol and drugs
  • get cancer
  • live in poverty
  • suffer sexual abuse and exploitation
  • die in mass shootings
  • contract HIV-AIDS
  • experience racism, homophobia and/or misogyny
  • have need of an abortion
  • commit crimes of violence
  • are abusive to others
  • start wars
  • cheat on their taxes
  • follow the Church of Scientology
  • force women and girls should to adhere to Islamic veiling customs
  • And so on.

Saying it would be good thing to reduce the numbers of people who suffer from painful conditions and experience trauma and distress, or who engage in a particular activity that has negative effects, is not the same as advocating the elimination and extermination of those people.

I would like to reduce the number of people who suffer from suicidal ideation and urges, and who die of suicide. That does not mean I want to kill everyone who is severely clinically depressed or see them killed. It means the opposite, in fact.

But speaking of elimination and extermination, on the other thread we conversed on recently you repeatedly said it's perfectly fine if the medical interventions done to give the impression of "gender transition" on children, adolescents and young adults with sex and gender distress result in them being sterile and thus unable to have their own children. You're the one advocating that trans-identified people be rendered unable to reproduce by subjecting them to de facto eugenics, not GC. If you had a broader understanding of history and were familiar with the mechanism by which many antibiotics and pesticides work, maybe you'd grasp what you're championing.

Calls for trans elimination by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How on earth can you possibly know this?

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

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

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm not the best person to decide but even you with your years of experience, you're not trans (sorry if I'm mistaken), we have very different perspectives.

But I never said I was the best person to decide, either.

BTW, many of the doctors and psychiatrists who are best at treating a particular condition do not have that condition themselves. In fact, I'd say this is the case for most. For example, David Redwine MD is an ob-gyn who is incredibly compassionate towards women with chronic pelvic pain, and since the 1980s he's been a world leader in trying to come up with more effective treatments for endometriosis and other forms of female pelvic pain. But as a man, Redwine does not and cannot suffer from the conditions he treats, and he cares so deeply about.

IMCO, it's a fallacy, and a grave mistake, to think that the only people who possibly can have understanding, compassion, intelligence, insight, wisdom about a particular medical or psychiatric issue, social problem, life difficulty or set of life difficulties are those who have firsthand experience with it. Just because someone isn't trans doesn't necessarily mean s/he knows nothing about it and has nothing of value to contribute. Conversely, just because a person is trans doesn't automatically mean they know everything about everyone who suffers from sex and gender distress and should be taken as the ultimate authority "all things trans," including the best way to help children and tweens struggling with sex and gender distress - particularly those of the opposite sex.

I don't think humans will ever reach a stage when we "can swap out organs like bracelets." Having been around a lot of people with major, life-limiting illness and disabilities all my life, I am concerned about how casual so many young people today are about getting medical interventions that can impair health, diminish or destroy function, and shorten lifespans.

But my concern doesn't mean I want to control what you do with your own body. All I am asking for is that you consider for a moment the possibility that maybe you personally don't know what's best for all the kids in the world with sex and gender distress. I hope you will take some time to see that maybe, just maybe your personal experience as an "AMAB" adult transitioner does not automatically make you best placed to decide and dictate what "should" happen to tween and teen girls and young women who have developed sex and gender distress for reasons very different to you - and whose developing female bodies will be much more negatively impacted by taking exogenous testosterone than your body has been by taking exogenous estrogen.

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

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

Aren't we all hyper focused on gender here? Doesn't gender critical want to talk about masculinity and femininity?

No and no. People on the gender critical side are critical of gender, which we see as oppressive and limiting, and we are critical of gender ideology and genderism. Your side is the one that wants to talk about masculinity and femininity all the time, not us.

I personally find masculinity and femininity to be pretty boring - and being "hyper focused on gender" IMO leads to migraines, myopia and madness.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Thank you for your kind comment. (BTW, can you fill me in on what the less-than symbol plus the numeral 3 is supposed to mean?)

I am not trying to dictate what you or other adults do. I am just taking issue with your repeatedly expressed view a) that you and others like you know best about what should happen to all children with sex and gender distress, all of whom are other people's children; and b) that what would be best for them is to give them medical interventions when they are tweens and young teens that will have serious, lifelong, irreversible effects on their health. You've ping-ponged back and forth between 1) insisting all these effects are harmless; 2) admitting that many of these effects will cause harm and lead to regret, but saying "so what? big deal;" and 3) claiming that whether they are harmful or not doesn't matter because in the name of "trans rights" everyone, even minors, should be able to do whatever the hell they want to their own bodies regardless of the harms they might suffer, because trans people being able to exercise total bodily autonomy is far more important than trans people being able to experience bodily health and enjoy full function of all body parts.

I am also taking issue with the kinds of sweeping statements you've made that reflect what I believe to be inaccurate assumptions how other people make decisions about medical interventions and other matters that can affect health, diminish fertility and narrow people's life options.

what shouldn't be the case, is gatekeeping your decision behind whether some random person thinks you've done enough thinking about it. It's your body, and while it's definitely a good thing to try and be safe, there shouldn't be anyone forcing you to go about it in a certain way. You're allowed to do as much or as little consideration as you like, it's still your choice to make.

When it comes to medical decisions, or decisions that affect or can affect health and wellbeing, you seem to regard all safeguards; all treatment protocols, standards and guidelines; all ethics reviews and panels; all professional discretion exercised by HCPs and HCFs; and all advice from others suggesting caution as overly-interfering and draconian "gatekeeping." I disagree.

You present medical care, surgeries and other procedures as though they only involve one single person: the patient, or the recipient. You make it sound like getting an abortion, having a GnRH implant inserted like was done to Jazz Jennings, getting a "gender affirming" surgery, getting a prescription for a child to be put on cross-sex hormones and hormone suppressant drugs like Spiro etc as sort of like going to an automatic teller machine and getting cash, or using a vending machine: faceless transactions involving no human interaction.

But that's not the case: in medical care and procedures lots of people are involved beyond the patient/recipient. When someone has surgery, there are many others who actually do all the work: the surgeon or surgeons, the office staff who get the insurance clearance, the insurance company, the intake staff at the facility where the surgery takes place, the prep nurses, the OR nurses, the anesthesiologist, the recovery room staff, the discharge nurse... and so on. You seem to think that none of these people should be allowed to have any say in what is done to patients. You seem to think if I want my legs cut off because seeing the way my once gorgeous, shapely and strong gams look now that I am old, wrinkled, flabby and my joints are swollen due to health problems etc causes me "dysphoria" and grief, makes it impossible for me to look in the mirror, makes me not want to go out, and feeds into my depression and anxiety, then I should be able to rock up to a surgery center and get my legs amputated - no questions asked. And you seem to think that if anyone refused or expressed hesitancy, or recommended I get therapy instead, it would be gatekeeping and a violation of my rights.

Because I have the impression that I am A LOT older than you - and I have a complicated medical history due to lots of unusual health problems personally, along with the usual gynecological issues and pregnancies; serious genetic conditions in my family (had two siblings with cystic fibrosis, one who died when we were kids, the other at 24 when I was 32; then sister who died of cancer; mother also died of cancer in her 50s when I was 24, etc) - I think I have more experience with the medical system than you. And more experience with what you call "gatekeeping." Because of my own experiences, the experiences of many friends, and dealing with the medical issues of my children as a parent, as well as helping friends deal with the medical conditions their kids have faced (such as childhood cancers), I see the whole issue of medical "gatekeeping" as far more complex than you do. I see the pros and cons of it - and I see it from various perspectives, not just from the perspective of patients who believe that whatever medical services a person wants should available and provided with no questions asked. I've also served on two civil juries in medical malpractice cases where aggrieved patients complained that doctors didn't do enough and also that doctors did too much, and what they did was wrong - so I can see these issues from a whole bunch of different sides.

I wish you well, and hope you will not come to regret any of the decisions you have made for your own health as an adult. But you and other adults like you are not my concern. My concern is the kids whose health you want to dictate. But please for heaven's sake consider for a moment that maybe you and other persons like you aren't best placed to be deciding and dictating what everyone else with sex and gender distress should do, particularly those who are children.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Like, should a pregnant woman care if you think abortion is harmful, before seeking one? No, of course not

Women get abortions to terminate pregnancies when we cannot or do not want to carry the child to term. When women get abortions, we usually take great pains to go to abortion-providers that won't do things that can put our life at risk, cause us to end up infertile, or reduce our overall life spans - such as giving us infections, removing or perforating the uterus, and lacerating the vagina.

When women get pregnant intentionally, or decide to continue with pregnancies that began accidentally, we go to great lengths to avoid doing anything that might harm the developing embryo/fetus or could have negative effects on him/her long after birth. Pregnant women curb their diet, drug intake, exposure to chemicals, and activities considerably to protect the developing offspring, even though doing so is often a big drag and denies us pleasures we very much desire. We don't drink booze, smoke weed or cigarettes, eat shellfish, eat Caesar dressing or other food items with raw egg in them, go to smoky dives, use hair dye and certain cosmetics and skin treatments... We avoid nearly all OTC and prescription drugs even when we get very sick... We get scolded by baristas for ordering coffee with caffeine.

Also, when women get abortions, do you really think we pay no mind to whether we might undergo harms in the process or as a result? Lots of women have ended up seriously ill, infertile and with lifelong complications because of abortions that were done by butchers, or were accidentally botched. One of my own sisters nearly died of sepsis after an abortion in 1970. She later had many miscarriages and died at age 45 of uterine cancer... She, her family and her doctors all believe her miscarriages, cancer and early death were related to that abortion.

I really think it would be better if you didn't talk about the experiences of women around pregnancy the way you do. Your belief that we customarily make decisions about our own bodies and reproductive capacities without a care in the world for any possible negative consequences for our own health or the health of any actual or potential offspring makes you come across as utterly clueless and very callous. To my mind, it just goes to show how very little you know of what women and girls go through.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

But that's different than freely choosing transition knowing it will lead to loss of fertility. They made that choice, it is not a doctor's job to predict with certainty where your mind will be in the far future.

How can someone "freely choose" to lose their own fertility when they are still a child, tween or teenager?

It's the same logic that doctors use to misogynistically deny tubal ligation or hysterectomies to young women. No other condition is treated this way as far as I know, nowhere else do we withhold treatment just because of the mere possibility of regret.

But there are many reasons why doctors are cautious in these situations; it's not just a matter of misogyny. Fact is, lots of women who don't want kids in their teens and 20s decide differently when they are older. I personally didn't want children until I was 33. Also, hysterectomy is a major operation with myriad lifelong impacts on women's health.

You are totally wrong about no other conditions being approached with so much caution. Most medical practitioners and health insurance companies require patients to try all the treatments that are the least radical, least invasive, least costly, with the lowest rates of negative effects first - and only if they have ALL failed to bring about marked improvement is the patient allowed to try more radical, invasive and risky approaches. Even in cases where life is at risk, such as cancers, doctors advise and use caution when it comes to treatments that can leave a young person infertile. Even when people are in the end stages of terminal illness, caution is exercised about using drugs and other interventions that are unproven and have many negative "side effects."

People can change their mind, so what? That can literally happen with anything, they should take responsibility for their choices. If they chose not to bank sperm years ago when they had the option then that's no one's fault but their own.

But what about all the people who will never get the option to bank sperm or retrieve and freeze eggs because their parents and doctors decided to use drugs to halt their development before they reach the age when they are able to make sperm - or to make mature ova?

Are you really so cruel that you would tell Jazz Jennings or Trinity Neal, "So what? You made your choices. It's no fault but your own." Do you really think they should take responsibility for what was done to them when they were 11 and 12? Jazz and Trinity were were forced into adopting a trans identity as toddlers and put on "blockers" at Tanner Stage 2. Do you seriously think they freely chose what was done to them? BTW, now that Trinity's two younger male siblings have also been decreed trans by their mom, they're probably going to be put on "blockers" as soon as they start puberty - and mom will probably arrange for them to have their testicles removed and penises reconfigured at 16, the age when she had it done to Trinity. You really would tell these people when they grow up and have misgivings to suck it up because in your opinion, having healthy genitals and being able to enjoy sex not only are unimportant, but they make YOU personally uncomfortable - and as YOU see it, being able to reproduce is not only over-rated, the very thought of having children makes YOU "want to vomit." Then once the knife is in, are you going to twist it further by pronouncing that what happened to them as children was their own their fault anyways?

I don't see you rushing to try and prevent people from making literally any other kind of choice they might regret later, so you shouldn't for people transitioning either.

You have no idea what I do in my life, LOL. But as someone who has raised children, and been in education, I definitely have shared information and offered the benefit of my experience (and wisdom) in hopes that it would help stop some others from doing things to their bodies that they might regret later. As a parent, I also had to say "no" when an adolescent child who needed surgery for a health problem was in such a rush to get the health problem fixed right away that he wanted to go with the first surgeon we consulted who could do it - even though that surgeon was a) not well qualified; and b) would have used a radical surgical approach that was experimental, without an evidence base, and likely would have led to diminished sexual function. I had to put my foot down and tell my child that when you get medical care, you get second opinions - and when you get surgery you go to the very best surgeon you can find, even if this means waiting a while, extra expense and the inconvenience of traveling. In my own case, when I had a serious problem with chronic gynecological/pelvic pain, I traveled 3,000 miles to get surgery from the best specialist in female pelvic pain and endometriosis I thought there was - David Redwine.

As a parent, I have also taken action more times that I can count to prevent my children - and their friends when in my care - from making many other kinds of choices I thought they might regret later on. Such as putting things in their mouth they could choke on, eating all their Halloween candy in one sitting, snorting soda pop up their noses, not doing their homework or leaving their homework to the last minute, not studying for exams, refusing to brush their teeth, getting behind the wheel of a car when drunk or stoned, watching horror movies when high on hallucinogens, joining the military, running off and eloping, not using contraception when engaging in heterosex, being cavalier about STDs, trying out heroin to see what it's like to shoot up, agreeing to cockamamie plans and schemes their friends cooked up, blowing all their hard-earned wages on passing pleasures and cheap thrills, getting a lot of visible tattoos/ink sleeves, investing money in dodgy ventures, getting involved romantically with people they only met online who might have been catfishers, and engaging in activities things that can impair male fertility.

young trans women may be able to receive a womb transplant in the future which could also eliminate the need to bank sperm at all

Huh? Even if someone did somehow implant a uterus in a human male body, and the person wanted to try to use that uterus to gestate a child, pregnancy still would require the merging of male and female gametes. So if such a person didn't bank their sperm, they'd need to get both eggs AND sperm from other people. I don't get why someone such as yourself would want to become pregnant with a child who is not biologically related to them. Were you under the impression that uteruses come stocked with eggs?

Also, even if someone male did manage to get a uterus implanted, and got doctors to create embryos via IVF, there's no way a pregnancy could occur and be successful. First of all, how exactly would the embryo(s) get inside the uterus? Where would the uterus get the signals and biochemicals needed to create the new lining, and bring about all the changes in the uterine tissue and environment, to allow for implantation and the development of a placenta? No way that a pregnancy could come about, much less continue to full viability, without female genes, female immune function, a female endocrine system, female kidney function, a female pelvis and skeletal structure, female internal anatomy, etc. Even if a male pelvis could somehow accommodate the size of a uterus as it grows over the course of pregnancy, a male circulatory system and male kidneys could not handle the job of processing and cleansing all the extra fluid volume.

The considerably larger size of the other male organs - and the way they are suspended inside the abdomen and torso - would get in the way of the expanding uterus, too. One of the reasons women have much smaller hearts, lungs and livers is to allow room for pregnancy - and our internal organs are more mobile than male internal organs are too, which allows them actually to move out of the way of the growing uterus when we are pregnant.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I forgot to ask this earlier: If you really believe that most trans adults agree with you that

People do not necessarily need or desire "full sexual function"

And you truly are convinced that the children subjected to "gender affirming" medical interventions that will leave without sexual function will grow up to have no regrets about it -

Then how do you account for the fact that thousands of adults in countries such as Sweden, Germany and Japan have sued and obtained compensation for being required to give up their capacity to reproduce as part of their own gender transitions that they underwent as adults?

How do you account for the fact that the one thing most "trans men" get in the news for is for having babies? If sexual function wasn't important to them, how come so many trans men are hell-bent on reproducing? How do you account for the fact that a great number of young "trans women" today say they want biological children too, and many prominent ones like Gigi Gorgeous and Blaire White have openly expressed regret and grief that they did not bank sperm before they started taking T suppressants and messing with their endocrine systems?

How do you respond to the fact that many people who have no interest in having children ever when they are in their teens and 20s find that in their 30s they feel totally differently?

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

People do not necessarily need or desire "full sexual function". I didn't. Why are you so intent on making trans kids suffer so that people can grow up wanting sex? Ofc hormones alter people's bodies and minds but that is not a negative thing, it's someone's choice.

Yikes. This is straight up the kind of thinking that Money and Mengele engaged in. It's the kind of thinking used in the past to justify the sterilization and lobotomization of people with physical and mental disabilities and other traits deemed "undesirable" in the eyes of eugenists. It's the kind of thinking that's used to justify FGM and forced hysterectomies.

What you want to see done across the board to minors too young to have agency constitute profound violations of their fundamental human rights.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Huh? My post that you are responding to was about this specific statement of yours, which I quoted and offset so that it would be clear to all exactly what I was referring to:

I support transition care for teens because I believe it is the right thing to do, it is what I would have wanted at that age, and because I am tired of kids being treated as parental property. That isn't harming children.

When I asked you to spell out why exactly "transition care for teens, kids" and children is "the right thing to do," you've come back with

Because trans people are human beings with agency who deserve to make our own decisions on what hormones we're running on. No less and no more.

The comment you made earlier I was inquiring into was specifically about teens, kids and children - not "trans people." But your response is about full-grown adults with "agency" like you. In fact, you switch speaking of other people's minor children to speaking solely about yourself and other adults like you. Me me me, we we we...

trans people are human beings with agency who deserve to make our own decisions on what hormones we're running on.

Talk about changing the topic and switching the goal posts!

Nowhere on this thread - or I believe on any other - have I ever said that full-grown adults with fully-developed brains and cognitive abilities like you should not be able to make your own decisions about your own health care and your own life.

Throughout this entire thread the concerns and questions about medical interventions that I have raised have not been about the course of action you choose for your own body, or what other adults decide to do with their bodies. The concerns and questions I've raised are about the treatments you insist must be done across the board to other people - and to other people when they are still small children, tweens, teens and young adults undergoing crucial stages of development.

I have asked you time and again why you believe you and other adults like you know best which medical interventions ALL small children, tweens and teens with gender and sex issues should be subjected to - and why in particular you think you know best about how sex-and -gender distressed female youngsters should be treated. And I'll gotten back is responses that indicate you know nothing whatsoever of child development and do not give a shit about the longterm health and wellbeing of the children whose bodies you insist must be altered. Such as this inhumane, ignorant doozy:

Blockers having side effects is unfortunate but that is a problem with those particular medications not the concept of pausing puberty.

I bet your only knowledge about children comes from having been a child once yourself. I'd lay down good money that you've never even done any baby sitting or changed a diaper.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I support transition care for teens because I believe it is the right thing to do, it is what I would have wanted at that age, and because I am tired of kids being treated as parental property. That isn't harming children.

This is worth breaking down into its component parts.

I support transition care for teens because I believe it is the right thing to do,

Why is it the right thing to do? Please list reasons.

I support transition care for teens because it is what I would have wanted at that age

Yet when I say that this is is the case for you and other adult males who have "transitioned," you take umbrage.

I support transition care for teens because I am tired of kids being treated as parental property.

I agree that children and teens are not the property of their parents, and shouldn't be treated as such. But it seems to me that many of the parents who have "transitioned" their children have treated their kids as their property. And also as their pet "projects," show ponies, cash cows, claims to fame, pawns in their own psychodramas, props used to get themselves attention and applause, and mouthpieces. Seems to me children and youngsters like Kai Shappley and Jazz Jennings have been used, exploited, manipulated and controlled by their parents just much as Edgar Bergen once did to Charlie McCarthy.

But again, why do you think you personally know best about the medical interventions other people's children should receive? Why are you qualified to dictate what happens to other people's kids? Do you have any expertise or experience at all in child and adolescent development? How many children have you raised or had a hand in raising? Have you ever done any childcare? Been a Big Brother or Big Sister? A tutor? A mentor? Had a regular babysitting gig?

There are many adults with all sorts of psychiatric, health and social problems that younger generations of kids today are grappling with. But I don't know of any other situation where adults who experienced a particular problem in their own childhoods and adolescence are trying to dictate the medical treatments that kids with the same problem today are getting.

That isn't harming children.

Several posters have gone into detail about some of the many physical harms that have been done to children by giving them the kinds of medical interventions you advocate they receive. Yet you still blithely make such assertions.

There's a 15-16 year old girl in Sweden who identifies (or did) as trans featured in the Trans Train documentary Part 4 who is in constant pain and has trouble standing, walking and just getting through each day because the "puberty blockers" she was put on at 11 caused her to suffer multiple spine fractures, disc disintegration and bone deformity. Moreover, stunting her skeletal development means she hasn't grown in height since she was 11. So at barely 5' tall, she's going to go through life even shorter than she would have been without the blockers. But she appears even shorter than that because she can't straighten her spine when on her feet. Tell me, how will these physical features help her "pass" as a man better?

Apparently, there are at least 15 other girls in Sweden treated by the Karolinska Institute in similar straits. There's also a girl in Australia who is in a wheelchair because as a result of the "puberty blockers," the major bones in her legs break when she tries to stand on them.

The Karolinska ended up having to report itself to Swedish medical authorities and to prosecutors for the harms its medical doctors have done to girls in the name of "gender affirming medical treatment." Yet ideologues like you continue to claim that the kind of experimental treatments you advocate for and insist on

isn't harming children.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Being trans is not a horrible fate.

But I never said "being trans" (whatever that means) is a horrible fate. I said female persons whose health has been permanently damaged by regular administration of exogenous testosterone/androgens for the purpose of masculinizing them during their tweens, teens and 20s have faced, and do face, a horrible fate.

Female persons doped on T over the course of many years for the purpose of masculinization routinely experience physical problems like vaginal atrophy, cystitis, extreme pelvic pain, including upon/after orgasm, and a host of other serious gynecological issues leading to major surgeries like hysterectomy and oophorectomy that will put them at risk for other health problems like vaginal and pelvic organ prolapse and early-onset dementia. As adults, female persons on long-term exogenous T for masculinization have double the risk of heart attacks and CV disease as ordinary male adults do.

The medical interventions you recommend - indeed insist upon - for young female persons will cause them to go from having half the risk of heart attack and CV diseases as males to having twice the risk of males. Moreover, whereas females who develop CV disease usually begin to develop it 7-10 years later than males, women heavily dosed with testosterone in their formative years appear to develop CV disease earlier than males. If the women doped on androgens during their formative and athletic years by the East German government are any indication, taking over many years during adolescence and adulthood significantly reduces female life spans.

The core question I asked you earlier that you have refused to answer is: Why are adult trans activists like you so intent on issuing diktats saying other people's minor children should be given powerful prescription drugs and artificial hormones that will impede their natural development and impair their sexual function?

Why do you and other males think you have sufficient insight and expertise on the health of female children, adolescents and adults to decide and insist that during their tweens and teens, large numbers of girls should be put on exogenous Big Pharma testosterone?

Do you make posts dictating what medical treatments other groups of youngsters - particularly girls - should get? Or just girls who are distressed about gender and sex issues - girls who if allowed to develop naturally and with proper mental health support might grow up to be strong "GNC" women unwilling to take shit from males - no matter how the males say they identify?

Hmm, what's up with that?

I'll wait.

Honestly the only people from this list who a young person probably knows might be Laverne Cox and contra. Add on Hunter Schafer. Do I have to like famous trans people to be trans? No lol, we could use more young trans role models like Hunter, but it takes time.

Huh? I never suggested the persons I named were models for the tween and teenage girls and young women who want to "transition" today. I mentioned nothing about role models. I don't know how you could have come to such an odd conclusion.

I said that the statements made by male persons like the ones I named are what led to the notion that it would be a good idea to stop the natural development of children for the purpose of "early medical transition" in the first place. When adult males like the ones I named - and the additional ones you yourself have now mentioned - look back on their own teenage years, they frequently say that they wish they hadn't developed male secondary sex characteristics during their own puberties of adolescence because having obviously male sex characteristics make it harder for them to "pass" as women. And it's because of what such adult males say about their own lives in retrospect - and out of their own mirror-gazing, appearance-obsessed, very narrow self-interests - that large numbers of young children they have never met, never will meet, have nothing to do with and know jack shit about, are being subjected to radical experimental medical interventions to stop them from going through puberty.

I didn't mention the adult males I named because they are "famous trans people" who might have direct influence on youngsters because they are work in entertainment like Cox does, make YT videos like CP does, or they work as fashion models like Hunter Shafer does. I mentioned the individuals I did because the ideas that inform and govern "pediatric gender medicine" are based entirely on the experience of such males, and only on their experience as males. Moreover, the individuals I named all have enormous influence on the people who make health care policy and decide the standards of care for children and adolescents experiencing distress over sex and gender issues. All of the people I mentioned have the ears of the people high up in medicine, psychotherapy, politics, government, "LGBTQ" lobbying, publishing and the mainstream media, social media, the insurance industry, etc who make policy and decide what treatments are appropriate for children.

In fact, some of the people I mentioned - Rachel Levine, Marci Bowers - actually set the standards of medical treatment and determine health policy themselves. In case you were unaware of this, Rachel Levine is the Biden administration official personally in charge of women's and children's medical treatment and health care policy in the USA. Marci Bowers is president-elect of WPATH, and a longtime member of the groups that control WPATH at the highest levels, including the board of directors. Over the years, Bowers has also been an outspoken, leading advocate of subjecting male children to surgical castration and penile reconfiguration whilst they are still minors. And not just when they are still minors, but when they are minors still living under their parents' roofs and under their parents' thumbs. (Bowers says a main reason for this is so that the mothers can force recently-castrated youths to dilate after surgery when they don't want to.) Until recently, Bowers was also one of the biggest proponents of "pubertal blockade" of male children at Tanner Stage 2.

All the leading lights and influential figures in the gender identity industry like Norman Spack, Jack Turban and Diane Ehrenshraft; orgs like WPATH, APA and Mermaids; clinicians, psychotherapists policy makers, insurers, parents and everyone else captured by today's gender identity ideology say it's a good idea to follow the advice of the kinds of adult males I have mentioned in determining how best to treat young boys and girls who are distressed over sex and gender issue. All of them and the other powers-that-be in "pediatric gender medicine" and "youth gender care" say it's essential to make sure that gender confused kids are subjected to radical medical interventions as early in childhood as possible. Meaning before the first physical signs of puberty of adolescence become obvious - which according to the protocols now in use in the US, means putting female children on "puberty blockers" AND exogenous testosterone as early as 8, and putting males on "blockers" at 10-11 and on exogenous estrogen by 12. (Jazz Jennings went on "blockers" at 11, and exogenous estrogen at 11 years, 5 months.)

These experimental radical medical interventions are being done on young children on the say so and at the urging of adult males like the ones I named - and like the younger adult ones you yourself mentioned. All of whom had the privilege of growing up without their brains, bones and endocrine systems being irreversibly altered and without developing the kinds of iatrogenic physical and mental health problems that Jazz Jennings now has. All of whom also have had the chance to develop normal male reproductive capacity and to experience the enormous and exquisite pleasures that come from having mature male sexual function, male libido, male sexual pleasure, and male orgasms.

Trans people are entitled to medical treatments to help us transition if we want them. It isn't about what anyone else wants.

If that's the case, why are you and other adults like you so insistent on dictating the medical interventions done on minors? Minors who are other people's children. Minors who are mostly children of the sex you seem to know very little about, and you have no experience of?

If that's the case, why are you on social media making statements like this one:

we should be giving teens cross-sex hormones instead, the same way we would for adults. They can desist or detransition later.

Again, why is it so important to you and other adults like you to insure that other people's minor children get robbed of the chance to grow up physically healthy with fully developed brains and bodies, and with the capacity to enjoy full sexual function?

Why are you and other adults like you so intent on making sure that cross-sex hormones are used to alter the bodies and mess with the minds of tween and teenage girls in particular?

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

it's easy for people to compartmentalize their stuff and keep things in the bedroom. Most people have kinks or fantasies but do they affect you outside of a sex-life? No lol

If you had grown up and gone through life as a female, I think you might have a very different impression of the ability of "people to compartmentalize their stuff and keep things in the bedroom."

Fact is, lots of males especially don't "keep things in the bedroom." Ignoring and trampling girls' and women's boundaries and behaving inappropriately towards us when out in the world beyond the home and the bedroom so as to discomfit and frighten us is precisely what gets them off.

There are tons of guys whose kinks and fantasies definitely affect girls and women because as we are the sex that they target when out about in the world outside the home and bedroom. We are the ones at whom they aim all the public flashing, masturbating, leering, groping, humping, rubbing up against, harassing, pestering, catcalling, menacing, stalking, perving, etc that they do. We're the ones to whom they send unsolicited dic pics and rape and death threats; we're the ones they constantly tell to suck their dicks; we're the ones they jerk off at - whether at home in their bedrooms, or near us on public transport, at school and at work, on streets and hiking trails, at the park and the library, at the shopping mall and airport, and sitting stuck in traffic or at a red light.

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

In response to someone else pointing out that

most teens who identify as trans will desist by the time they're adults and be happy with their natal sex. Getting teens on hormones will be detrimental to them because they will most likely end up with irreversible body changes they will later regret

Your said:

Then they will be no worse off than trans people who regret going through puberty. They deserve support and care, but I will always support trans people and so I would rather people transition even if they will regret it.

Yes, it's true that males who only took testosterone blockers and exogenous estrogen and then cease might end up no worse off "than trans people who regret going through puberty" - or rather, who say they regret it. (BTW, I think it bears pointing out that the "trans people who regret going through puberty" are almost exclusively adult males who enjoy full sexual function, and many of whom have fathered children.) But that won't be true for the males who had their balls removed and their penises removed or reconfigured.

Swedish celebrity Alexa Lundberg and the YouTuber Shape Shifter both went through normal male puberty of adolescence before they tried to turn themselves into facsimiles of women, yet now both say they wished they had just accepted that they were gay males from the start rather than chasing an impossible fantasy.


If men like SS and Lundberg regret their decisions, then how can it be that males who will be deprived of the chance to go through male puberty of adolescence will be no worse off for it than all the adult males who after deciding to "become women" in adulthood say they wish they could have skipped male puberty? (Also, for the record: whilst post-transition males who say they wish they hadn't gone through puberty typically do so because they think this would've made them them more "passable" as the opposite sex, I highly doubt that the majority of them would have passed up their chance to experience male libido, male sexual arousal and male orgasm in the off-chance it might make them "pass" better now.)

But that's the males. Pray tell, how will the young females you are wishing this horrible fate on end up "no worse off than" the males you speak of who now say they regret going through male puberty?

Also, why do you think mature adults like Laverne Cox, Rachel Levine, Grace Lavery, Julia Serrano, Andrea Long Chu, Caitlyn Jenner, Contrapoints, Char Clymer, Jennifer Finney Boylan, Marci Bowers, TS Madison, etc are good comparators for today's distressed tween and teenage girls? Why are they the models on which to base standards of medical care for young girls with sex and gender distress?

Why should what full-grown males say about their own time as youths way back when be the deciding factor in determining which medical treatments are given to today's and tomorrow's tween and teenage girls, some as young as 8?

Wpath and the eunuch archives by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Many of those issues are due to blockers; we should be giving teens cross-sex hormones instead, the same way we would for adults. They can desist or detransition later.

Who is the "we" here?

Why are adult trans activists so intent on issuing diktats saying other people's minor children should be given powerful prescription drugs and artificial hormones that will impede their natural development and impair their sexual function?

Most of the tweens and teens seeking medical "transition" today are females. I'm wondering why you think you have sufficient insight and expertise on the health of female children, adolescents and adults to dictate that during their tweens and teens, large numbers of girls should be put on exogenous Big Pharma testosterone - an addictive, harmful substance whose manufacture, sale and use in most jurisdictions is tightly controlled because of the dangers it poses to human health, particularly the health of developing females.

The former GDR (East Germany) did a de facto large-scale experiment showing that regularly dosing human females with exogenous testosterone/androgens during their tween, teen and 20s has devastating, totally irreversible effects on their near-term, medium-term and long-term physical health and mental wellbeing, and shortens their lives. Why would you wish this horrible fate on so many girls today?

Do you make posts dictating what medical treatments other groups of youngsters - particularly girls - should get? Or just girls who are distressed about gender and sex issues - girls who if allowed to develop naturally and with proper mental health support might grow up to be strong "GNC" women unwilling to take shit from males - no matter how the males say they identify?

Hmm, what's up with that?

With whole groups bearing down on you bent on erasing you from existence

I can relate to this 100% because I feel that that whole groups, including trans activists, are bearing down on people like me, hell bent on erasing us from existence.

Grownups of the sex that has given birth to every man, woman, boy and girl ever to have lived - and have done by far the bulk raising children - are increasingly being told we no longer can have the sports, spaces, services and rights that generations of women fought tooth and nail to obtain. Indeed, we're no longer even allowed to have any words for ourselves and our own "lived experience."

Woman, girl, lady, female, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, she, her - males have laid claim to all the words for people like me. People like me have been informed by people like you that we are now a second-class subset of our own sex class, and in the name of "inclusion" we must be called dehumanizing terms like "cis," menstruators, cervix-owners, uterus havers, carriers, gestators, birthing bodies, bodies with vaginas, chestfeeders, old bints, dried up cxnts, whxres, dinosaurs, Karens, bleeders and the like.

At the same time, the female body part that people like me use for activities like menstruating and giving birth no longer can be called a vagina, because according to orgs like the HRC, that's a word that people like you have decided to appropriate for yourselves. So now the part of my body that used to be considered part of the "birth canal" is now to be called "front hole" - and other such neologisms as "Barbie pouch."

On top of this, when people like me protest our dehumanization, erasure and the constant abuse we get from gender identity ideologues - particularly the male ones, but not exclusively the male ones, sadly - we're told that advocating for ourselves and having any kinds of boundaries that cause us ever to say "no" to the males who insist they are us is now bigotry, hatred and violence akin to the racist white supremacy that led to Naziism, the Holocaust and apartheid.

You really think your group is the one group in all the world that suffers the most "minority stress"?

Jan Morris lived until 94. Morris said that in more than 50 years living openly as "male to female transsexual," Morris never suffered a moment of "minority stress" due to to Morris's unusual "gender identity." Morris remained just as celebrated after "transition" as Morris was beforehand - in fact, Morris raked in more awards and accolades. Morris apparently never suffered any inconvenience due to gender identity either, as Morris's devoted wife stuck around till the end. The dutiful wife raised their 5 kids pretty much singlehandedly whilst Jan continued focusing on career achievements post-transition just as single-mindedly as pre-transition, kept house, made all of Jan's food, did Jan's laundry, researched Jan's projects, typed Jan's manuscripts, and until Jan's dying breath, always put Jan first.

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

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

LOL, this is like saying that all the people in the world fit in into one of two groups: red wine drinkers or white wine drinkers. When the reality is, a whole lot of people on earth don't drink wine at all. Plus, a good portion of the world's population at any given moment are too young to drink wine, even if they live in wine-appreciating cultures and will grow up later on to have a taste for it.

Just because you personally see the world through lenses that are hyper-focused on masculinity and femininity doesn't mean everyone else does. Please stop projecting your own views, preoccupations and hangups onto others - particularly women whose vantage point(s) and views are very different to yours. From your posting history, I have the impression you don't have a clue what radical feminists, a lot of other women and many "GC" men think.

Bill Maher Attacking Gender Cult by WildApples in GenderCritical

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

I believe the change in tune is directly related to the fact that the merger deal involving the parent company which owns HBO was completed last month (April) - and new management has been installed at the top of the new firm that's been created, Warner Bros Discovery. The content officer of HBO, Casey Bloys, is to remain in place for the time being, but now he reports to a new boss, Discovery CEO David Zaslav. Zaslav is openly "anti-woke."


One of the first things Zaslav has done in the few weeks he's been at the helm of the new entertainment behemoth Warner Bros Discovery is announce that he's set up a face-to-face meeting with JK Rowling in hopes of convincing her to make content for HBO Max.

He now plans to sit down with Rowling to discuss new Harry Potter-related content for his HBO Max streamer.

That comes despite Rowling facing mounting criticism over her view on transgender people, with HBO Max 'canceling' her from a Harry Potter reunion special it broadcast on New Year's Day.

Any rapprochement with the billionaire British author is likely to infuriate progressive staff at HBO Max, but Zaslav seems unlikely to bow to woke pressure.

Zaslav seems to want to keep HBO Max profitable while remaking its parent company in his image.

On Wednesday, Zaslav took to CNBC to share some of his colleague Chris Licht's plans for CNN, another one of his new properties.

Zaslav appeared to confirm the network would move away from opinion-focused primetime shows, and instead return to its roots as a breaking news broadcaster with an extremely strong reputation for covering big stories.


I'm hoping this means we can look forward to hearing more from Bill Maher about gender madness. Since he's a foe of all religions - as well as authoritarianism and "political correctness" of all kinds - taking aim at the Church of Genderology should be right up his alley. Also, he's always been on point when it comes to calling out the ridiculous excesses and histrionics of the so-called left.

Woman inherits a title through a legal loophole by Rage-Xion in GenderCritical

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

I'd be willing to bet that this particular convention has stuck around from more rigidly gender-role-dependent times not because of any particular malice towards women in modern Britain but because the country as a whole can't stand changing their quite-literally-medieval legal codes.

If that's how you'd bet, you'd lose your money.

There have been innumerable changes to UK legal codes since the medieval era, including many reforms whose purpose has been to address, bolster and roll back various forms of male-only privilege, such as primogeniture and laws that historically restricted a host of rights solely to males - such as the right to own property, the right to keep one's own wages, the right to be paid fair wages at the same rate as others doing the same exact job, the right to inherit from your spouse, the right to have a bank account and bank services, and right to be served in a pub (which was only extended to women unaccompanied by men in the UK in 1982).

In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, numerous changes have been also been made regarding how Parliament and the monarchy operate that specifically deal with male primogeniture and male privilege.














When the UK's Gender Recognition Act of 2004 was in the process of being written and discussed in Parliament, there was considerable focus on the importance of not letting the new law remove or diminish male primogeniture and other forms of legally-enforced male privilege then still enshrined in UK law (keeping the Masons male-only, for example). You can read the debates in Hansard.

The GRA of 2004 as it was made into UK law explicitly says that when males receive a Gender Recognition Certificate and change their legal sex to female, they still will retain the all rights to inherit titles and property, and to serve in positions, that by UK law and longstanding custom are reserved only for males. At the same time, the GRA explicitly says that when females obtain a GRC and change their legal sex to male, they cannot and will not be considered male for the purpose of inheriting titles and estates, and for obtaining any other male-only rights and privileges that in the UK it's permissible to exclude females from, such as the right to seek membership in the Masons, to join the RC priesthood, to become a Muslim imam, and to attend Eton, Harrow or Radley.

Britain on the whole is allergic to changing oldass laws on anything

That claim is utter rubbish. If you took the time on occasion to crack a history book or two, watch some historical documentaries, or enjoy theatrical-release movies about truel-life events in the UK such as "A Man For All Seasons," "Amazing Grace," "Suffragette," "In The Name of The Father," "10 Rillington Place," "Made In Dagenham" etc, you'd get a sense of just how wrong that wholly unsubstantiated assertion of yours is.



Am I misreading? I’m leery about the Women’s Bill of Rights Resolution, as introduced. by one1won in GenderCritical

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

The issues with the phrasing you point out could easily be corrected, though. I personally think the phrasing in the removed section is poorly worded - it's imprecise and awkward. It's also asymmetrical in the way it names the female gametes, but doesn't name the male ones, which is not a good look in this kind of resolution. If I'd been consulted, I would have heavily revised that section.

Instead of

For purposes of state/federal law, a ‘female’ is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova; a ‘male’ is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female;

I would say something like:

For purposes of state/federal law, a ‘female’ is a human being who during gestation in utero developed gonads, or a single gonad or functional gonadal tissue, whose role in reproduction is the generation of gametes known as ova; a ‘male’ is a human being who during gestation in utero developed gonads, or a single gonad, or functional gonadal tissue, whose role in reproduction is the generation of sperm;

Wording like this would put the focus on the gonads, the organs where gametes are generated and immature gamete precursor cells reside, rather than on the "biological reproductive system" - a vague and clunky term if there ever was one. IMO, use of the term "biological reproductive system" here is "problematic" because the reality is that only the gonads generate ova or sperm. All the other parts of the male and female reproductive systems perform functions that are separate and additional to the making of gametes.

My wording establishes that the defining criteria of sex is the kind of gonad, or gonadal tissue, each individual developed during gestation in utero, ovaries or testes - not whether someone still has the gonads (or gonad or gonadal tissue) they were born with all through life. My wording also covers those born with a single gonad, or with two gonads but with a disorder leading to gonadal dysgenesis and/or dysfunction in one or both. And it allows for the differences in the ways that female and male gametes are generated, and the different stages of human development when the processes involved in the making and maturation of male and female human gametes take place.

My wording further insures that everyone can still easily be classed as either female or male even if they are currently pre-pubertal kids too young to be generating gametes from the gonads they were born with, or they are or post-menopausal women past the phase in life when gamete generation is possible in human females. It also covers all the cases of people who developed gonads, or gonadal tissue, during gestation in utero that never could perform, or never had the potential to perform, the function of gamete generation in the first place due to genetic medical conditions like DSDs; early in life medical interventions like chemotherapy, X-rays and gonadectomy; and other reasons such as environmental damage and exposure to drugs like DES during development.

Finally, focusing exclusively on gonads, and zeroing in on one single job that gonads do - "whose role in reproduction is the generation of gametes" - makes the defining criteria of human sex completely separate from other issues that are frequently dragged in, such as sex hormone levels now and other times, atypical sex chromosomes, misplaced SRY genes, malformations or problems with other parts of the male and female reproductive tracts and urogenital anatomy, how well a person's androgen and estrogen receptors work or don't work, individuals' outward phenotype and appearance, and which if any secondary sex characteristics individuals developed - and how pronounced those characteristics are.

This definition also removes the possibility of parents, doctors and gender ideologues insisting that when children on the cusp of adolescence are put on "puberty blockers" followed by high doses of Big Pharma sex hormones of the sort dominant in the opposite sex, these children for all intents and purposes cease being their actual sex and turn into the other sex. Because what makes a person male or female is the gonads we developed whilst we were still in our mother's wombs - and there is no way to go back and redo our prenatal gestation.

Am I misreading? I’m leery about the Women’s Bill of Rights Resolution, as introduced. by one1won in GenderCritical

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

It's a proposed resolution that has been introduced in Congress. It hasn't been voted on. Dunno if it will ever be voted on. But like legislation and court decisions, resolutions that many parties are involved in - and many more parties are asked to sign and/or support - usually go through many drafts and changes as different parties put in their proverbial two cents.

I suggest you write to the legislators who introduced the resolution, and the organizations other than WoLF who are behind it, and ask why they omitted that part and spell out why you object. But first please see and consider my other comment on this thread pointing out some of the problems with the phrasing of the passage that's been removed.

Stereotypically female desire for compliments by Chocolatepudding in GenderCritical

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

If/when this insufferable narcissist's poor BF starts giving her the compliments she wants worded exactly as she insists, you can bet she'll immediately start complaining that he's not using the right tone of voice and that he doesn't seem sincere.

No, not like that. Say it like you really mean it. Put some oomph in it. Use some emotional elbow grease. Show some enthusiasm. Make me believe you.