Bisexual Men: Experiences w/ Internalized Homophobia

Taln_Reich · 2022-02-07T17:09:30+00:00

for me, it was more than a decade past the point where I really should have realised that I'm not straight, and even when I actually managed to sit down and break though it all, I still felt quite some resistance until I actually was willing to admitt it to myself. And then it still took me another 1 1/2 years until I dared to come out.

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-30T11:51:02+00:00

yeah, I have already seen that article linked on Ovarit.

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-29T21:33:26+00:00

Maybe you should point out to that admin that the statement "exterminate all penis-havers" (a extremly hatefull statement toward a sex-based group, not a gender/gender-identity based one) would not violate that definition on hate speech, and that therefore that definition is quite clearly missing protection for sex-based groups (I choose a male example, as a female one might not get the point across)

Also, on another leaf, the admins don't do all the work of searching for subs and reasons to ban them by themself. Thats done by the likes of Bardfinn and Bardfinn's followers. The Admins alone probably just couldn't be bothered, if there wasn't some big figure with the conviction that cis lesbians having their own sub is hatefull in itself (just keep the sub itself free from clear hate. Without the Bardfinn brigade, r/biologicalLesbians would have never been banned)

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-29T20:48:24+00:00

I think if we get rid of Bardfinn we might have a chance at getting them up and running. The TRA mafia has already lost Challenor and Nekosune. Bring down Bardfinn and the tides might change enough for Lesbians to be free again.

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-29T20:33:57+00:00

I actually compiled a list of all trans-exclusionary lesbian subreddits: https://www.reddit.com/r/CisLesbiansOnly/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CisLesSafeSpace/ https://www.reddit.com/r/actualcisbians/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cislesbians/

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-29T18:15:43+00:00

Just keep on the lookout on reddits LGBT subs and point people who have a problem with the current state of the LGBT towards this site.

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-29T10:53:30+00:00

It's low effort woke points. Just tack "they" onto your regular pronouns and you can claim all the pro's from being non-binary in woke spaces (attention, being considered woke, everyone tip-toeing around you) without having to endure any difficulties in unwoke spaces (for example no negative reaction from being/being perceived as gender non-conforming, no pronoun problems in unwoke spaces, no discrimination in general in unwoke spaces). Essentially, winning the oppression olympics without having to experience any actual oppression.

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-26T20:20:52+00:00

AHS already has AskGayBros in their sights.

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-20T08:16:59+00:00

Reminds me of a meme I saw somewhere. The First picture was Gigachad stating "I'm a straight guy", the second was the statement "Lesbian= non-man loving non-man" and the third was the same picture of Gigachad (with the inclusive pride flag, aka this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inclusive_PRIDE_Trans_POC_LG.jpg put in) stating "correction: I'm a masculine presenting, non-dysphoric he/him AMAB demiboy who is an aromantic, fraysexual lesbian". I'l try to see idf I can find the meme itself again.

Taln_Reich · 2021-04-13T10:04:43+00:00

well, there's at least one trying https://twitter.com/JuPitch84/status/1380162187604426756

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-27T00:11:43+00:00

I kind of assume it is this group of trans people who were added to the LGB in the first place...

way I heard it, until around 2015 it was the mainstream school of thinking that one needs gender dysphoria to be trans (e.g. what truscum is), then came the tucute takeover, which eliminated this condition (meaning that basically everyone can claim to be trans) and since then trans space is increasingly coopted by trenders and bad-faith actors.

Or so I heard.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-23T08:32:06+00:00

So, the nick of that person seemed kind of familiar to me, then I checked and realised, that it is literally the same person as the one featured in this https://ovarit.com/o/TransLogic/13788/no-man-is-permitted-to-clock-me Ovarit-Post.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-11T10:33:31+00:00

I kind of suggested something like that before elsewhere:

So, my solution is, to consider "genital preferences" a component of sexual orientation, with (for clarity of communication) or qualifier for this component being added to the sexual orientation. So far I've come up with the provisional labels of "CGP" ("Congurent Genital Preference" - requiering that secondary characteristics and primary ones are in allignment, e.g. men must have penisses and women must have vaginas), "NGP" ("No Genital Preference" - no requierement for secondary and primary sexual characteristics to align, e.g. pre-button-surgery transgender people of the correct gender are ok) and "IGP" ("Incongurent Genital Preference" - requierment for secondary and primary sexual characteristics to be at odds. This is primarily to weirdo-proof this system) (Note: these labels may need some workshopping. If someone has good proposals, I'm listening). So a bisexual woman who needs her men to have a penis and her women to have vaginas would be a CGP-Bisexual, while a man who is open to women with vaginas and pre-op trans women would be a NGP-Heterosexual.

And, yes, I admit the word "preferrence" (implying a choice) might be a bit problematic, which is why I said that these labels might requiere some workshopping.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-04T21:04:19+00:00

I can actually answer that. Let me quote the 2015 US transgender survey

Respondents were asked which terms best described their sexual orientation. Respondents were most likely to identify as queer (21%), and they also identified as pansexual (18%), gay, lesbian, or same-gender-loving (16%), straight (15%), bisexual (14%), and asexual (10%) (Figure 4.28).

( https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS%20Full%20Report%20-%20FINAL%201.6.17.pdf , p. 59)

That page also has a more detailed graph breaking that down to trans women, trans men and non-binary people. Don't ask me why crossdressers are included.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-04T17:38:30+00:00

No, you don't. What you actually care for is needlessly tormenting transgender people.

I don' t give a damn about "tormenting" transgender people, if they stayed in their lane, I wouldn' t even think of them. This is 100% the result of them invading spaces that are not theirs.

That has honestly to me the same vibe as a white supremacist saying that he wouldn't think about black people as long as they "know their place". Transgender acceptance means accepting them as the gender they identify as, not forciebly segreggating them in regards to public accomondations.

Women who identify as men support the same ideology as men who identify as women. As I already told you more than once, I have no problem with them getting their spaces, they don' t want them. And if they are allowed to not want them and shit on women' s rights and dignity, then I am allowed to not want mixed spaces either.

you still haven't shown how women's rights are "being shat on". As I already linked 1, there is no such thing as "sex-based rights". There is a prohibition of sex-based discrimination with exemptions subject to practicality, which does requiere proportionality. And you have not shown how transgender inclusion is such a violation of women's dignity to justify the kind of over-the-top response you are advocating for.

b.) wrong, tell that to the women who were scared of fighting Mack Beggs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Beggs ).

Yes, because, as I said, testosterone makes women stronger. Doesn' t mean it makes them as strong as a man.

Mack Beggs clearly was of the opinion, that he wasn't particulary weaker than men, otherwise he wouldn't have asked to be able to compete with them.

Furthermore, I think the issue here was more about having a woman taking a drug that is considered doping than anything else.

The issue is a man beinjg forced to compete with women by transphobic rules.

A person shouldn' t need to see "women' s only" and then find a man there, but here we are.

And with your type of bathroom policing that becomes more likely, as you are forcing trans men, who are men and can easily look the part, into the women's bathroom.

passing a badge is a check in the same way passing my university badge to record my presence at a lesson was a constant check.

never had to do this when I was at university (computer room was the only exception, for obvious reasons), and yes, I would consider it "constant checks" if I had to prove my birth sex every time I want to use the restroom.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-04T17:15:57+00:00

And after days of debating, you still don' t get that even if there were no attacks from men in those shelters, those men should still not be there.

I absoloutly understand that you want to deny even the most harmless transgender women in need of a women's shelter the help she needs out of pure bigotry. I just don't agree with your bigotry.

Four differences here: a.) that badge is how the subway operator makes sure you paid your fare, which adresses a vital need for them, meanwhile, your "requiere an electronic ID-Badge to use the restroom"-idea is aderessing nothing but your irrational fear of the person in the next cubicle having different gonads than you

It makes a point of having distinct categories based on realities and gives people the option of choosing.

what "option of choosing" does it give anyone to force people into the bathroom of their birth sex?

I have no clue what this sentence mean.

That your insane bathroom-policing-plan does not, at all, give anyone any "option of choosing", it takes options away.

I don' t see the problem with that. Plus, I am not really sure how it works in other countries, but in mine we have sanitary electronic badges so they could be easily modified to be read by a reader outside of those places or do it with ID documents in general as long as they are electronic. You don' t need a different badge, you can use the ones you already have.

I have never heard of any such thing. What would even be the reasoning behind some electronic badge just to use the restroom? Sounds utterly absurd.

It sounds absurd to you because breaking that rule is beneficial to you.

I have never used a gender-seperated space opposite to my birth sex, never tried to do so and have no intention of ever doing so. Demanding an electronic badge kust to use the restroom is still absurd, and your ad hominem is deeply misplaced here.

I AM NOT TELLING THEM TO USE THEIR BIRTH SEX' S FACILITY, I AM TELLING THEM TO FIGHT FOR THIRD SPACES AND USE THEM, which you keep claiming they do, and yet you keep whining about letting all of you inside your preferred ones. If they are not willing to do it, I don' t care where they go as long as it' s not women' s bathrooms.

In other words, you just don't want to share a bathroom with the "icky" trans people.

with the difference that accomondations for people with disabilities allows people who would otherwise not be able to participate in society to do so, while your over-the-top transphobic plan instead keeps people from particiüpating in society for no other reason than your bigotry.

Nobody is keeping them from participating in society, they just have to follow the same rules everyone else has to follow. If that' s too much for them, it' s their problem, not mine.

Keeping transgender people from being able to live their lives as the gender they identify as is keeping them from fully participating in society.

It costs roughly 1000 $ to sequence a human genome 1 and demanding a blood test for me to use the restroom shure as hell is intrusive.

That stuff is usually done at birth. You keep pretending that this is something that would have to be done every time you use a public space, I already explained how it should be done.

Except it has to be done every time someone, for whatever reason, doesn't have that badge but has to use a gender-seperated space.

Personally, I think that sanitary badges should carry those informations regardless of this stupid debate anyway, so you are barking at the wrong tree.

Again, I have no idea what the heck you are talking about with these "sanitary badges". I have never heard of such a thing, and the concept by itself (needing some form of identification to use the restroom) sounds utterly absurd to me.

reread what I wrote again. I talked about non-transgender womenh (aka how you define "women") getting kicked out of the women's restroom due to being mistaken for transgender. I have actually seen calculations, that, even if one were to be able to tell with 99% accuracy which one is trans and which is not, it would (due to transgender people being such a small minority) STILL result in more women being falsly thrown out than transgender women being kept out. So the over-agressive bathroom-policing of the kind you are advocating for harms more non-transgender women than transgender women.

GNC women are being thrown out because they are mistaken for men, and the only reason why there is a surge in that attitude is because men are allowed to be in women' s spaces. WOmen don' t want men there, so they are hyper focused on finding people who might look like that' s not their place. This is entirely on the trans movement. As I said already said, if there were a way to make it fixed who can and who cannot use those spaces, by listing your biological sex, things would settle down again and this wouldn' t happen, or if it happened, those women would be able to show that they have the right to be there. As it is now, everyone can get in, and no surprise there, GNC women are getting the flacks without doing anything wrong, while men who should get flack have all benefits from it.

This form of over-agressive bathroom policing that harms everyone always experiences a severe upswing whenever transgender exclusion is pushed for.

trans women are women.

Nope.

yes they are.

The analogy clearly went over your head.

Nope.

It clearly did.

women are more likely to be described as "uterus havers", "birthing body", "menstruator" and similar shit than men are likely to be called "ejaculators", "prostate havers" and "penis person"

this is constrained to medical settings, where clarifying anatomical terms are usefull. And, as I clearly expressed in my very first comment on this post, this should absoloutly applied equally for both areas.

women' s spaces are more likely to be disrupted and defunded

no, it's just that men don't complain about trans men in their spaces as much.

lesbians are more likely to be called out on their "transphobic" genital preferences...

the type of transgender person who calls "genital preferences" transphobic exists on both sides, and it's wrong both ways.

Still doesn' t change the fact that those terms are intersex terms that nobody except them should use. I definitely won' t, not only because I am not intersex, but also because I already have a perfect word that describes my biology: woman.

Except, as I have already explained several times, "men" and "women" are terms for social categories (which you are absoloutly free to use to refer to yourself), not biological ones. Therefore, trans men are men (despite having a female birth sex) and trans women are women (despite having a male birth sex). Calling trans men women or calling trans women men is deeply offensive. Therefore the transgender community adapted the terms used by the intersex community in order to express birth sex where this information is needed.

Not really. Gender dysphoria causes the relationship of transgender people towards their body and the development of said body to be very much different from a cisgender of the same birth sexe's experience with their body and their bodies development.

I was talking about the women, not the men who call themselves women. Women are more likely to have similar experiences to me in regards of their bodies. Trans people can have different experiences compared to the ones of members of their sex, but their experiences are still more likely to be similar to that than the ones of people of the other sex.

Transgender men also have very different experiences regarding their bodies than cisgender women. Because they experience it as someone with a male gender identity, meaning that sexed development that would be felt as "correct" for someone with a female gender identity would feel utterly and deeply wrong to them.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-03T20:40:27+00:00

And I try to make things better by allowing transgender people to use the gender-seperated spaces of their gender identity, instead of withholding them full and equal participation in society out of pure bigotry.

You do that, I care about women more than I care about men who call themselves women.

No, you don't. What you actually care for is needlessly tormenting transgender people. If you cared about people, you would aknowledge that the kind of irrational, paranoid bathroom-policing you are advocating for harms transgender people 2 including transgender men (which you would call "women") while providing no benefit in terms of safety/privacy to women at all 3.

except the exogonous testosterone in transgender men cause their masculature to become more like cis men's.

Yes, and no. Women on testosterone might be stronger than me, but they still end up being far weaker than any man, transitioned or not. SO yes, I have more chances to win a fight against CHase Strangio than I have to win a fight against Laverne Cox.

a.) wrong, there is a significant overlap in physical ability between the sexes, even leaving out transgender people. b.) wrong, tell that to the women who were scared of fighting Mack Beggs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Beggs ). c.) wrong, even a single year on HRT causes the strength differences between transgender women and transgender men to shrink to next to nothing ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6652261/#:~:text=A%20decrease%20in%20grip%20strength,to%2Dmale%20trans%20people). ). Longer term HRT is almost certainly going to result in transgender men being stronger.

for all your talk about trans women being "entitled", you come of as quite a bit more entitled, what with you demanding constant checks of everyone regarding their biological sex, just because your irrational fear of a tiny minority.

I don' t demand constant checks in the least, them passing a badge in front of a reader is not "constant" checks.

Yes, that is constant checks. A person should not need a ID-Bagde to use a public bathroom. That is simply absurd.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-03T20:40:13+00:00

All women are treated in a different way than men. The way they are treated differently is not the same, but they all face double standards and different treatments than men.

than it is meaningless to talk about "female socialization" as a singular thing that has any bearing towards asumptions about likely behavior.

so your transphobia is more important than a transgender women getting help when needed?

So trans women' s feelings are more important than a woman' s feelings and safety?

when the only reason for your "bad feelings" are your transphobia, yes. And you still, after days of discussion, have not been able to produce any statistical evidence proving that the adoption of trans-inclusive policies by women's shelters leads to a significant rise in violent/sexual predatory behavior.

Four differences here: a.) that badge is how the subway operator makes sure you paid your fare, which adresses a vital need for them, meanwhile, your "requiere an electronic ID-Badge to use the restroom"-idea is aderessing nothing but your irrational fear of the person in the next cubicle having different gonads than you

It makes a point of having distinct categories based on realities and gives people the option of choosing.

what "option of choosing" does it give anyone to force people into the bathroom of their birth sex?

I don' t see the problem with that. Plus, I am not really sure how it works in other countries, but in mine we have sanitary electronic badges so they could be easily modified to be read by a reader outside of those places or do it with ID documents in general as long as they are electronic. You don' t need a different badge, you can use the ones you already have.

I have never heard of any such thing. What would even be the reasoning behind some electronic badge just to use the restroom? Sounds utterly absurd.

it would forciebly out every single transgender person, making them obvious targets for transphobic attacks

Why? You don' t have to show those badges to anyone besides the automatic reader in front of those spaces. Plus, if you don' t have the necessary qualification to use that space, only an idiot would still use the badge and be left out publicly for it.

are you really asking why forcing a stealth transgender person to use the restroom of their birth sex is forciebly outing them? Which, as I already linked significantly increases their risk of being attacked ( https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/health/trans-teens-bathroom-policies-sexual-assault-study/index.html )

you need a lot less scanners to check every subway passenger than to0 check every single user of a public restroom.

And? If we could adapt pretty much all spaces to accomodate people with disabilities, we can put a reader in front of sex segregated spaces.

with the difference that accomondations for people with disabilities allows people who would otherwise not be able to participate in society to do so, while your over-the-top transphobic plan instead keeps people from particiüpating in society for no other reason than your bigotry.

doesn't change the fact that such a test is needlessly intrusive and expensive.

Blood tests are neither intrusive of expensive.

It costs roughly 1000 $ to sequence a human genome 1 and demanding a blood test for me to use the restroom shure as hell is intrusive.

can you link more examples of women being thrown out of the women's restroom for complaining about a trans womens presence than I can link examples of non-transgender women being thrown out of the women's restroom due to them being mistaken for trans women?

I don' t know, but I don' t care much: I am 100% in agreement with men being thrown out of women' s spaces, and 100% in disagreement with women being thrown out of women' s spaces because they object to men being there. SO to me, one woman being kicked out is one too many, while 100 men being kicked out are not enough.

reread what I wrote again. I talked about non-transgender womenh (aka how you define "women") getting kicked out of the women's restroom due to being mistaken for transgender. I have actually seen calculations, that, even if one were to be able to tell with 99% accuracy which one is trans and which is not, it would (due to transgender people being such a small minority) STILL result in more women being falsly thrown out than transgender women being kept out. So the over-agressive bathroom-policing of the kind you are advocating for harms more non-transgender women than transgender women.

yes, and if one of these women have testes, there isn't a problem either.

Women don' t have testicles.

trans women are women, and quite often have testicles.

Trans women arte women

Trans women are men.

trans women are women.

Anyway, your point was, that, if both women aren't predatory or violent, than even large strength differences don't matter and they can be safely put together in the same room at the womens shelter. So my objection here is, why is it suddennly not the case if one of these women happens to be trans?

Because that person is not a woman.

except she is. So, again, your point was, that, if both women aren't predatory or violent, than even large strength differences don't matter and they can be safely put together in the same room at the womens shelter. So my objection here is, why is it suddennly not the case if one of these women happens to be trans? Can you answer that question without resorting to bigotry?

Please reread how I defined "Cisgender" in the immediate preceding quote. If you have no desire to change your physical anatomy to resemble that of the opposite sex, somewhere in between or be completly rid of sexual characteristics than your gender identity is your biological sex, not a lack of a gender identity.

You can call that gender identity as much as you want, it isn' t.

It is.

It cured the disconection between the physical body and the gender identity by changing the body to fit the gender identity. Your point is a nonsensical as if someone were to claim that I didn't fix their broken (in truth just unplugged) TV by inserting the plug, because it still doesn't work with the plug pulled.

You wouldn' t have fixed that tv if the tv wasn' t broken to begin with. If it' s not broken, it doesn' t need to be fixed.

The analogy clearly went over your head.

transgender goes both ways. Because I'm also accepting that trans men are men, does that now mean that men become what women say men are?

If women who identify as men were half as aggressive as men who identify as women, and biological men were half as conditioned to be accepting as biological women are, we would have the same push to re-define manhood as we have to re-define womanhood.

In what way don't we see the same "push to re-define manhood as we have to re-define womanhood" ? In both cases people who acording to your bioessentialist definitions have no claim to the terms "men"/"women" demand inclusion in these terms, effectively demanding them both to be redifined as social categories, not biological ones.

no , you are not asked that. You are asked to share rape shelters and locker rooms with trans women, which aren't men but women.

They are men who call themselves women.

They are women who happen to be trans.

Also, Sophie Labelle, really? I am supposed to follow the lead of a furry who gets off on roleplaying as a child? ROLE MODEL! 👍

I was talking about the comments below. Sophie Labelle isn't all that popular in that sub either, just a few days ago there was a well-received post in that sub calling for her cancellation.

Including protection for women and respect for their privacy.

That privacy is already secured due to cubicles.

no, you just assume. As already pointed out, socialization is not monolithic.

I assume they have had similar experiences as me when it comes to their bodies and sex, unlike males.

Not really. Gender dysphoria causes the relationship of transgender people towards their body and the development of said body to be very much different from a cisgender of the same birth sexe's experience with their body and their bodies development.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-03T11:14:59+00:00

Essentially, I think there's two reasons why LG people are more hit by that. The first is that commonly LGB-people are grouped with the transgender population. The second becomes clearer, when one considers that sexual orientation for transgender people is roughly one third opposite-gender, bisexual and same-gender each, which (since there is vastly less LGB-people than straight people) means that the ratio is highly skewed towards LGB-people being confronted by transgender people wanting to date them.

(Note: I'm working on a spreadsheet regarding the latter reason, but I'm still missing what ratio of transgender people include/exclude bisexuals - whichmy preliminary back-of-the-envelope calculations have shown has a significant effect on the results)

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-03T08:18:35+00:00

word mean nothing anymore. Lesbian means a woman exclusivly attracted to women, nothing else. So thats already the first, second and fourth point that are, by definition, wrong.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-02T10:31:56+00:00

You can call them "(trans) women" all the times you want. They are still males and everybody knows it even if a lot of people nowadays pretend otherwise.

"women" is gender Identity, "male" is biological sex. Those are different, and no one would claim otherwise.

Most of trans natal males are sexually attracted to women.

actual statistics: Of the trans women respondents 27% answered gay, lesbian, or same-gender-loving, 20% answered bisexual, 19% heterosexual, 16% pansexual, 6% answered asexual, 6% queer, and 6% did not answer.[5] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexuality )

Transactivists are asking women to accept males in intimate places like bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, etcetera and that we pretend not to notice they are males. And honestly, the fact that a lot of trans natal males are keen on ignoring women's boundaries speaks volumes on how they would treat women in those spaces.

Do you have any evidence, that letting transgender women use women's bathrooms/changing rooms/shelters causes an statistical increase in violations of safety and privacy? Because this study 1 shows otherwise.

Those are terms that transactivists have appropriated from the intersex community despite that most people who identify as trans don't have any DSD. Moreover, "assigned male (or female) at birth" doesn't make sense for the vast majority of humans who don't have any DSD. Sex is not assigned at birth, but observed and recorded at birth.

I am just informing about how the terms are used, not making a statement regarding the correctness/incorrectness about said term-use.

Taln_Reich · 2021-03-01T18:32:01+00:00

It means being treated as a second rate citizen, someone somewhat inferior to men, someone who is going to be a mother eventually because that' s what she is supposed to do, someone who becomes unwantable after 30, someone who is going to be a crazy cat owner by 50 uf they don' t get fucked enough, a sex object, someone less intelligent, someone who should stick to feminine roles. Add the issues with biology.

I rather doubt that these are universal experiences of every single women on earth.

You are dense or are you just pretending to be stupid? Socialization is about trends. This is what happens to a large number of women all around the World. That there is a miniscule fraction of them that doesn' t live through it doesn' t mean that it doesn' t affect most of us.

is it a trend or universal? You claimed that this were the experience of all women, regardless of which society or social enviroment they were raised in.

Because a biological woman that is a woman and has been raped by an ejaculator is totally going to feel comfortable sharing her space with an ejaculator and totally only going to the female-only' s shelter out of bigotry against her trans sisters.

Do you have any evidence of women who aren't transphobic avoiding women's shelters that admitt transgender women?

i can play that stupid game, too, you know. It doesn' t mean one shit to me if those women are transphobic or not, all I care about is that they should have the right to choose whether or not the person who shares the room with them has a penis.

so your transphobia is more important than a transgender women getting help when needed?

there is an easier way to do it: just test them once, put the information in an electronic ID and make segregated spaces open only for the ones with the right credentials. In the UK you can get to a train in the subway by passing a badge, I don' t see why this should be different.

Four differences here: a.) that badge is how the subway operator makes sure you paid your fare, which adresses a vital need for them, meanwhile, your "requiere an electronic ID-Badge to use the restroom"-idea is aderessing nothing but your irrational fear of the person in the next cubicle having different gonads than you, b.) the subway operator doesn't have to give the badge to everyone, just people who are likely to use the subway and have paid for that. Your system would requiere at the very least every single woman to be given such a badge, c.) it would forciebly out every single transgender person, making them obvious targets for transphobic attacks and d.) you need a lot less scanners to check every subway passenger than to0 check every single user of a public restroom.

In those cases, a blood test will do. Sweetheart, it' s really not as hard as you pretend it is: for people who can have that id, they can use it. People who don' t have it for whatever reason get a blood test. I am pretty sure that shelters make medical tests, including blood tests, anyway, so it' s not really something so weird and excruciating that it can' t be done.

doesn't change the fact that such a test is needlessly intrusive and expensive.

Again, I have never seen it, and every single trans person I have asked said "nope, we want yours".

Links please.

nothing, other than the fact that he will be very much out of place, have everyone starring at him (meaning easy to identify if he does anything) and everyone will probably hush him out, regardless of any claims he makes.

So exactly like most trans natal males, except trans natal males get to hush women who complain out?

can you link more examples of women being thrown out of the women's restroom for complaining about a trans womens presence than I can link examples of non-transgender women being thrown out of the women's restroom due to them being mistaken for trans women?

I have no clue what you are trying to say here. If two women with no violent history are grouped together in a shelter then there is no problem.

yes, and if one of these women have testes, there isn't a problem either.

Women don' t have testicles.

Trans women arte women and quite a lot of them do have testicles. Anyway, your point was, that, if both women aren't predatory or violent, than even large strength differences don't matter and they can be safely put together in the same room at the womens shelter. So my objection here is, why is it suddennly not the case if one of these women happens to be trans?

"Cisgender" really just means that your "Gender Identity" and your birth sex are identical, meaning that you have no desire to change your physical anatomy to resemble that of the opposite sex, somewhere in between or be completly rid of sexual characteristics.

I am not playing any game, this is what it' s defined as, identifying as the gender you were assigned at birth. Even if it were about gender identity, as I told you already, I don' t have one. So according to your own definition, I am not a woman. So I guess I am part of the LGBTQ+++++ community, and let me tell you: the community is full of toxic bullshit.

Please reread how I defined "Cisgender" in the immediate preceding quote. If you have no desire to change your physical anatomy to resemble that of the opposite sex, somewhere in between or be completly rid of sexual characteristics than your gender identity is your biological sex, not a lack of a gender identity.

If it cured that disconnection, you would have no problems with being referred as your biological sex because you would be ok with being your biological sex.

It cured the disconection between the physical body and the gender identity by changing the body to fit the gender identity. Your point is a nonsensical as if someone were to claim that I didn't fix their broken (in truth just unplugged) TV by inserting the plug, because it still doesn't work with the plug pulled.

So it is for me, because it means that women become what men say women are

transgender goes both ways. Because I'm also accepting that trans men are men, does that now mean that men become what women say men are?

we are supposed to pretend that it' s totally ok sharing rape shelters and locker rooms with men.

no , you are not asked that. You are asked to share rape shelters and locker rooms with trans women, which aren't men but women.

by that logic, the transgender narrative creates a word in which adult human females do not have words to describe themselves. Why is that ok?

except there absoloutly are terms for clarifying birth sex when needed. It's terms adapted from the intersex community "AFAB" (assigned female at birth) and "AMAB" (assigned male at birth). But these terms are, nethertheless, not replacements for "women" or "men" ( https://www.reddit.com/r/truscum/comments/l03mpp/see_comment_i_think_this_comic_actually_brings_up/ )

You have made three different links about criticism of unisex spaces. Read those without the bias.

I did read. But I send you back the request to read the article without bias either, because it also mentioned the reasoning behind introducing such spaces.

we don't live in an ideal world, and we never will.

Correct, and I refuse to make things worse by supporting men in women' s spaces.

And I try to make things better by allowing transgender people to use the gender-seperated spaces of their gender identity, instead of withholding them full and equal participation in society out of pure bigotry.

Because she was likely socialized similarly as me, which means that she is less likely to be abusive

no, you just assume. As already pointed out, socialization is not monolithic.

and in case she is abusive I still have more chances to fight her off

except the exogonous testosterone in transgender men cause their masculature to become more like cis men's.

Because the space is for her as well, so it wouldn' t be a man feeling entitled to something that is not his.

for all your talk about trans women being "entitled", you come of as quite a bit more entitled, what with you demanding constant checks of everyone regarding their biological sex, just because your irrational fear of a tiny minority.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-27T11:54:14+00:00

You can call BS all you want, buddy. Which is consistent for you, as you've also made false claims on this very thread that males with opposite sex "gender identities" have no advantages over females in sports - and when solid evidence was presented saying otherwise, you ignored it.

There's tons of scientific research documenting the very different grip strength of the two sexes - and the large size of males' hands relative to the much smaller size of female throats that enable males to do females enormous damage with their bare hand or hands.

Also, one of the reasons it's so easy for males to strangle females to unconsciousness or death with their bare hand or hands is that during puberty, female humans do not grow an extra layer of neck cartilage that protects against being strangled, choked, hit and injured in the throat the way males do.

First, I linked evidence that the thing about "still have male grip strength" is wrong. Second, can you provide proof for your claim that even the average man can "easlily" grab and strangle the average woman to death one handed? Third, has your lurid scenario, where a transgender women starts strangeling women in the women's shelter ever actually happend?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-25T13:51:24+00:00

No matter how much plastic surgery they have, males still have enormous strength and speed advantages over female people. Males who've gone to great lengths to surgically alter their outward appearance like Gigi Gorgeous, Blaire White and Laverne Cox might look like Barbie dolls come to life, but they still have male grip strength and size. With one hand they can easily grab a girl or woman by the throat and strangle her to unconsciousness or death. Even a lifetime of cross-sex hormones and T-suppression doesn't change that.

First, that thing about "unchanged grip strength" is wrong 1. ), second, I call BS. on your claim that even the average man can "easlily" grab and strangle the average woman to death one handed.

No matter how much cosmetic surgery and lip fillers males get, what they wear, how much makeup they put on, how long their hair or hair extensions are, how much they flick their hair and tilt their heads, how long and shiny their acrylic nails are, how giggly and "girly" and coquettish they act, they all still have a male gaze - and it's with that prurient, prying male gaze that they look at girls and women.

Decades ago working as a newspaper reporter I did a story on Vietnam war vets in the US who had experienced extreme injuries and amputations to their lower bodies and were in wheelchairs. These men all had lost their genitals, but that in no way diminished their male gaze and made them any less able to make women uncomfortable by using their male gaze to look us up and down and visually undress us. Similarly, I have visited a lot of rehab hospitals and nursing homes full of men in wheelchairs for one reason or another, often coz they were elderly and had experienced strokes. But just coz these men couldn't get out of their wheelchairs and attack me didn't mean they couldn't look and leer at me like a piece of meat.

Even males who are not sexually attracted to females tend to have an untoward, unseemly curiosity in looking at female bodies and can't help themselves from checking us out to see what we really look like up close.

Is this "male gaze" a learned ability or biologically inate (if yes, how?)?

As for the girls and women who say it's OK with them, they don't mind the presence of some males in such spaces personally - the consent of other female people is not for them to give on our behalf, and the hard-won rights of all female people are not for a small number of our own too naive to have thought things through sex to blithely give away.

53% of women 2 agreeing to let transgender women into women's shelters (if the transgender woman in question is a victim, of course) are "a small number"?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-25T13:34:22+00:00

opportunities they're given based on the sex of their name

And that is a clear cut example right here. Names aren't sexed, they are gendered. Choosing a new name befitting their gender identity is one of the first thing a transgender person does in terms of social transitioning.

Bathrooms may not be that big a deal, but showering next to people is more problematic and having sex is pretty notable.

Which is why locker rooms/public showers should also be cubicles.

And medical transitioning cuts a lot deeper than that. Exogonous estrogen does cause an atrophy in muscle mass, meaning a decline in physical capacity

There are plenty of ways to atrophy your male muscles. That doesn't make you a woman.

you were the one who mentioned "Superficial change like which clothing you wear does not change ... or your physical capacities"

So a transgender woman wants to be treated as a woman in that they want to undergo discrimination?

A transgender woman might not enjoy being hit by gender-based discrimination against women, but given that there is a lot more stigma against transgender people than against women, and transgender women still found it necessary to transition and accept that stigma in order to alleviate their gender dysphoria, experiencing gender-based discrimination against women pretty much comes with the territory. This is why intersectional feminism is a thing.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-25T13:15:55+00:00

That's on you, then. People who use hormones and surgeries to alter their appearance so they look more or less like the opposite sex - or rather, so they look like the stereotyped way sexist people think all people of the opposite sex look - do not actually become the opposite sex. Only superficial sexists confuse appearing like sexist stereotypes of one sex with actually being that sex.

First, you were the one bringing up the visual part, with your "mental image"-comment. Second, as I already explained multiple times, "woman" and "man" denote social categories, not sex categories, therefore it is irrelevant what kind of gonads they might or might not have. And precisely because I don't reduce the terms "man" and "woman" to the gonads, I see the transgender man as a man and the transgender woman as a woman.

You and others who share your superficial view must find theater, films, drag acts, Halloween, costume parties and the dressing-up box at nursery school very confounding if you don't know the difference between looking a part and being that way for real.

there is a huge difference between medical transitioning and playing dress-up. A transgender woman doesn't take her breasts and femminized face of at the end of the day, and neither does a transgender man his flat chest and masculinized face.

Also, your definition is entirely dependent on sight - and on modern methods of electric lighting being present, operating and switched on during the hours of the day-night cycle that are dark as well. At night during a blackout, or out in the wild in the pitch black without a torch, you'd have to rely on other senses. Such as touch.

First, again, you were the one bringing up visuals. Second, most people will react rather negative if someone they don't know tries to use senses other than sight or sound to determine on how to interact with them.

The artificial chest orbs some males have implanted in their chests feel nothing like women's breasts.

First, not all transgender women need implants to have breasts (breast growth from HRT varies depending on the person and specific medication used), second, quite a lot of cisgender women get breast implants too.

And as blind people can tell you, the shape of a woman's and a man's head is different.

Foppington's law confirmed again.

Once bigotry or self-loathing permeate a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls.

That's because mother, father and parent aren't just nouns, they're also verbs - and have been verbs for a long, long time. Childrearing is an activity, something a person does - and there are many names for it, such as raising children, caring and bringing up a child. In the 1970s, people invented a new sex-neutral term to add to mothering and fathering: parenting. But the words woman, boy and girl are nouns only. There is no verb "to woman", "or "to girl" or "to boy." Girling, boying and womaning are not words or activities.

There is a verb form of man, but not in the sense you mean. The verb "to man" means

What does that have to do with anything?

When the new word "parenting" was invented in the 1970s, some people harrumphed over it, but most people didn't object - and coz it served a purpose, it was widely adopted. One of the reasons that parenting was widely accepted is that it not change or diminish the meaning of parent, nor did it change diminish the longstanding meaning of the words mothering and fathering, or of mother or father. (I know this full well coz I happened to write a newspaper article about it at the time.)

Including transgender men/transgender women into the words "men"/"women" does not diminish their meanings. Your attempt to define "man" and "woman" as being solely based on what gonads someone has does.

But instead, trans ideologues are hellbent on seizing already-extant words like woman, man, girl and boy and unmooring them from their longstanding meanings and basis in objective fact, then giving them all an entirely new meaning that reduces being a woman and a man to appearing like the sexist stereotypes that some people associate women and men and boys and girls with. Which many people both sexes find profoundly sexist, insulting, appropriative and arrogant. You're trying to tell the entire rest of the human race that all there is to being a man/boy or woman/girl is playacting, LARPing, cosplay - basically just looking the part, and the part as defined by superficial sexists to boot.

No, being a "man"/"woman" is not playacting, LARPing or cosplay. It is the lived experience of being perceived as, therefore being treated as and therefore living the life of a man/woman. That is a far more meaningfull way of expressing what it means to be a man/woman then whether reducing it to whether the person in question has testicles or ovaries.

And most people won't go along with that.

And in that, you are wrong. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331998753_Public_Support_for_Transgender_Rights_A_Twenty-three_Country_Survey

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-24T10:34:48+00:00

No, this is not true. The words woman and man communicate three things: 1) that the organism in question is a human being, in other words a person; 2) that he or she is an adult human being, as opposed to an infant, child, adolescent or teenager; and 3) that the adult person is either male or female. The latter terms designate the two clearly different, broad categories of human beings - and other animals as well as plants - that exist based on having developed in utero the anatomy to have the potential capacity at some point in life to play the male or female role in the reproduction of species.

These words don't reduce anyone to their gonads, they just designate which of the two groups of human adults individuals belong to. In both "adult human female" and "adult human male," the words that designate sex - female or male - do not negate or override the "adult" or "human" part. Sex is only one of three pieces of information about someone conveyed by these words.

Except that, in the vast majority of cases it is already clear that someone is talking about an adult human before the words "men" or "women" are used, so the only difference inm conveyed information between "men"/"women" and "person" would be what gonads you think that person has.

In English, there are tons of words that separate the adults of all the different animal species from the young of the same species: horse v foal; hen v chick; fox, bear, lion and so on vs cub; dog vs puppy; cat vs kitten; duck vs duckling; pig vs piglet; cow or bull vs calf. And as my last example shows, there are different words to distinguish adults of most animal species by their sex too: bull vs calf; stallion vs mare; buck vs doe; cock vs hen; ram vs ewe (in sheep, the young is called a lamb); lion vs lioness, and so on.

When people use such words as bull, cow, buck, doe, stallion, mare, ram, ewe, cock, hen, lion, lioness, we can all picture in our minds what the particular animal spoken of looks like. No one is reducing them to their genitals!

On the contrary, when we call up a mental image of a lion or lioness, what we tend to focus on is the mane, or lack thereof, and the size of the animal. When we call up an image of a deer or buck, or a bull or cow, we tend to focus on the antlers and horns as well as the relative overall body size of the male and female animals in question. When we call up mental images of a cock or rooster, a hen and a chick, we all see the animals in all their feathery fullness - no one envisions their gonads. We really don't think of their gonads at all. (I personally can vividly picture what a rooster/cock, hen and chick look like right now, but I have no idea what their gonads look like, or where they are even located.)

And just like that you shot yourself in the kneecaps. Because when I look at this people 1 2 I see a woman and a man, respectively, not the other way around - which is what you insist - because I don't reduce people to their gonads and see people looking like my mental pictures for women and men, respectively. Ergo, trans women are women and trans men are men.

These words were invented to be statements of observed, verifiable, objective fact - to reflect the reality of what an individual person, animal or plant actually is. They were never intended to indicate the desires, fantasies or claims that run counter to objective reality that some humans have about themselves.

and observed, verifiable, objective fact is, that a passing transgender person is going to be perceived as and treated as their gender identity. And that this is a good reason to socially sort transgender people and cisgender people of the same gender identity (trans men and cis men, trans women and cis women) together. ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343753789_We_Are_All_Women_Barriers_and_Facilitators_to_Inclusion_of_Transgender_Women_in_HIV_Treatment_and_Support_Services_Designed_for_Cisgender_Women )

The problem is, trans people and other gender identity ideologues are trying to seize and utterly change the meaning of words that have existed, been commonly understood and in use for thousands and thousands of years - and they are doing so without any consultation with, or concern for, the rest of the population that already knows what these words really mean. Moreover, some members of the trans community are trying to take the words for particular groups of people - such as woman, man, mother, father, daughter, sister, feminist - from the very groups to whom those words actually apply.

And if there was a vote on whether "woman" and "man" should be defined by identity and lived experience or by gonads, that vote would actually go with the former 3, 4 . And your examples undermines your point further: adoptive parents are, usually, called "mother" and "father" despite not being the biological mothers/fathers of their children. So, clearly, those are socially defined terms.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-24T10:07:16+00:00

a) someone who does or doesn't have the same life experience

correction: assumed life experience . Not everyone with testicles is socialized the same, not everyone with ovaries is assumed the same. So when you assume that someone who you perceive as a man was socialized along the lines of some monolithic "testicle-haver"-socialisation, and your treatment of this person does differ based on this assumöption, then that is a difference in treatment not based on physical differences.

b) someone who is or isn't biologically the same.

Bathroom choice has nothing to do with biology. A woman can use the men's bathroom without problems.

Superficial change like which clothing you wear does not change your past or your physical capacities, so will only make a difference on a sexist level - what people assume about you, not what you are actually capable of.

And medical transitioning cuts a lot deeper than that. Exogonous estrogen does cause an atrophy in muscle mass, meaning a decline in physical capacity (and the study I'm getting beaten over the head here regarding the sport issue assumes constant training - which non-athlethes will not do) and while it doesn't change the past, when a transgender woman is perceived as female, she will be treated as such, and therefore will have the respective live experiences.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-23T21:12:42+00:00

Nah, seems unncessary. There aren't different words for male and female heterosexuals or asexuals either. Only the homosexuals found it necessary to make up different words for female homosexual and male homosexual.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-23T18:56:37+00:00

It means being treated as a second rate citizen, someone somewhat inferior to men, someone who is going to be a mother eventually because that' s what she is supposed to do, someone who becomes unwantable after 30, someone who is going to be a crazy cat owner by 50 uf they don' t get fucked enough, a sex object, someone less intelligent, someone who should stick to feminine roles. Add the issues with biology.

I rather doubt that these are universal experiences of every single women on earth.

Because a biological woman that is a woman and has been raped by an ejaculator is totally going to feel comfortable sharing her space with an ejaculator and totally only going to the female-only' s shelter out of bigotry against her trans sisters.

Do you have any evidence of women who aren't transphobic avoiding women's shelters that admitt transgender women?

Also, if females are so dangerous, why should a dainty, harmless trans woman want to share space with those horribly violent and abusive hags?

Because the likelihood of a woman sorrounded by women to be abused by them is still less then the likelihood for a woman being sorrounded by men.

Also, in Canada the ONLY female-only shelter in the entire country was defunded by the government thanks to the "activism" of a brave and stunning trans woman.

I'm giving back:

WORK.TO.BUILD.SOME!

Then he' s an asshole. Personally I think that sex segregated spaces should have a DNA check so being lying assholes or not, they would get clocked immediately. That pesky Y chromosome!

Because that totally won't screw over women with chromosomal anomalies. And everyone having to wait an hour for the DNA check to run will totally not cause lines to get even worse then they already are. And totally every single establishment will be able to afford and maintain the expensive scientific equipment necessary to run those tests just to satisfy your paranoia. And they will totally never break down or give false positives. And forcebly outing transgender people will totally not result in them getting attacked. And this will totally not be regarded a violation of personal rights. And this will totally...

Or, you know, you could just get over your irrational, paranoid fear of the personj in the cubicle next to you having different gonads than you.

Or, alternatively, putting the sex of a person (the real one) on some kind of electronic ID that should be scanned before entering.

because abusive husbands/pimps/humans traffickers will totally not take control of this ID to keep their victims from getting help at rape shelters. And these will totally be impossible to fake. And these will totally be accessible to women imported by human traffickers. And these will totally be given out free of charge. And these will totally...

And what is to keep some predatory "cis" man from claiming to be a trans woman?

Nothing, other than the fact that he will be very much out of place, have everyone starring at him (meaning easy to identify if he does anything) and everyone will probably hush him out, regardless of any claims he makes.

Can you please elaborate what exactly the problem is if it is all cubicles?

If it' s all cubicles then there is no need to have a woman sign in front of the door. Just make singular spaces that are not grouped according to the woman-man binary.

which is why a lot of transgender people argue for gender neutral spaces. Which gender critical people always fight against. Funny that.

I didn' t say they should be forced to use their sex' s spaces, I just said that they shouldn' t be allowed to use their preferred sex' s spaces. As I said, I don' t care where they go as long as males are not in women' s spaces.

except that there are only the spaces of their gender identity and their birth sex. If you forbid a transgender from using the space of their gender identity, you are forcing them to use the one of their birth sex.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here. If two women with no violent history are grouped together in a shelter then there is no problem.

yes, and if one of these women have testes, there isn't a problem either.

If neither is violent or a sex offender, I don't see how it would matter what gonads the respective women have either.

Of course you don' t! What' s the point of having women' s shelters then? Just let anyone in.

Thanks that you agree. Let's just make shelters for victims of domestic violence and/or sexual abuse, without regard for sex or gender.

Are you capable of reading? The sentence you replied to is broken in two pieces, the first one, which was about GENDER IDENTITY made no mention of sterotypes or gender roles, it just says "having the womanly gender identity". I don' t have that womanly gender identity (whatever the fuck that is), so it means I am not a woman. The second part, which was about stereotypes and sex-based roles, was about GENDER, not GENDER IDENTITY. I didn' t even fucking named it. I said that "cis" means "identifies with the gender assigned at birth". GENDER is about stereotypes and sex roles.

Now you are just playing stupid word games. "Cisgender" really just means that your "Gender Identity" and your birth sex are identical, meaning that you have no desire to change your physical anatomy to resemble that of the opposite sex, somewhere in between or be completly rid of sexual characteristics.

(Thats why I hate it, when someone just says "gender" without specifying "gender identity" or "gender role". That kind of ambiguity isn't even possible in my language)

If it were a treatment it would cure you from that disconnection to the point that you don' t need to get surgery and collective play pretend anymore. As it is now, transition is a placebo at best.

It does cure the disconect in so far, as after the physical transition the gender identity and the physical body are in a better allignment with each other, causing a significant improvement to psychological wellbeing.

And considering how lots of you react whenever someone "misgenders" you, I would say that it makes things even worse.

actually, rather the opposite. The btter the pass, the rarer the misgendering the easier it is to put up with the occasional mistake by others (though intentional misgendering is still extremly rude).

Why should I do that? I am against it. I don' t want unisex or "gender neutral" rape shelters, I want sex segregated ones.

That was your idea.

Considering the chaos it is doing? Yes, it does. If that letter is not that big of a deal, then there is no reason why trans people should change it. Stop being dumb on purpose.

For transgender people it is a big deal, because having the wrong letter there forcibly outs them to anyone checking their papers which, when dealing with a transphobe, can be quite dangerous. And what chaos are you talking about?

You people are great at creating stupid labels, do it if you want.

you are the one making the demand that would requierre this. Also, a plurality of people (at least according to this poll that asked in the UK https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights ) do regard the terms "men" and "women" to be gender identity based (women more than men). Also, using the word this way requierres less restructuring of language.

We hate them when they replace the male-female ones.

why? Why does this matter to you so much? If it's all cubicles, and you aren't exposed to anyone, why does it matter what kind of gonads the person in the next cubicle has? Can you name any concrete (not some nebulous answer of "Dignity" or something like that) harm from that?

In an ideal World, the segregation of those spaces would be respected and men would stay out. So any person looking like that would be a woman. I wouldn' t need to ask, she wouldn' t be there unless she was supposed to be there.

we don't live in an ideal world, and we never will.

And I really don't get your sticking point. Why does you thinking the person in question to have the same gonads as you cause you to no longer have a problem with them?

Alternatively, make that electronic ID with the sex of a person and you don' t need to ask, because only the ones who match that sex should be allowed in. If I knew that person were allowed in a women' s space, I would know she is a woman, regardless of how she looks like.

Because people will totally not "borrow" the ID's of their female aquantances. And they will totally not...

Regardless, the "it' s not cheating if you are not caught" is not really something I am interested in justifying or ignoring.

It is a better solution than your deranged, irrational paranoia.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-23T15:59:32+00:00

How many trans natal males are ready for doing most of the house chores and most of the child rising? How many are ready to put their needs aside and care for others? How many are ready to act nice? How many are ready to get their appearence scrutinized and criticized? How many are ready to get their opinions dismissed? How many are ready to get their bad experiences disbelieved? Because all of that is part of being treated as a woman.

If you think, that transgender women still get all the male privilege, why don't you try claiming to be a passing transgender woman when that male privilege would come in handy for you?

How many are ready to get their appearence scrutinized and criticized?

you think you think transgender women don't get their "their appearence scrutinized and criticized" ? Really? Hahhaha. If anything transgender women are under more scrutiny, due to the pressure to pass.

Edit:

How many are ready to get their opinions dismissed? How many are ready to get their bad experiences disbelieved?

Really? That's how you that works? They tell someone their opinions/their experiences, get dismissed/disbelieved - but once they state "oh, by the way, I'm a tr#nny" everyone suddenly believes them?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-23T15:39:42+00:00

The fact that they are considered female.

and that means precisely what in terms of socialization?

I don' t know what a quiverfill family is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

As for the Afghan girl, she wouldn' t have to get "a boy role" if she weren' t treated as a second rate citizen for her sex.

the entire point why I named them is, that they are socialized male despite their sex being female.

I didn' t say anything about them raising danger statistically. I personally think they do, but the problem here is that that is a female-segregated space and natal males are males.

they are gender-segregated spaces. And unless you can point to evidence showing an increase in danger from allowing transgender women into women's shelters, I see more harm done by refusing them necessary care then from the damage to "dignity and rights", unless you can show otherwise.

It' s not really so much of a gotcha, dear: any male who thinks he is entitled to women' s spaces is a potential sexual abuser to me. If they feel entitled to be in a space designed for females to recover from sexual abuse, 99, 9% of times done by males, then it' s really not that big of a leap to me to see them as being entitled to women' s bodies as well and that they have no respect for women' s privacy and well-being.

Because a transgender woman that looks like a woman and has been raped by a man is totally going to feel comfortable sharing her space with men and totally only going to the women's shelter out of entitlement.

Also, your claim of "sexual abuse, 99, 9% of times done by males" is Wayyyy of, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Rape_of_females_by_females , https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

WORK.TO.BUILD.SOME! Do you think women had theirs granted on a silver platter?

there is not a single publically financed shelter for male victims of domestic abuse in all of canada, dspite more than a quarter of victims of domestic violence being male https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-no-shelters-for-male-victims-of-partner-violence

Regardless, if that person is male, he shouldn' t be in a females' s shelter. Where he goes is not my concern as long as he' s not in a women' s shelter.

what if she does turn up anyway, but keeps mum about her trans-status and just makes sure no one finds out? Are going to introduce genital checks to keep that from happening?

I was asking, whether the person in the picture I linked (this JPG person) should have access to a women's shelter.

If she' s a woman, she should have the right to access women' s shelters. That it would be appropriate or preferable for her is another thing entirely.

and what is to keep some predatory cis man from claiming to be a transgender man? Also genital checks to keep that from happening?

And if it is all cubicles (e.g. no one is naked in front of anyone else), what does it matter?

And it matters because, once again, those spaces are SEX SEGREGATED! Males shouldn' t be there. As I told you already, it' s shitting on women' s dignity and rights.

Can you please elaborate what exactly the problem is if it is all cubicles? How is that "shitting on women' s dignity and rights"? For transgender people their is data and facts, that forcing them to use the seggregated space of their birth sex significantly increases their risk of sexual assault ( https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/health/trans-teens-bathroom-policies-sexual-assault-study/index.html ). Do you really consider your "Dignity" more important than someone else not getting sexually assaulted?

Granted that I agree that sex offenders shouldn' t be housed with anyone, but if that happened, a female sex offender would be better than a male one because there would be more chances for the victim to defend herself and she wouldn' t have the aggravating of potential pregnancies.

Except I already pointed out that there can easily be significant differences in physical ability between cisgender women (meaning the argument about the victims ability for self defense falls flat) and that whether a rape has the potential for pregnancies is not generally considered an aggravating point (because, again, by that standard a infertile woman, a woman on birth control or a child being raped would be considered less terrible)

In regular cases in which nobody is a violent/sex offender, it doesn' t matter the height, weight and muscles of the two female guests of the shelters.

If neither is violent or a sex offender, I don't see how it would matter what gonads the respective women have either.

No, I don' t. Because if woman means "someone who has the gender identity of a woman", then I am not one. I don' t have a gender identity. And I am not "cis" either, because "cis" means "identifies with the gender assigned at birth". If gender are stereotypes and sex-based roles, I don' t identify with that.

How often do I have to repeat that? Again, identifying with with a gender identity does not, at all, requiere you to identify with the gender stereotypes or gender roles.

Uh? I am not saying that it can' t happen? I am saying the opposite? That people can desire the other sex' s characteristics without knowing of trans people. It is purely psychological though, and the reason it can' t be treated is that we haven' t found a way to treat it yet.

Thing is, we have found a way to treat it. It's just that the treatment to this unusual desire is to grant that desire as far as possible.

there are no right granted on the basis of sex

Great, then we should destroy any place that has a disctinction between men and women. I wonder where trans natal male could get that sweet validation from.

Ok. Let's start with bathrooms and rape shelters. Make a petition of turning all sex- and gender-seggregated spaces into gender-neutral ones. I'm absoloutly going to sign that.

Where do transgender people "forcing people to pretend that things that aren' t real are real"? A transgender man/transgender woman having his/her legal gender/legal sex as "Male"/"Female" isn't forcing anyone to "pretend" that he/she have a penis/uterus.

They are forcing them to pretend that they are male/female, which they aren' t.

A transgender person having a legal gender/legal sex other than his birth sex doesn't force you to pretend anything. Or does a single letter on someones personal ID/passport really have that much power?

No one "erases" the definition of sex, it's more that the argument is made, that the terms "Man" and "Woman" refer to social categories defined by these sexes, with transgender people wanting to be included in the sopcial category of their gender identity. If you want to argue, that the terms "Man" and "Woman" are purely biological, please come up with your own terms for the social categories, and replace all instances of "Man" and "Woman" that refer to the social categories and not biological categories with these new terms.

Except man and woman are sex categories. I don' t use those terms as social groups, so I refuse to grant that request.

If "man" and "woman" are just sex categories, than they also should only be used in the context of biological sex, with all instances of their use refering to social categories to be replaced by new terms.

Transgender rights activists do fight for people being free to use the sex-seggregated-space alligning with their gender identity (this also includes transgender man - who you would consider to be "women" - "appopriating" men's spaces) where there aren't gender neutral spaces, but they also pretty much always (as in: I have never seen a transgender rights activists argueing against but plenty for) fight for gender neutral spaces. Gender critical people meanwhile are the one's fighting against gender neutral spaces.

Never heard of that, both TRAs fighting for it, and GC being against that. GC would be more than happy to have gender neutral spaces added to the male-female one, even though we know that trans people would never use them. As for TRAs, nobody I have ever talked to was ok with them. There are posters in this sub who, when asked, always answer with "we can' t get them, if you want us to have them fight for them yourselves... we are not going to use them anyway".

Are you full blown delusional? Gender critical groups absoloutly hate gender neutral spaces ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisex_public_toilet#Criticism plus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisex_public_toilet#Protests_and_opposition) while the transgender generally is argueing for them ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisex_public_toilet#Gender_nonconforming_people ). Please show me all the transgender people that flat out say that they oppose gender neutral spaces.

I would have zero issues with trans men there. If I were sure that they were actually women, whatever perceived problem I would feel initially would leave immediately.

And how would you be sure? Are you just going to ask him and take him at his word? If you see this person in the women's bathroom and, when you raise the question, this person claims to be a trans man, would your "perceived problem" "leave immediately" ?

Does that mean that any trans natal male that doesn' t pass shouldn' t be in women' s spaces?

actually, that is pretty much how both transgender men and transgender women handle it in practice for the most part. Transgender men start using the men's, when they start noticing that them being in the women's start making the women uncomfortable, transgender women start using the women's when they feel shure that they don't make the women uncomfortable, because they generally prefer to not cause to much trouble.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-23T13:12:49+00:00

You talk a lot about "female socialization". What, in terms of socialization, do a western woman raised gender neutral, a woman raised in a quiverfull family, a Basha Posh (Afghan custom where girls are raised as boys in order to deal with the extreme restrictions put upon girls in afghan society) and a woman raised in some awfull corner of the world where FGM is still practiced in common?

What do those women... what? I think you forgot a part of the sentence.

what do these women have in common in terms of socialization?

I don' t care if it' s a vilication, if they learned to stay the fuck away from women' s spaces, I wouldn' t have to "vilify" them.

again. Do you have any statistical evidence, that admitting transgender women into women's shelters causes an increase in danger?

Second, we were talking about sexual abusers here. A sexual abuser always raises danger when they are around potential victims.

No, we were not talking about sexual abusers. We were talking about a transgender women in need of a rape shelter. But the fact, that you equate a transgender women to a sexual abuser is very telling.

And a sexual abuser, regardless of what gonads they might or might not have should not be in a rape shelter.

Third: nobody is saying that that guy who was raped shouldn' t get care, I am just saying that he shouldn' t get it in a women' s shelter. He' s a man, he can go to "gender neutral" shelters

1.) how many "gender neutral" shelters are there? 2.) do you believe, a person who looks like this would be anymore safe to put in a men's shelter than it would be safe to put a man inside a women's shelter?

I don' t know what JPG means.

I was asking, whether the person in the picture I linked (this person) should have access to a women's shelter.

If the MMA world champion were recognized to be violent or a sexual abuser, yes, she shouldn' t be put in the same room as someone who could never defend herself. Not to mention, someone violent shouldn' t be put around other people to begin with, especially in a freaking shelter. They need specific care, being around potential victims is the stupidest thing possible.

I wasn't asking, whether a "violent or a sexual abuser" should be "put in the same room as someone who could never defend" themself (because the answer to that is obviously no). I was asking, whether differences in physical ability should determine which victims are going to be put in the same room inside rape shelters (Because if you answer "no" to this question, your argument of "the victim could have a better chance to defend herself" falls apart)

If they are neutral, the fact that there is a woman sign in the front would be completely useless, but we obviously can' t give women the idea that they deserve to be separated from men, can we?

gender neutral bathrooms aside, you are seperated from men, it's just that transgender women aren't men. And if it is all cubicles (e.g. no one is naked in front of anyone else), what does it matter?

And? It still doesn' t prove that gender identity is a thing, unless you are ready to define gender identity as a mental illness. I am ok with that. Still, a mental illness that makes you hate your own body to the point that you want invasive surgery to change it 1) doesn' t equal with an innate natural identity that is at the base of womanhood for everyone and 2) it should be fought against, not pandered to.

Gender Identity is not a mental condition. Gender dysphoria - the distress arising from the incongruence between ones gender identity and ones physical sex - is. And no, just ignoring this disconect does not work. What does work, is social and medical transitioning.

I constantly want to not be considered a woman, given that women are not given even the fucking respect of having ONE single word to describe themselves. But not wanting to be considered a woman doesn' t change the fact that I am.

Of course you have a word to describe yourself. The word is "woman", or, if you don't want to include transgender women, "cisgender women".

And anyway, even assuming that were the case, they still have the knowledge of the other sex: desiring the other category' s characteristics, both physical or social, is not something that cannot occurr unless you know about trans people.

That is quite the claim you make. That it is not possible for gender dysphoria to appear in someone, who has never heard of transgender people. Do you have any evidence for this? And if that is the case, and it is solely psychological, why do purely psychological methods of treatment not work?

Yeah, because women IS a sex category. The rights granted to women on the basis of sex ARE for women because woman = adult human FEMALE.

there are no right granted on the basis of sex. https://rgellman.medium.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-sex-based-rights-in-the-uk-140554a2c42c

The closest thing to "sex based rights" would be laws specifically related to reproductive healthercare and I don't see how writing "women and other people can get abortions if they request so" instead of "women can get abortions if they request so" would take away rights from women, but for transgender men, it makes a lot of difference

I don' t really care much about adding trans men and female NBs, the point is still that all the rights we have INCLUDE MEN.

Ok. Thanks that you finally agree to the form "women and other people can get abortions if they request so", so that transgender men and AFAB non-binary people are included.

c.) no psychologist who doesn't deserve their license taken would diagnose someone as gender dysphoric just for not following gender stereotypes while the patient expresses to be completly fine with their sexed characteristics. That doesn't happen.

LOL. Considering that the current atmosphere bans any kind of treatment that isn' 100% validation, and this for mental healtchare as well, I think you are full of shit.

regardless of what I think about the affirmation only approach (not a big fan), the affirmation only approach doesn't even do what you claim, e.g. regardless of how many male/female gender stereotypes the child with female/male birth sex follows, if the child in question doesn't consider itself to be a girl/a boy, even the most out-of-his-mind 100%-validation isn't going to claim trans.

No, they should just accept reality and not force people to pretend that things that aren' t real are real.

Where do transgender people "forcing people to pretend that things that aren' t real are real"? A transgender man/transgender woman having his/her legal gender/legal sex as "Male"/"Female" isn't forcing anyone to "pretend" that he/she have a penis/uterus.

If they accepted that they are mentally ill people who want to live as the other sex, instead of pushing to erase the definition of sex and replace with their crap, I can assure you that most people wouldn' t be as antagonistic against them.

No one "erases" the definition of sex, it's more that the argument is made, that the terms "Man" and "Woman" refer to social categories defined by these sexes, with transgender people wanting to be included in the sopcial category of their gender identity. If you want to argue, that the terms "Man" and "Woman" are purely biological, please come up with your own terms for the social categories, and replace all instances of "Man" and "Woman" that refer to the social categories and not biological categories with these new terms.

I give a shit about chromosomes. They are the defining characteristic that describes sex. So when we are talking about sex, I want them to be included in the conversation.

ok. Now, tell me again, how many people have you tested for their chromosomes? And why do you think anyone else gives a shit?

TRAs are definitely NOT fighting for that. They want to use their preferred sex' s spaces, why the fuck should they care about fighting to get neutral spaces when they can appopriate women' s?

Transgender rights activists do fight for people being free to use the sex-seggregated-space alligning with their gender identity (this also includes transgender man - who you would consider to be "women" - "appopriating" men's spaces) where there aren't gender neutral spaces, but they also pretty much always (as in: I have never seen a transgender rights activists argueing against but plenty for) fight for gender neutral spaces. Gender critical people meanwhile are the one's fighting against gender neutral spaces.

And the reason why I am not fighting for them is because I have zero issues with sex segregated spaces.

Of course you have zero issue. Because they actually are gender-seperated. Otherwise you would have to deal with transgender men (as pictured in the link) in your bathroom as often as you have to deal with transgender women now (except that you would always notice the well-passing ones).

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-23T10:01:48+00:00

The IOC decided against gonadectomy in 2015, not in 2004. So, I stand by what I said: we're going to see more trans natal males in the next Olympics.

The qualifications for the 2020 olympics haven't finished yet (due to the pandemic), but some qualifications have already taken place. Tell me, how many transgender women are already in the rooster?

Did you know normal leves of testosterone for healthy menstruating women under 40 years are below 2 nmol/l? Even testosterone levels in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) don't reach 5nmol/. That is were limit imposed by the IAAF comes from. So, even if current testosterone levels were the only thing that matters in sports (a view I disagree with), the IOC limit is still to high.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6391653/

take it up with the IOC then. Just a question: where are women atlethes with a natural testosterone level higher than whatever you want to set supposed to compete?

The rules are the same, and for good reason. Caster Semenya - the person responsible for the IAAF contniously redefining what, for the purpose of elligilability a "woman" is - has an intersex condition called 5α-Reductase deficiency, which, if anything, is closer to male than female. Nevertheless, she identifies as a woman, and deserves to be treated as such. So, there is good reason to treat the two issues analogously.

5α-Reductase deficiency is a DSD only in males. This enzime converts testosterone in dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Males with this condition have unusual looking genitalia due to lack of DHT. They can secrete testosterone, though, and after reaching puberty they undergone virilization due the increase of testosterone. In fact, a considerable percentage of these males who were raised as girls end up adopting a male identity after puberty.

You do realize that you are actually backing my point here? If someone, who was designated female at birth, was raised as a woman and identifies as a woman, but does actually have "a DSD only in males" (aka, is "male" by your reckoning) wants to compete in the women's division, does it really make sense to treat this case and a transgender case differently?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-23T09:45:53+00:00

Okay. Then I ask again. If "man" and "woman" are solely biological categories, what words do refer to the social categories?

There is not such a thing. Trans natal males are still treated as males and trans natal females are still treated as females.

No they aren't (at least when passing, which for most is the goal) and they don't want to.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T22:11:02+00:00

The word "woman" and "man" refer to biological categories. The problem lies in the transactivists trying to rewrite history and biology.

Okay. Then I ask again. If "man" and "woman" are solely biological categories, what words do refer to the social categories?

Are you seriusly f***ing lecturing me about my own language?!

no, I was lecturing you about my language.

BTW, I could swear you said sex and gender are not the same thing. But thank you for finally admiting transactivists are ideed redefining sex because that is exactly what I've been saying all the time.

Sex and Gender are not the same thing. "Legal Sex" and "Legal Gender" are, because both refer to the same thing - what your personal ID/Passport state. Which has nothing to do with biology and only with the social categories.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T21:03:19+00:00

This is ridiculous. Not all females can (or want to) get pregnant, but only females can regardless of how they identify. Everyones uderstand this, regardless that so many people nowadays like to pretend otherwise. Your hypothetycal scenario could only happen not because of gender critical feminists, but because of people like you that are so keen on ignoring all what we know about human biology.

The problem is the conflation of social category and biological category. The words "women" and "men" do refer to the social categories, because, well, if they don't, what words do?

Source?

Okay, I remembered it wrong that his competitors were injured, they only forfeited because they feared injury https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-texas-girls-title

Doping is not allowed in either category.

so in what categories are medically transitioning transgender men allowed to compete? Because if they aren't allowed to compete with the men, and aren't allowed to compete with the women, you are litterally forbidding them from competetive sport.

Nobody legally changes their gender here. You legally change your sex because that is what is marked in our documents. The word gender may have started to be used in areas outside of grammar, but the word sex is still widely used in Spanish-speaking countries. It's English speakers who started the practice of using the word gender as an euphemism for sex, something transactivists have taken full advantage of.

You are diverting the issue. There is no actual difference between "legal sex" and "legal gender" - both are what the law considers you to be. btw. in my language the word for "sex" is "Geschlecht", which is also the word used in the relevant law for changing ones legal sex/legal gender. (if someone wants to make a point about differentiating sex and gender identity, the respektive words would be "Geschlecht" and "Geschlechtsidentität").

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T20:06:33+00:00

a) this is not a current definition of trans, but if it were, everyone who was trans would get full SRS, and the questions of biological difference would at least be significantly reduced (eg, the issue of people with penises being allowed into women's shelters, prisons, dressing rooms etc would not come up)

Not everyone can get everything ,partialy SRS because isn't covered everywhere and is expensive, especially if it is to be done well , partialy because the strength of gender dysphoria can vary (and aparently the strength can even vary depending on which body part it concerns, like having a lot regarding the chest but little regarding the genitalia or vice versa). Also, I hardly see gender critical people be any more accepting of the "years on Hormones, multiple rounds of FFS, post-buttom-surgery, unclockable-if-they-dont-tell-you"-level trans woman compared to the "day-one, pre-everything still trying to get rid of the beard stubble"-level trans woman.

b) not accepting your body doesn't mean your body isn't real. Anorexic people or depressed people or plenty of other mentally troubled people (especially teenagers whose bodies are changing) cannot accept their bodies. Some of them go through years of suffering and manage to come through the other side thanks to various therapies or medications or life changes. Not accepting their body does not mean they can determine an inner reality that others cannot see. It means they have a mental problem. One way to deal with this may be to assuage the pain by trying to make reality better match their inner vision, but it doesn't mean that they never had the body they struggled with.

I don't think any transgender people are really claiming they never had the body they struggled with. They might try to keep it a secret if they are stealth, but that is not the same.

Don't you see that your own definitions already show that there is NO NEED for that?

No, I don't.

You cannot define the word woman without using "or" to separate cisgender women and transgender women into two parts. Why do we need one word for the both of them?

because, at the end of the day, part of the transgender identity is also the desire to be socially accepted as part of the same group as the cisgender people of the respective gender.

If you demand, that "man" and "woman" are purely biological terms, then you also have to replace every instance of the words "men" and "women" were the present sexed anatomy doesn't/shouldn't matter with new words meaning "cisgender men and transgender men" and "cisgender women and transgender women".

I truly have no idea what you are talking about.

How would you like it, if every instance of the word "woman" would be replaced with the word "ovary-haver"? Because if you insist on "men" and "women" being biological terms instead of social ones, that is what the word "woman" would mean. It would mean, that every use of the words "woman" and "man" would be reducing the person in question to their gonads, with no regards to their identity.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T18:43:20+00:00

If he was experiencing his body as monstrous when by objective standards and the observation of others, his body is not in fact monstrous, he was NOT

perceiving his body exactly the way it was

At all. He was disassociating and hallucinating, and thus not perceiving the reality of how his body actually is or was at that moment.

There's nothing wrong with having hallucinatory or disassociative episodes - lots of people (including me) have taken drugs for the express purpose of hallucinating and experiencing other ways of perceiving the world and our own bodies through all our various senses. Many of us have found this extremely beneficial. There's an entire literature written about it, from Huxley's classic The Doors of Perception from 1954 to recent works about people micro-dosing with LSD or using IV ketamine as treatments for and ways to prevent depression. Lots of rock 'n' roll is about these kinds of experiences, and The Doors are named after them.

Having experienced hallucinations can very much deepen one's understanding of reality, but hallucinations are not reality. People who mistake their hallucinations for reality are suffering from a delusion.

Again. He wasn't hallucinating. That wasn't the problem. The problem is, that to him having a body of his birth sex is deeply and fundamentally disturbing to him, even if from a purely physical point there was nothing wrong with the body. It just isn't the kind of body that feels right to him.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T14:01:01+00:00

If fairness in sports is not a right, should we abolish age and weight categories? Should disabled people compete against able-bodied people? I’m sure the transabled, the transages and the transweight would like this very much.

fairness in sport is not a right, but it is something that is striven for, because a heavily imbalanced competitiong just isn't very interesting, neither for the atlethes, nor the spectators.

Which is a lie since trans athletes are allowed to participate, they are only asked to compete according to their sex

so, are transgender men that are on HRT allowed to compete in the women's division?

You’re not saying all the important information about the IOC. Per the document you linked, these were the recommended guidelines for trans natal males in 2003:

Surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia changes and gonadectomy Legal recognition of their assigned sex has been conferred by the appropriate official authorities Hormonal therapy appropriate by the assigned sex has been administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to minimize gender-related advantages in sports competitions. In opinion of this group, eligibility should begin no sooner than two years after gonadectomy.

While I don’t agree with these guidelines either, these are much stricter than the issued in 2015. The first requirement in particular is quite limiting for trans athletes considering that most trans don’t undergone genital surgery. So, it’s a reasonable assumption to say we’re going more trans natal males competing in the female’s categories in the next Olympics.

The IOC was of the opinion, that requiering a gonadectomy is not compatible with human right and would exclude transgender people from countries where transitioning is illegal 1 , 2 . And, no, as you correctly pointed out, I confused the IOC and the IAAF, which means that the rules for the next olympics are apparently still the same one from the 2015 decision 3. So, no, there will not be suddenly vastly more transgender women competing. Btw. regarding the 10 nmol/L limit in place for the olympics: did you know that the testosterone level for a typical human male is 7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L ?

The article of World Athletics is not about the IOC, but the IAAF.

looks like I messed up and confused the IAAF and IOC with each other. My bad.

Also it’s not about trans athletes, but intersex ones...

The rules are the same, and for good reason. Caster Semenya - the person responsible for the IAAF contniously redefining what, for the purpose of elligilability a "woman" is - has an intersex condition called 5α-Reductase deficiency, which, if anything, is closer to male than female. Nevertheless, she identifies as a woman, and deserves to be treated as such. So, there is good reason to treat the two issues analogously.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T13:10:48+00:00

Can you prove that socialization is more important than sex?

I don' t really care much about it anyway, trans people are socialized as their sex, so it would still be a segregation that would keep trans women away from women.

A male is never socialized as a woman. Even in case he' s going to transition as a child, he would still be socialized as a very special boy, not as a girl.

You talk a lot about "female socialization". What, in terms of socialization, do a western woman raised gender neutral, a woman raised in a quiverfull family, a Basha Posh (Afghan custom where girls are raised as boys in order to deal with the extreme restrictions put upon girls in afghan society) and a woman raised in some awfull corner of the world where FGM is still practiced in common?

a trans woman would be not only a danger but also a desrespect of a sex segregated space

first, thats quite the villification, do you have statistics backing up that transgender woman in women's shelters cause an increase in danger? Second, is that "disrespect" really that bad that it justifies withholding care from a woman that was raped? And, third, would that mean that this person would be allowed in the rape shelter?

Not to mention that the female rapist wouldn' t bring the possibility of unwanted pregnancy in case she attacked the victim again

what kind of argument is that? By that logic a child or infertile woman (whether by choice or not) being raped would be less terrible, which really doesn't strike me as particulary feminist.

and the victim could have a better chance to defend herself.

that is a really poor argument. By that logic a five times MMA world champion and a 1.5 meter petite asthmatic girl would have to be put into seperate rooms because the latter is rather unlikely to be able to defend herself against the former.

Great, can you tell your TRA friends to get on board of that project instead of using women' s spaces?

generally speaking, all the pro-transgender arguers I have seen argue for spaces where nudity occurs to have cubicles so people don't have to undress in front of complete strangers. They still want to use the space belonging to their gender identity though.

Except that' s bullshit? It' s just a name you people have created to legitimize a mental illness

yes gender dysphoria is a mental condition, suspected to be neurological in cause, that, when left untreated, is often maladaptive, with the treatment in question being medical and social transitioning and acceptance.

All people are uncomfortable with their sexed characteristics here and there, especially growing up. By your own logic, I am not a woman because I don' t like my big boobs and I would do without my period. There is no woman in existence who hasn' t been uncomfortable with her periods for one reason or another. Are we all trans men? Give me a break.

do you wish to have a sexed anatomy other than female and to no longer be considered a woman? If no, then it is not the same.

Transgendrism has been around for decades. Even if a person has no knowledge of the terminology, everyone knows that there are people who get treatment to pretend they are the opposite sex. In order to never been able to hear about trans people, you would have to be a hermit.

I have absoloutly seen transpeople that were experiencing gender dysphoria before having heard about transgender people due to growing up in some particular backwards part of eastern europe.

I don' t care one bit the word you use to describe things like that, I am talking about legislation. There is no space for both currently because every sex segregated right women have are being rewritten in order to include males and rendering them useless and meaningless.

there are no rights granted to women on the basis of being women. What there is are laws against sex-based sicrimination with a couple of exemption 1 (Note: that link is UK-specific, but it applies to most of the developed world).

The closest thing to "sex based rights" would be laws specifically related to reproductive healthercare and I don't see how writing "women and other people can get abortions if they request so" instead of "women can get abortions if they request so" would take away rights from women, but for transgender men, it makes a lot of difference 2

Awesome, can you speak to the DMS then and make then erase the 7 out of 8 points that they list to disgnose gender dysphoria? Thanks.

a.) what makes you think that will do? My country goes by the ICD-10 (local modification), the DSM-5 is the american one. You think they would listen to some random foreigner?

b.) actually, in the DSM-5 definition 3 out of the 8 points are directly relating to sexual characteristics, e.g. physical sexed anatomy, not stereotypes.

c.) no psychologist who doesn't deserve their license taken would diagnose someone as gender dysphoric just for not following gender stereotypes while the patient expresses to be completly fine with their sexed characteristics. That doesn't happen.

ANd they are free to do whatever they want to their bodies: doesn' t make them the other sex, and they shouldn' t be recognized as something they are not, legally at least and certainly there shouldn' t be this ridicoulous push to make it the socially acceptable and morally wholesome thing to do.

And instead they should be stigmatized, mistreated and made outcasts for it? Transgender people do not chose to be transgender, but transitioning is as much a choice to them as taking pain medication is for someone with crippling chronic pain. Best case scenario would be the transgender person getting to transitiong and being treated by the whole of society like absoloute garbage, worst case would be the transgender person comitting suicide because they can bear neither the stigma of transitioning nor their existence in a body that feels deeply wrong to them. Do you not see that you are argueing for tormenting people for something they can not help? And for what? What is gained by considering transitioning socially unacceptable and morally wrong?

If only my genitals were changed, then I would be an intersex person because I would have XX chromosomes and male genitals. Which is not what trans women are. They are the opposite of it, they have XY chromosomes with feminized bodies and, more often than not, penis and testicles.

Why does it always come down to "but the chromosomes"? No one gives a sh#t about chromosomes. Did you ever had your chromosomes tested? I didn't, I just assume that I have the typical case because their isn't anything about my body to indicate otherwise. No one walks around testing the chromosomes of everyone they met before deciding on how to treat them, no one.

No, that answer was about me being in a male body. If I were in a female body with a penis and testicles, I would find gender neutral bathrooms or fight for them if they didn' t exist so that I wouldn' t have to shit on women' s spaces just for my benefit. Or I would keep it until I' m home. Whatever the case, I would still not impose my presence to regular women. Just because I was the victim of a wizard, it doesn' t mean that the 51% of the population needs to cater to my needs.

Why don't you fight for gender neutral bathrooms now? Transgender rights activists actually tend to do that, with gender critical people opposing.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T11:38:28+00:00

No one is saying that the distress of people who call themselves trans or "gender dysphoric" is not real, that it's consciously chosen, or that it's "slight" or insignificant.

Except for all the gender criticals here downplaying and trivializing the issue. Like making statement along the lines of calling transgender women "men who believe that preferring their legs shaved and enjoying cosmetics makes them women"

We are simply saying that distress over one's body, including one's sex anatomy and processes, is not unique to people who are trans or "gender dysphoric" - nor is the suffering that trans and "GD" people feel coz of their distress over their sexed bodies necessarily more extreme, painful or disabling than the distress many other people who are NOT trans and do NOT have "GD" feel over their bodies and sex characteristics too.

I'm not saying that people can't feel distress over their bodies (sexed anatomy included) that isn't gender dysphoria, or that it is necessary more painfull/disabling/distressing. I am just saying that gender dysphoria is a serious condition, that deserves treatment, empathy and acceptance, instead of villification, hatred and stigmatization.

Fact is, many people of all sorts have had strange, extremely disturbing dissociative episodes in which they've seen and experienced their bodies as monstrous, utterly alien, out to get them, diseased, distorted, hideous, non-human, huge, tiny, crawling with bugs, being on fire, part horse, part dog, with wings or fins, and so on.

Sometimes people have hallucinatory experiences - visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile and/or gustatory - as the result of mental illnesses (lots of people with "garden variety" major depression, for example, experience episodes of psychosis and disassociation from their bodies during MDD); due to physical states brought on by disease (brain tumors, Co2 narcosis, meningitis, shock after a traumatic labor and birth, for example); or because of drugs (THC, opioids, the drugs they used to routinely to drug to pregnant women in labor and birth, some drugs used in labor and childbirth today, infused immune drugs like IVIG, and hallucinogens like LSD, mescaline, peyote and ketamine, for example).

https://www.healthline.com/health/hallucinations#causes

https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/nonpsychotropic-medicationinduced-psychosis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727751/

This is not to diminish the scariness and horrible nature of what your friend went through. I'm just trying to make it clear that such experiences are part of human experience and therefore they are not unique to trans and gender dysphoric people the way you and others seem to think.

Some information about the horrible experiences featuring very scary hallucinations that have been part of childbirth for women past and present that you might find eye-opening:

https://timeline.com/restraints-hallucinations-and-forgotten-pain-were-the-norm-on-midcentury-maternity-wards-46909123c4f7

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjg8em/i-thought-my-baby-was-a-horse-what-its-like-to-trip-on-your-post-birth-drugsv

https://www.rxlist.com/pitocin-side-effects-drug-center.htm

Except that you are still fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. The issue wasn't, that he was perceiving his body in a way it wasn't. The problem was, that he was perceiving his body exactly the way it was and that to him having such a body was as deeply disturbing as actually having some monsterous, inhuman body.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-22T11:17:39+00:00

It's so hard for me to believe someone was denied an abortion over that. Do you have a source you can link?

well, it is at least a legal possibility https://madspades.tumblr.com/post/622869974338371584 (remembered that part wrong, I think? I'm pretty sure I read something like that).

Also, why didn't they just say they were female/a woman (since you literally have to be to get pregnant)? If male pregnancy was actually something that could happen, abortion rights would be written in the constitution.

Transgender men don't say they are women, because they aren't. Transgender men are men. And since they can get pregnant, that case needs to be covered in law's gouverning abortion right.

This us such as bad argument. A female taking performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be allowed to compete with females not taking performance enhancing drugs. Rules about this are common in like every sport. The Mack Beggs thing shouldn't have not allowed based on that, but it's not an argument for placing people in sports based on gender identity. You give up things when you transition.

So if transgender men can't compete in the womens category (due to their hormone levels), and can't compete in the men's category (because you are argueing for birth sex based competition), well, where can they compete? And, no, this is not comparable to someone taking performance enhancing drugs. He didn't take testosterone to improve his performance, he took testosterone to deal with his gender dysphoria.

I feel like you should stop using transmen to do all the work in your arguments.

Transgender men are as much a part of the transgender issue as transgender women. So whenever people argue against division based on gender identity instead of birth sex, that means sorting cisgender women and transgender men together. And that needs to be pointed out.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-21T20:36:34+00:00

Do you think a woman and man speaking out in favour of sex are given the same treatment?

the same treatment? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But I hardly think that a man bringing fourth the exact same arguments wouldn't have them dismissed as bigotry either.

Transactivist here have supported the abortion bill that passed last December and the previous law proposals regarding this, too.

Of course they were. Why wouldn't they, given what the legal situation regarding abortions was before (going of your description)

I wouldn't say this totally altruistic of them because they also make sure the bill used inclusive language despite that only a woman would ever need an abortion.

do you know what happens when inclusive language is not used? There was a case where a transgender man that was pregnant and in need of an abortion was denied said abortion, because the law in question spoke of "women who are pregnant", not "people who are pregnant" or "women and other people who are pregnant". The transgender rights movement was argueing for the law in question to be changed to fix this oversight. Gender Critical feminists were fighting against this change, meaning they were literally forcing this man to carry a pregnancy against his will. That is why inclusive language is important, and it is a lot more than mere "hurt genderfeelz".

There is Mara Gómez, a trans natal male who was allowed to play in the top division of female football. He was treated like a brave hero by local media. There are other cases of trans natal males competing in female categories, but Gómez is the most famous one.

if transgender women have to compete in the mens division, does that mean that transgender men are having to compete in the womens division - even after having been on hormones fopr year? Because there is a case like that, where a transgender men, that had been on HRT and wanted to compete in a contact sport in the men's category. He was forced into the women's category, because the rules were, that the divisons were based on birth sex. Due to the hightend muscle mass resulting from HRT, the transgender man was signigicantly stronger then his competitor, resulting in his competitor being injured. Then this story was taken by gender critical people and misrepresented in such a way, that readers were left under the impression, that this had been a case of a transgender woman beating up some vastly outmatchend non-transgender woman.

Besides how it affects women, there are other problems with this law in particular regarding minors. Under this law, any minor can request to change of the sex marker of their document with the approval of their parents. Kids as young as 5 (five, yes, five, this is absolutely not a typo) have been allowed to do this.

and what does changing ones legal gender mean in practice (other than changing what is on the passport - by the way, the personal ID in my country doesn't even list gender or sex)?

But what does being seen and treated as a man means? Is only about being told "yes, you're totally a man"? Or is there something more?

That, when you look at them, you perceive them instinctivly as sex/gender whose gender identity they are, and act acording to this perception. So, essentially, a transgender women/transgender man wants that, when a onlooker with no knowledge of them being trans perceives them, this onlooker perceives a woman/man, and treat them like the onlooker would treat a non-transgender woman/man doing the same things.

I remeber that there was a post about the mixed feelings transgender people experience over poor treatment based on being perceived as the sex/gender whose gender identity they are (say, for example, transgender women experiencing sexual harassement from men (mixed, because it is simultanously feeling bad over the poor treatment and feeling good over being perceived the way they want to). For the transgender men, I don't recall what their experiences in this regard were about, but there were some). So for the gender-non-conforming (gender non conforming relative to their gender identity that is) transgender man example, imagine him walking by an onlooker, that despises crossdressers. If the onlooker perceives the gnc-trans man as a man wearing a dress, the onlookers reaction will be very different from them perceiving a woman wearing a dress. So, if this onlookers reaction will be in line with perceiving the gnc-trans man as a man, the trans man will be left with this mixed feeling, on the one hand succeding at being perceived the way he wants to, on the other of course the negative feeling from being treated poorly. For positive or neutral actions obviously there isn't such a negative feeling, meaning the general feeling is not mixed. (Note: I chose negative treatment arising from being perceived as the sex/gender whose gender identity they are to clarify, that this is not about politely pretending that the transgender man is a man, but about there being no such pretense).

Note, that there is also the desire, that, if the transgender person informs other people over them being transgender, people don't start treating them differently because of that.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-21T18:57:58+00:00

It began as a mental illness, with the same mushy boundaries as other psychological diagnoses, but has become increasingly unreliable as it's become acceptable to just self-diagnose. The gates are wide open with no requirements.

I find self-diagnosis rather questionable, since self-diagnosis is obviousöly rather unreliable.

Again, why is this an "identity"? You don't have to identify with your body to have a body. What if you just accept the body you have, or feel slight distress, or have had distress at times, or can't exactly decide whether you have distress?

They simply can't accept the body they have, because it feels utterly, innately and inherently wrong to them. This is not a choice. This is not some slight distress. If they could accept their bodies as is, do you really think they would go though HRT, surgeries, get thrown out by their parents (yes, I have seen several experiencing this) over this?

Like, let me tell you about the time, one of them was - clearly during a particulary bad gender dysphopric phase - making a post about how he felt about the physiological effects of having the hormone levels of his birth sex. The entire thing read like a particulary disturbing body horror story written from the perspective of the person undergoing the body horror - except all the worse because it happens for real to someone I actually know and like (Note: he latter, after pulling himself somewhat together and having reconsidered his decision not to go on HRT for carrerial reasons deleted the post. But, believe me, it was a really disturbing read)

Do you accept that you have a racial identity? Or a national identity?

If someone tells you that you either do or don't identify with some aspect of your physical or historical reality, and that that makes you either trans or cis-racial or what have you, is that reasonable to you?

depends on how they define the entire thing. If their definition is, that you are "transracial" if you feel distress over physically/by ancestry being a particular ethnicity and "cisracial" if you don't, than I would be "cisracial", because I don't give a sh#t. If they demanded that because of that I would have to have a strong identification with my ehtnicity, I'd call them out on this bullshit.

If it's not ethereal, what does it actually mean? What do people in the category "trans women" all have in common?

Starting out with a male physical anatomy and desireing to change their anatomy to a female one or having already done so.

Or what do "trans women and cis women" all have in common that make them one category?

Having a female physical anatomy and not having a desire to have a different one or having a desire to have a female physical anatomy .

what words do you propose for "Person with male Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a male Phenotype" and "Person with female Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a female Phenotype"

Transsexual, Transvestite? Trans person? Trans Woman / Trans Man? MTF and FTM? As long as we recognize that a trans person is specifically one sex presenting as the other we are fine.

I was asking for words that respectively mean "Cisgender women and transgender women" and "cisgender men and transgender men", not for trans-specific words.

and how do you propose replacing the words "man" and "woman" with these words for all interactions not involving sexed anatomy?

Not sure I get what you're asking. I would like to continue using the words man and woman to refer to biological reality, and use trans-specific terms to talk about people who are intentionally trying to present or want to be understood as the sex that they are not anatomically.

If you demand, that "man" and "woman" are purely biological terms, then you also have to replace every instance of the words "men" and "women" were the present sexed anatomy doesn't/shouldn't matter with new words meaning "cisgender men and transgender men" and "cisgender women and transgender women".

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-21T18:09:44+00:00

Reference values are used as a diagnostic tool. In some cases, there are diferent references values for women and men. They are not based on hormonal profile, but on sex. In the case of FGR the formule used to calculate it is different for men and women.

Yes, the reference values are based on biological sex, because biological sex and hormone profile typically correlate strongly.

Taking exogenous hormones alter biochemical parameters of that individual, but that doens't mean you should evaluate them using the reference values of the opposite sex. This case show how that is a bad idea, actually.

Again., no, it actually doesn't. Because of course when the hormone profile returns to the one typical for the birth sex, you have to go by that.

About the employer example, a passing trans natal male could only be discriminated in the basis of a potential maternity if said male has made sure the employer doesn't know his actual sex.

Which actually a lot of transgender women do, since there is much less prejeduice against transgender people than against women (not saying there isn't prejeduice against women). In fact, "going stealth" (e.g. only intimate partners and medical caretakers being supposed to be in the know) is the goal for quite a lot of transgender people I know.

Also, if you think that thats how it works - what's keeping you (or other non-transgender women) from claiming to be a passing transgender woman at the next job interview? The employer isn't going to pull down your pants to check (at least I would hope so. If they do, it's most definetly not a place I would want to work at)

This doesn't justify the employer either way, but your example is about self-imposed oppression. Women can't opt out of ours like that.

Thing is, for transgender men it works the other way around - a passing transgender man (assuming stealth here) isn't going to be assumed to be able to become pregnant even if he can (because some who pass can, some who don't can't. Hormones are funny like that)

If you don't think so, just take a look at trans politics. Who is dominating the discourse? Trans natal males or trans natal females?

well, a significant reason behind this is that in the past there had been more transgender women than transgender men transitioning. Lately, this has been changing. Also, transgender men have been butting in on the discourse - remember this meme ?

Another reason is also, that the stereotypes against transgender people are quite different for both types, with transgender women being seen as dangerous predators and and transgender men as confused women. Which stereotype do you think is more likely to cause someone to become angry and outspoken against?

And finally, the opposite side also regulary forgets about transgender men entirely in the discourse. When people opposed to transgender people in the sex-seggregated spaces of their gender identity talk about that, they only ever think about it meaning that transgender woman would now be outside of the womens bathroom, they never think about it also meaning that transgender men would now be requierred to use the womens.

(reminds me of a case I once read. Essentially, a transgender men - who, based on what happend was clearly already passing- , living in a place where it was going by legal ID, was at a offical place to change his legal ID to male, had to use the restroom and - not wanting to break the law - went into the womens. Except someone was already there. Let's just say that "awkward" does not even begin to describe it)

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-21T01:24:07+00:00

that paper defines biological sex based on active gamete production. Which, for the purpose of this discussion, we have already dismissed as that would mean that a person that, for whatever reason, doesn't actively produce gametes would be without a biological sex.

No, you’re the only ones dismissing such definition. You asked me for a paper supporting my position and I gave you one.

so, now you are back to defining sex on active gamete production? Either you changed your definition yet again, or you are using a paper for supporting your position despite the paper using definitions different enough from yours that it can't be used to support your position.

you are essentially pulling the same thing that creationists do when they think that the non-existence of a "Crocoduck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck ) means that the theory of evolution is false. The "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not claim there to be a third gamete or additional reproductive roles. You clearly don't and don't want to understand the modell.

So, am I like creationists? LOL The irony is totally lost in you. I asked you for a paper disproving there are two sexes. A third gamete certainly would do.

your understanding of the "Biological sex as a spectrum"-modell is comparable to a creationists understanding of the theory of evolution. Because, again, the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not make a claim towards a "third gamete".

So, do you believe sex is a spectrum or sex is bimodal? Because these are two different things.

Biological sex is a bimodal spectrum. The above case in your link actually quite nicely illustrates a bimodal spectrum - a population with two distinct peaks representing two modes. For Biological Sex in the "Biological sex as a spectrum"-modell it looks (Note regarding the link: for that illustration, please cross "gender" mentally out and replace it with "biological sex". The article it's from was argueing for both sex and gender being bimodal spectra and they didn't bother making essentially the same graph twice) the same, with the peaks being the typical (i.e. most likely to be fertile) positions on the spectrum, and the middle between the modes being a minima. This is not the same as biological sex being a binary, because if it were a binary, there would be absoloutly no overlap instead of only little overlap (i.e. the middle in between the modes being completly empty, instead of there just being very few cases).

If sex were a spectrum, we would see a single normal curve when plotting height distribution in the human population instead of the two curves we actually observe.

that would be the case if I were claiming sex to be an unimodal spectrum, which I never did.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-21T00:41:59+00:00

know of a gender-non-conforming (gender non conforming relative to their gender identity that is) transgender man. That means, that, when he puts on a dress, he wants to be seen as and treated like a man wearing a dress, not a woman wearing a dress.

And what difference is there in treatment of a man or a woman that is not sexism?

If any difference in treatment regarding the sexes is sexism, then "Gender Critical Feminism" is quite sexist

Piece of Evidence a.) this Ovarit (a notorious Plattform for gender critical feminists) thread, where a comics from what was assumed to be a transgender woman was posted, that, in fact, was made by a non-binary person of the female birth sex. There is quite a stark difference between how they considered the whole thing depending on whether this mistake or not. So, quite clearly, they did not treat what they considered a "man" and what they considered a "woman" the same, even when it was the same action.

Piece of Evidence b.) the constant banging about sex-seggregated spaces or other subjects where the inclusion of transgender women in previously "female only"-groups is protested by gender critical feminists. If there were to be no difference in treatment between man and woman, a man entering the womans locker room would be treated the same as a woman entering the womans locker room (or, more likely, sex-seggregated spaces would cease to exist because there would be no point towards them anymore). This is quite clearly an anathema to everything "Gender Critical Feminists" believe.

Piece of Ecidence c.) sexual orientation. The simultanous facts, that sexual orientation is unchangable while at the same time it is rather rare for someone to be a bisexual with a perfect 50-50-split means that it is literally impossible for there to be no difference in treatment.

(Note: this list was not making an argument over what this means in terms of the "A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex"-criteria)

So, clearly, a mere difference in treatment between a man and a woman is not, by itself, sexism. Sexism is more the explicit or implicit belief about the superiority/inferiority of one sex, discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping based on sex or actions arising from these beliefs.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-21T00:09:29+00:00

You haven't defined gender or "gender identity" anywhere on this thread, despite everyone asking you to do so again and again.

I have defined it again and again. Just because you are unwilling to listen, doesn't mean I haven't explained it already.

And "gender identity" is commonly understood to mean preference for sex stereotypes and sex roles that are either masculine or feminine.

NO IT DOESN'T. Why do you make me explain the same goddamn thing over and over again?

I am of the female sex, but I do not identify with feminine sex stereotypes and sex roles forced upon or associated with female people. Please stop telling me that because I don't have "gender dypshoria" I must identify with those stereotypes. I know my own mind very, very well. I have fought against sex stereotyping my whole life - and I'm in my mid-60s, so that's a long time.

Gender Identity has nothing to do with gender roles/gender stereotypes. It doesn't matter at all how masculine/feminine you are or how much you say "f#ck you" to gender stereotypes. If you are okay with being of the female sex (which you quite clearly are. And, no, health problems or experiences of sexual harassement do not count towards this) your gender identity is female, even if you defy every single gender stereotype regarding women that has ever existed simultanously.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T21:11:59+00:00

A) You say that society needs to have a discussion about the issue of sex vs gender identity. But it seems you think the issue is already settled. Here you are dismissing women's concern as mere bigotry. So, are women allowed to take part on this discussion or not? Or are we allowed to participate only under trans terms? Why is never trans people the ones who have to consider women's concerns?

The concerns that have been dismissed as "mere bigotry" have already been refuted. And why do you think it's only women who can't bring up those concerns - do you think there has never been a man these arguments and had been similarily dismissed?

B) My point with all these examples was there are many people who don't agree with your view of gender identity being based on distress over one's sexed body. We can ignore those people's position because they are the ones driving many of the legal changes.

that's why I am on the truscum side of the truscum-tucute-debate ("you need gender dysphoria to be trans" vs. "you don't need gender dysphoria to be trans"), Because without gender dysphoria as a criteria, transgender identity makes no sense to me.

They want more countries like Argentina and less with yours

I'm pretty sure (since you mentioned abortion restrictions in this context) they aren't pushing for harsher restrictions there.

They're also pushing among other things for "gender affirming treatment" and they want to ban any alternative treatment as "conversion therapy".

thats going to cause the amount of detransitioners to go up, causing problems for everybody. The transgender group I'm in contact with is concerned with that, and I would prefer an exploratory approach (e.g., the therapist exploring options with the patient, making sure that the patient isn't, say, confusing the constellation of "gender non conformity, internalized homophobia, homosexuality and depersonalization issues" with gender dysphoria. But this needs to be an open process, neither pushing the patient into identifying with their assigned gender, nor mindlessly affirming the initial self-diagnosis)

But even if we go by your clinical definition of gender indentity, the ICD-10 that you quote starts the definition of transsexualism with "A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex". What does a desire to live as the opposite sex means if not stereotypes?

the desire to be perceived as and treated as the sex of the gender identity they identify as. Let me bring an example. I know of a gender-non-conforming (gender non conforming relative to their gender identity that is) transgender man. That means, that, when he puts on a dress, he wants to be seen as and treated like a man wearing a dress, not a woman wearing a dress.

Also, the page you linked says this about gender identity in children(emphasis mine):

Gender identity disorder of childhood

A disorder, usually first manifest during early childhood (and always well before puberty), characterized by a persistent and intense distress about assigned sex, together with a desire to be (or insistence that one is) of the other sex. There is a persistent preoccupation with the dress and activities of the opposite sex and repudiation of the individual's own sex. The diagnosis requires a profound disturbance of the normal gender identity; mere tomboyishness in girls or girlish behaviour in boys is not sufficient. Gender identity disorders in individuals who have reached or are entering puberty should not be classified here but in F66.-

How is this not about stereotypes?

that's a bit of a problem when dealing with pre-pubertal children in this regard, as before puberty the sexually dismorphic anatomy is much less pronounced. So this is written under the assumption, that most people will be gender conforming relative to their gender identity (which, yes, can be totally wrong and does bend more than a bit towards stereotypes). To be fair, they specified "mere tomboyishness in girls or girlish behaviour in boys is not sufficient" .

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T20:43:34+00:00

Trans natal males don't have CAIS, though.

how does that change the argument?

Unless I'm understanding that report wrong, he didn't have a functioning ovary, in fact the ovarian tissue was extirped among the cistic mass.

still means ovarian tissue.

I stand by what I said multiple times already female refers to the biological category of individuals whose bodies are built around the potential capability of producing large gametes (ova) at some point in their life. And likewise for males and sperm.

except that you don't define what "built around the potential capability of producing" a particular gamete means.

Not all females can get pregnant, but only females can get pregnant.

maybe. I mean, naturally? Of course yes (since anyone on the female side of the bimodal spectrum close enough to the "typical" case to be fertile would also be close enough to the typical case to be easily sorted in as female under the binary modell). Artifically? Maybe you only need an Uterus and a female hormone profile(though if we discount the Mikey Chanel case [which might or might not be a hoax] it is going to be hard to find volunters to test that, and I don't think any scientific journal is going to accept a paper to the effect of "I abducted some guy who, due to rare genetic abnormality had an uterus, subjected him into a hormone regime against his will, and forcibly impregnated him. Here's my results.")

Hermaphrodites are individuals who can produce either gamete. Sequencial hermaphrodites start producing one kind of gamete and later swich to produc the other one. Simultaneus hermaphrodites can produce both kinds at the same times. We agree (I think) that humans can't swich the kind of gamete one can produce. So, humans are not sequential hermaphrodites.

so far, yes.

There are rare cases where things go wrong and you find a mixture of female and male feaures.

precisely. Some amount of male or female or both or neither.

However, there are no reported case of people both functional set of reproductive systems because we're not supposed to produce both ova and spermatozoa.

No, there aren't reports of both being functional. But there doesn't have to be, since not having a functional one of either doesn't disqualify.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T20:11:59+00:00

No, this is not true. Please stop saying that the subjective feelings that you and a small number of the earth's human inhabitants experience are feelings that everyone else on earth shares.

Most people definitely do NOT have a "gender identity." The only people who can be relied on to agree they have a gender identity are those who wish they were the opposite sex, or neither sex, or some human-concocted combination of the two sexes.

Of course people whose gender identity matches their anatomical sex do not feel gender dysphoria, and therefore, to them, there doesn't appear to be such a thing as a"gender identity", since without the mismatch between gender identity and anatomical sex, gender identity has no effect. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Some vegans have a very extreme revulsion to the idea of consuming or using animal products. But just because some people have this revulsion and experience it deeply does not mean everyone else on the planet have it too. Even amongst people who are against eating and using animal products, many don't feel the same sort of revulsion and deep-seated distress over these matters that some vegans do.

transgender people do not believe non-transgender people to experience gender dysphoria. A close adaption of your analogy would be if the vegans with a revulsion to consuming or using animal products would consider there to be such a thing as a "meat-revulsion-identity" where you do identify as "meat revolted" if you feel a revulsion to eating meat and "meat non-revolted" if you do not feel such a revulsion, while still being aware that there are both.

Right now I personally feel great deal of distress and discomfort "in regards to my anatomical sex" coz my anatomical sex has caused me to develop pudendal neuralgia, which creates an excruciating combination of extreme pain and numbness in my vulva, lower vagina, female perineum, female urethra and the anus in which I've had recurrent piles since I first developed them during pregnancy many years ago. Every day I wish a giant bladed device would come along and scoop out all these body parts. But I still do not have a "gender identity."

you experience distress resulting from your reproductive anatomy being in an unhealthy state - and therefore hurting - right now. But if it were healthy and fine and not hurting at all, would you still wish every day "a giant bladed device [would] come along and scoop out all these body parts" ?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T19:51:12+00:00

It's not one or the other. Most people who have physical pain have psychological pain along with it. Very often the psychological pain in such cases is focused on the parts of the body, or the bodily processes, that cause the pain or where the pain is most strongly experienced.

But without the physical pain there would be no psychological one. So, no, it is not the same.

In all your lengthy posts throughout this entire thread, you have never once defined "gender dysphoria" or described it in anything but the vaguest terms - "distress" and feeling "deeply uncomfortable." You keep saying what "gender dysphoria" is NOT, but never say what it IS other than dislike, distress, discomfort.

I quote the ICD-10 for its definition of "Transsexualism": A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex.

Gender dysphoria is the "discomfort"-component in that description.

Your POV seems to be that the psychological distress and discomfort of "gender dysphoria" is the only kind of human pain that matters. To you, "gender dysphoria" seems to trump all other kinds of pain that human beings are capable of suffering, whether psychological, physical or a combo of both.

All human pain matters, I never said otherwise. I) really don't know why you keep making up absurd, insulting and incorrect accusations.

The experiences of these women is not at all new! I know many women who endured horrible back and neck aches and other physical problems as well as tons of psychic pain and sexual harassment and abuse for years - decades even - coz of their large breasts. They begged for breast reductions and fought with insurers and health care systems like the NHS to get them and usually were refused. They often dreamed of cutting their breasts off and said they often fantasized about taking a sword, carving knife or straight razor (the long bladed "cut throat" variety) to their breasts and getting rid of them once and for all. What's the difference between what those women went through and still go through today and "gender dysphoria"?

These cases are nothing at all alike. As I said, the transgender men's distress had nothing to do with sexual harrasement or physical problems relating to large breasts. They were distressed because their gender identity was male, meaning that having a female anatomy was by its very concept distressing to them, because male anatomy does not include breasts.

Go talk to some older women who are long past our childbearing years about how we feel about our breasts. You'd find that quite a few of us are just as "deeply uncomfortable with having breasts" as the "transmen" you speak of. We might actually be more uncomfortable coz being old, our breasts are big and saggy and fibrous and sometimes tender and painful. Plus, being so saggy, they flop all over the place, making it hard to get into a comfortable enough sleep position to guarantee a sold night of shut eye.

Again, this is not the same phenomena. The problem was not having big/saggy/fibrous/tender breasts, the problem was having breasts at all. Also, the transmen in question were hardly old, so problems developing with age were not relevant.

But whereas "transmen" and women who say they are "non-binary" now can get medically-needless cosmetic surgeries to remove their breasts approved and paid for by insurance and government health plans

they are not "medically needless". They are paid for by insurances/government health plans due to the proven benefical effects of transitional health care for gender dysphoric people.

But really, what distinguishes the discomfort and distress over our breasts that older women like me feel from the distress and discomfort that the "gender dysphoric" feel?

Absoloutly everything. You are just unwilling to understand the difference, because then you would have to start empathizing with transgender people instead of hating them.

Also, this is probably news to you, but before abortion was legal and the morning after pill was widely available, millions of women stuck coat hangers and knitting needles up their vaginas, through their cervixes and into their uteri to abort fetuses coz they felt "so deeply uncomfortable with having" children they could not afford to have, or they would be shamed, ostracized, disowned, kicked out of the house, fired, thrown out of school, excommunicated and forever branded as sluts for having. Women and girls went to other extreme lengths coz of "feeling so deeply uncomfortable with" being found out to be pregnant and with having children that they would be penalized in myriad ways for conceiving and bringing into the world. Many women died or nearly died as a result, and many of those who survived ended up with lifelong damage to their health too.

Yes I already was aware about coathanger abortions, thank you very much. And because I don't want that to happen, I am absoloutly in favor of abortion being legal.

How is the distress of girls and women who were in such dire straits over their sexed bodies that they put their lives at risk, and often lost their lives, in these ways so utterly different from - and so much less serious than - the distress that the "gender dysphoric" feel? Why do people with "gender dysphoria" constantly portray "gender dysphoria" as unique, pretend it's the most horrible suffering a human being can feel and claim that no one else has any idea what "gender dysphoria" is like coz no else past or present has ever experienced anything like it?

First, apologize for your disgustingly vile insinuation that I consider the distress felt by women undergoing coathanger abortions "much less serious". if this discussion were in person, this would be the point where I would leave utterly disgusted by you.

Second, just because the source of the suffering is different, does not mean that one type were "much less serious" than the other. A person with a broken leg and a person in dire need of a heart transplant are both suffering, but the fact that the nature of their suffering is different does not mean that one would be "much less serious than" the other.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T19:06:44+00:00

I'm saying the very idea of there being any OTHER thing to be aware of is just made up.

Then what do you think the distress felt by gender dysphoric transgender people is based on?

Saying that you are the gender identity of your sex is imposing the notion of gender identity on people who simply don't have it. Most of us just have a sex.

There is no such thing as "not having a gender identity". If you feel psychological distress in regards to having your anatomical sex, you have a gender identity different from your anatomical sex and is the sexed phenotype where you wouldn't feel such a distress. If you don't feel any such distress, your gender identity matches your anatomical sex. Under such definition, how would it be possible not to have a gender identity?

The more ethereal you make the concept of gender identity, the less need there is for a word to begin with.

it's not at all anm etheral concept. And of course we need words here.

We can escape that ridiculousness by using the standard terms as they were originally meant, and then calling your friends by their personal soul names or whatever.

what words do you propose for "Person with male Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a male Phenotype" and "Person with female Phenotype and/or distressed over not having a female Phenotype" and how do you propose replacing the words "man" and "woman" with these words for all interactions not involving sexed anatomy?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T18:44:38+00:00

But who is allowed to take part in this disscussion? Many changes in law regarding trans issues are happening behind closed doors and media coverage is one sided in favour of gender identity. Women's concerns are dismissed time and time again. Any woman who speak out in favour of sex risks being threatened, smeared and de-platafformed. So, how can we have a debate about whether sex or gender identity is more relevant if only one side is allowed to talk?

I am against threatening, smearing or deplattforming people just based on their opinions (the first two in general, the latter excepted for when one outright promotes hate - for example Germaine Greers infamous quote equating transgender women transitioning with rape (1) - or incites criminal actions). Also, a lot of times the "concerns" presented are just Red Herrings repeated over and over 1.

(1): here is the quote in question:

All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves. However, the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist violates women’s sexuality and spirit, as well. Rape, although it is usually done by force, can also be accomplished by deception. It is significant that in the case of the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist, often he is able to gain entrance and a dominant position in women’s spaces because the women involved do not know he is a transsexual and he just does not happen to mention it.

You can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria whithout such distress according to the DMS-5, for example.

I'm going by the ICD-10 ( under F64.0 ) that makes it quite clear, that it is about anatomical sex and the desire for medical transitioning (2).

(2):

Transsexualism

A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex

And, under the "gender affirming treatment" paradigm, it's doubtful that a therapist is allowed to question a patient's gender identity, anyway.

yeah, I'm kinda sceptical about "affirmation only" (e.g. no questioning of the self diagnosed gender identity allowed). People can be wrong about themself, and when someone transitions without actually being transgender, they are going to develop gender dysphoria towards the sexed characteristics of the gender they were transitioning to. Thats why detransitioners aren't big fans of this modell.

In the thread about sexual attraction, I told you self-ID was legalized in Argentina. Here, you can change the sex markers of your document without a clinical diagnosis or a judicial order. You're not required to undergone any kind of "medical transition" to do so, either before or after. You just need to say you're really a woman (or a man) despite not being born one. The law that makes this possible is commonly known as the gender identity law and gender identity is mentioned in the law text itself. There are a few other countries with similar laws and many transactivists are campaigning to expand the list.

well, in my country a person wanting to change their legal gender needs two independent medical assesments confirming the gender identity, that the person in question had been identifying this way for at least three years and that it is considered likely that they will keep identifying this way. Far as I heard, this is a rather hardass amount of conditions.

Though, back to self ID: it kind of depends on what this changed legal gender means in practice. From what I heard, it's mostly relevant in terms of into which prison one goes (both Blaire White and Rose of Dawn have made videos regarding this, with Blaire White advocating seperated LGBT wards.)

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T16:59:21+00:00

Is misgendering more offensive than death and rape threaths? Are those threaths an acceptable social consequense for any woman who misgender someone? I'm asking you this because many supporters of the trans paradigma certainly think so.

I hate it when this is done (yes, I have seen the mountains of receipts regarding this). No social movement ever got anywhere by screaming angry, empty threats and people who have a different opinion. I have never done such a thing, and if it were up to me, it would immediately stop.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T16:51:46+00:00

Many girls and women spend much of our younger lives distressed and in discomfort and excruciating pain due to gynecological problems associated with our menstrual cycles. This doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Many women experience painful chronic UTIs and and issues like Bartholin's cysts due to the anatomy of our vulvas. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Pregnant women and new mothers experience all sorts of things due to our sexed bodies that are discomfiting, distressing and painful - backache, nausea, indigestion, liver pain, stretch marks, hemmorhoids (piles), inability to get a seatbelt comfortably around us, torn and stitched-up vulvas, pelvic nerve pain. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Going through the experience of labor and childbirth is extremely uncomfortable, upsetting and scary for many/most women. You have no idea. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Breastfeeding can be very painful, and most women who breastfeed end up with at least one mastitis infection. Breastfeeding in public can be very uncomfortable and distressing for women, especially as it tends to attract a lot of stares, disapproval and perverted men who say disgusting things and make a point of situating themselves nearby so they can rub their penises whilst they watch us feed our children. This makes women who experience this want to die of mortification and revulsion. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Over the long term, many women who have given birth end up with problems like pelvic organ prolapse, pudendal neuralgia, urinary and fecal incontinence due to childbirth injuries we suffered years earlier. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Women during and after menopause suffer a variety of problems - hot flushes, insomnia, sweats, UTIs, vaginal atrophy - due to our sexed bodies. Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

Physical pain arising due to ones sexed anatomy being unhealthy or undergoing a painfull natural process is not "discomfort" in the sense of gender dysphoria.

Many girls and women feel tons of distressing shame over our sexed bodies from being sexually objectified, harassed and abused - and from being told we are gross and dirty for menstruating, and that our genitals smell and are "fishy." Doesn't mean we have "gender dysphoria."

distress arising over societies treatment of ones sexed body functions is also not what is meant by "distress" in the sense of gender dysphoria.

Feeling so deeply uncomfortable with having breasts (not with how other people treats you for having breasts, but the mere fact of you having breasts) that you are seriously contemplating impromptu self-surgery using gardening tools to get rid of them, that is meant with "distress" or "discomfort" in the sense of gender dysphoria (and, yes, that's a real case. Saw two transgender men - that is, female-to-male transgenders - talking about having experienced such thought processes)

I also take umbrage at the fact that when another poster mentioned

things assigned to female people by a patriarchal society

You responded with

Breasts, feminine facial features, lack of facial hair (usually), high levels of estrogen and a vagina were assigned to female people by a patriarchal society?

You really do see female people as just an assemblage of inanimate things made by and for men, don't you? To you we're just a bunch of body parts, not human beings.

No? Where do you take such insulting acusations from? Body parts are body parts. Female people are people.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T16:05:51+00:00

Hormone levels are not the only important thing that should be taken into consideration and that differentiates the sexes.

trying not to go into that debate. We can't discuss every single transgender issue in every single thread about transgender people.

Not to mention, in lots of cases hormones are not even considered and men can join women' s sports without any kind of hormonal standards.

well, that is obviously problematic. Not going to disagree there.

Crime, for example.

can you proove that biological sex is here more important than socialisation? But, yes, I'd actually like crime stats (both in regards to perpatrator as well as in regards to victims) to record both.

How about rape shelters in which a person with a penis shares a room with a person with a vagina who was raped by another person with a penis?

And if a person with a vagina was raped by another person with a vagina, should, acording to your logic, this first person share the room with a person with a penis?

A locker room where 14 years old girls get naked together with a person with a penis?

I used to get naked in a locker room, and always felt deeply uncomfortable. And for this it would not have mattered the slightest, what genitals the other people there had. So the solution is more cubicles, so no one has to get naked in front of someone else.

All their existence proves is that they are distressed over their bodies and their sexed characteristics, not that that distress comes because of gender identity.

Gender identity is defined by what sexed characteristics you are comfortable/uncomfortable having. If there were no such thing as gender identity, there would be no such thing as gender dysphoria.

As for those studies, there are a gazillion of studies that debunk the lady/gent brain, which means that it' s far from a settled thing. Even if it were settled and trans people were recognized to have their preferred sex' s brain, they would still have their biological sex' s bodies: I don' t give a damn how much you have a ladybrain if you also have a penis and a male socialization.

And if the person in question had no longer a penis and was socialized female due to early recognition of the gender identity made possible via this method (I'm strongly in favor towards more research regarding the brain sex theory, since if it could be refined to at least a supporting diagnostic tool it would greatly help in improving the diagnostic process)?

How about this, in another comment you say that since you don' t change your mind on your "gender identity" if you change social setting, then it means it' s real. Does that mean that if a person who believes to be Napoleon moves somewhere else and changes social settings, still believes he' s Napoleon, then he really is Napoleon?

how would a person come to falsely believe themself to be Napoleon if they were in an enviroment where no one ever heard of Napoleon? If this person still believed themselves to be Napoleon even without anyone ever having heard of Napoleon, then there would clearly some weird sheniagans been going on.

No, but it doesn' t mean that it should replace non-depression in laws and legislation. There should be space for both without having to pretend that anomalies are more important.

Precisely. There should be room for both. Which is why (in regards for this threadtopic) I have proposed the compromise solution of "Men/Women and other people with/who ...", e.g. mentioning both the typical and the atypical cases, without pretending that one or the other is more important.

I beg to differ. Most people I have asked what their gender identity is about have answered that it' s all about adherence to sex-based roles and a preference for things that are stereotypically associated with the other sex. For God' s sake, it' s how you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria "by experts" to begin with.

And the transgender people I have talked to have been very insistent on maintaining a strong distinction between gender stereotypes and gender identity (in fact, if anything, conflating those to is pretty much a beserk button on that board). And let me quote the ICD-10 in this regard:

F64.0
Transsexualism
A desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one's anatomic sex, and a wish to have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one's body as congruent as possible with one's preferred sex.

( https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en#/F60-F69 )

The part regarding gender dysphoria in children (F64.2) also explicitly states that gender non-conformity is not sufficent for a diagnosis.

That thought exercise has been done to death in the old debate sub.

it's been changed here in so far, that here only your genitals are changed, so everyone (or at least everyone you aren't showing your genitals) would still see you as a woman.

trans people are in their natural and healthy bodies that they have been born and grown in.

And that are distressing them.

I would be a man with the socialization of a woman (note, not a man with a woman brain, I would have a male brain because I would be in a male body), which is not what happens to trans people in the least. They are still 100% their biological sex and they still have the socialization that their biological sex had brought.

so if you suddenly had a penis and testicles, but in all other aspects it was still your female body, you would insist to be 100% a man?

The fact that I would be awkward using a man' s toilet has nothing to do with whether or not I should use it. I would have issues with using a man' s toilet because I was taught that it wasn' t my place since I was, literally, raised as a woman (unlike trans natal males). However, I would still 100% use it because a woman' s toilet wouldn' t be my place anymore now that I am a man. Me being weird about it is not a justification for putting other women in distress and violate a space that is reserved for them.

so despite only your genitals being changed, you'd now (despite still looking female) use the men's bathroom? (also, in the opposite case, would that mean that a guy who suddenly found himself with a vagina instead would be supposed to be the womens, even if the rest of him still appeared male?)

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T15:05:11+00:00

Please stop using other conditions to try to make a case for "gender dysphoria." Proponents of the idea that "gender dysphoria" is a stand-alone condition unrelated to, and not symptomatic of, other mental health issues should be able to make the case for it without constantly invoking other conditions. And it's galling when advocates of "gender dysphoria" as a condition unto itself try to substantiate it by invoking one of the very conditions many of us think that "gender dysphoria" is often an expression of, and cover for, such as anxiety and depression.

yes, gender dysphoria is often coprevalent with other mental health issues. Therefore, it is often important for psychological treatment to be included, but gender dysphoria is a condition unto itself, as demonstrated by the fact, that it is not lessend by antidepressiva but is lessend by cross-sex hormones.

Also, your claim about depression is not entirely true. Mild forms of clinical depression might be diagnosed based solely on the patient's words, but that's not the case for major depressive disorder.

MDD usually involves dramatic changes in the person's affect, appetite, sleep patterns, sex drive and general behavior that are quite noticeable to others in their lives - family, members of their household, friends, colleagues. Often it involves physical changes like marked changes in weight, hair loss and increased susceptibility to physical illnesses due to suppressed immune function. Sometimes MDD involves mania, psychosis or catatonia - conditions which are very apparent to others.

And strong cases of gender dysphoria also cause enough distress to have a clearly apparent impact on the persons psychological wellbeing.

Also, people with depression are not trying to force the whole world to adopt an entirely new set of values in which depressed people's needs come first and being depressed is seen as the new norm;

in what way are transgender peoples needs "comming first" or being transgender "seen as the new norm" ?

they're not demanding that laws and customs change to accommodate and prioritize depressed people;

in what way are transgender people "prioritized" ?

and they're not unilaterally decreeing sweeping changes in the language, forcing compelled speech on others

I'm actually against laws fopr compelled speech. As far as I am concerned, legally you should absolouty be allowed to call Buck Angel "miss", "ma'm", "lady","woman" or "she/her", just be aware of (and expect the social consequences of) this being highly offensive.

insisting that everyone who hasn't suffered depression be labelled "non-depressives."

I'm sure communities of people who do have clinical depression have their terms for people who don't. It's just not in the political spotlight, because there aren't as much political/social areas affected.

Nor are depressive rights lobbyists constantly citing fake suicide stats to get sympathy

can you show that the frequently citied (and used by "gender criticals" as a joke) number of 41% of transgender people having attempted suicide (compared to 1.6 % in the general population) is wrong ( https://web.archive.org/web/20151104050421/http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf ) ?

manipulate people into medicating children with drugs that will render them infertile and sexually dysfunctional.

a.) of course children with clinical depression are going to be medicated when needed.

b.) admittedly, I am somewhat wary of childhood medical transitioning, as before puberty it can be difficult for the child in question to discern, whether the problem lies with gender role or the sexed anatomy (as puberty causes the secondary sexed characteristics to develop). This is why gender dysphoria that persists during puberty is most likely permanent. The reason medical transitioning for children is even considered is, that the development of the secondary sexed characteristics caused by puberty is greatly distressing towards the children where the problem is the sexed anatomy while it also makes changing the physical body to match the gender identity more difficult.

Of the large number of people who die by suicide each year - in 2018, more than 48,000 people in the US alone - the vast majority are depressed. But there is no annual "depression day of remembrance" or "suicide commemoration day" anywhere. Funny that.

there is no day of rememberance for transgender suicides either. There is a day of rememberance for transgender people who were murdered.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T14:18:30+00:00

And who decides whether sex or gender identity is relevant in a given context?

this needs to be discussed in a broader societal discussion. Based on what is discussed, it might make sense to go either by sex, gender identity or make some qualifications towards the state of transition for going by gender identity. It really depends on the details.

If gender identity is not based on stereotypes, then in what is it based?

it is based on what physical sexed anatomy you would be comfortable or uncomfortable with having. If it distresses you to have the typical primary and secondary sexual characteristics of your sex, regardless of the social enviroment, your gender identity might be in a misallignment with your sex. If it doesn't, then your gender identity alligns with your sex.

Essentially, there is a thought experiment (meant for self-reflection for people uncertain of whether they are transgender or just don't like their gender role/gender stereotypes): imagine you are in an enviroment without gender roles/gender stereotypes (variations are either a society without gender roles/gender stereotypes or a otherwise deserted island) and have the chance to irreversibly change your physical sexed anatomy to the opposite one (or an "neither","in between" or "parts of both" for nonbinary transgender ) would you do it?

How can a male feel like a woman. I'm a woman and I've no idea what is feeling like a woman.

The answer is, that the "I am a man/woman because I feel like a man/woman" expression is an oversimplification, that is unfortunately often misunderstood.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T13:39:52+00:00

Since they have a female phenotype, my guess is that their partners remain heterosexual/homosexual. Though, I’ve no idea how said partners would feel about the situation. I’ve no personal experience with this.

precisely. Glad you finally understand. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with biological sex and all to that with Phenotype, aka what I called "apparent Gender".

Re the case report: this is so rare that even the authors couldn’t find a similar case. I should remark, though, the authors refer to this patient as male. The patient refused to do further studies, so we don’t know if there were something else going on besides the PMDS.

doesn't matter how rare.

You make it sound like they were hermaphrodites, they are not. They have uterus and fallopian tubes, but they don't have ovaries where to produce ova. They can't get pregnant. They have testes. They are males.

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

I said you were making it sound like they were hermaphrodites and I explained why that wasn’t the case.

are "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" and "does have ovaries" the criteria to be used or not? Because quite a few intersex phenomena I mentioned do not qualify for their respective sex you sorted them in under these criteria.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T02:19:27+00:00

Anyone who is trying to replace sex with gender.

gender identity is not a social construct. And no one is "replacing sex with gender", what is happening is that sex and gender identity are seperated depending on which one is the relevant one.

including sports, stats, sex segregated spaces.

the sport one correlates with hormone levels (as these are what determines muscle buildup) which in cases of divergence between biological sex and gender identity HRT of sufficent length and dose does restore fairness.

In what regard is biological sex for non-mdeical statistics relevant?

"sex segregated spaces" - in what way is it relevant on whether the person in the cubicle next to you has testes or ovaries?

Secondly, gender identity is something we don' t even know if it exists

it does, as evidenced by the millions of transgender people experiencing distress based on the mismatch between their gender identity and physical sex.

if it exists, it would be entirely unprovable even if it existed, it would be completely dependent on people' s words

the diagnosis of clinical depression is just as dependent on the patients words as the diagnosis for gender dysphoria. Does that mean that clinical depression is entirely unprovable and does not exist?

Also, here's some studies showing a connection between brain development and transgender identities https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4699258/ , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8 , https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

adherence to stereotypes

gender identity has nothing to do with stereotypes.

more importantly, lots of people don' t even have it.

really? How many people have experienced involuntarily aquierring the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex and did not felt distressed by that?

Also, in this reddit post is a fun little thought excercise in this regard https://www.reddit.com/r/truscum/comments/ll6tpa/we_need_to_start_asking_transphobes_what_they/

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T01:25:12+00:00

has never played or coached sports, hasn't worked alongside women in jobs where physical strength matters

physical strength does play a role in certain areas. Thing is, muscle builup is controlled by hormone levels, so a transgender person that has been on HRT for a significant time might be better grouped by gender identity here.

And probably a male person who is young, doesn't have children,

hasn't had any longterm intimate relationships with female persons

please elaborate.

has no idea that safety equipment isn't designed with female bodies in mind

safety equipment ought to be designed to consider either body type.

has never navigated the world when visibly pregnant

or thought to be pregnant.

or as the mother of a young child, and has never spoken to female people with considerable life experience about the realities of our lives.

and you think people who appear female in these situation and are transgender are not experiencing this?

Just today, I had to deal with some longterm financial planning matters and inquired about putting one of my sons on my auto insurance. Actuaries will attest that sex matters when figuring out how much money you'll need in retirement, and insurance companies will tell you that adding a young male driver to the family policy will cause a considerable hike in premiums.

this is more likely conncted to gendered socialisation rather than whether the person in question has testes and ovaries. Also, insurance companies are already facing the fact that this will now go by gender identity.

Spelling, punctuation and grammar rules are commonly accepted norms that most people follow so that what we say and write can be most easily understood by others. For example, using capital letters at the start of sentences (and paragraphs), using punctuation marks to clearly denote when sentences have ended

english is not my native language and as far as I can see, I ended all sentences with punctuation marks (though there might be some "," misplaced or missing). As for capital letters at the start, that should not make what I write more difficult to understand.

and using spaces or separate lines when giving links and urls - especially long ones that are more than one line - rather than just smushing them in the middle of sentences.

I place links and URL's were I want, especially when making a point.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T01:10:22+00:00

I’m sorry but if you’re gonna make silly accusations like forging quotes when I loosely paraphrase you, I’m not giving you my time.

It is not a loose paraphrasing if it changes the meaning of what I said.

I know because the vast majority of human beings are not intersex or transgender, because transgendered people very rarely pass, and because since there is a plague going on I see about one stranger a week. 98% was being generous.

I explicitly asked for you certainly knowing those peoples gonads. As in, do you examine whether someone has testes or gonads before deciding on whether to call them "sir"/"man"/"him" or "ma'm"/"woman"/"her" or do you only look at their secondary sex characteristics and go by that? Because if you do that, you do not know with certainty which gonads they have, you are just assuming. This assumption might be correct 98% of the time, but that is not the same as being certain.

Even in normal times, it’s so unlikely as to be laughable that in a town of 20,000 people, I’m gonna see an intersex person or a transgendered person everyday.

depending on whether one considers LOCAH to be intersex or not, intersex is either aproximately 1.7 % or 0.2% of all cases, meaning about 340 or 40 people in your town being intersex. For the united states, the estimate for the prevalence of transgender people is 0.5-0.6 % ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#United_States_2 ) meaning about 100-120 people (with there being a hightend possibility for overlap compared to the general population https://www.nature.com/articles/nrurol.2012.182 ).

It’s muddying medical facts to pander to the hurt feelings of a select few who think not liking their vagina but liking plaid makes them a man.

Giving credence to gender identity allows men who believe that preferring their legs shaved and enjoying cosmetics makes them women.

and gender non conforming and homosexual males.

again conflating gender role and gender identity (utterly trivializing what transgender identity actually is)

Most people understand women to already be people who have a cervix.

yes, and it also needs to be aknowledged, that not everyone with a cervix is a woman.

Giving credence to gender identity harms women by erasing them as a sexed group with distinct oppression, needs, and differences.

how are women "erased" ?

Giving credence to gender identity is giving credence to gender, which is a social construct designed to oppress women and gender non conforming and homosexual males.

Please define "gender". Do you mean "gender roles"? Because, again, gender identity has nothing to do with gender roles. Those are entirely different things.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T00:37:55+00:00

If you don't want to read the whole paper there is a nice glossary at the end where sex is defined.

that paper defines biological sex based on active gamete production. Which, for the purpose of this discussion, we have already dismissed as that would mean that a person that, for whatever reason, doesn't actively produce gametes would be without a biological sex.

Yes, a third or more gametes since that is how we define sex. And I want to know what reproductive roles the additional sexes have, too.

you are essentially pulling the same thing that creationists do when they think that the non-existence of a "Crocoduck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck ) means that the theory of evolution is false. The "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not claim there to be a third gamete or additional reproductive roles. You clearly don't and don't want to understand the modell.

How are babies made under this model?

the spectrum of biological sex is a bimodal spectrum, where the vast majority of cases are on the position of the spectrum that is fully either one of two states (with these two states being centered around the two reproductive roles). The further away a case is from this position is on the spectrum (e.g. the greater the difference to being one of those two states), the less likely this case is to be fertile (depending on the specifics, assisted reproductive techniqes might help). If a fertile member from one mode and a fertile member of the other mode mate, there is some probability of conception taking place with (in humans) the member of the female mode carrying the fertilized ova in their uterus until birth.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-20T00:13:28+00:00

a.)This is ridiculous. Just because exogenous hormones change certain biochemical parameters, it doesn’t mean you should use the reference values of the opposite sex.

changes to renal functions caused by exogonous hormones are irrelevant for the reference values regarding renal functions?

d.) The BBC article says the same thing. Whitley was recorded as male in medical records and the doctors treated her accordingly until they saw her uterus through US. It’s only then that the doctor told her to stop testosterone.

first, please don't engage in malicious misgendering. Second, treating someone with a female hormone profile (which, obviously, without testosterone is present in a transgender man) with reference values that are incorrect under such a hormone profile is obviously incorrect. There needs more consideration on how to handle such cases, since the reverse case (aka, treating a transgender woman with a female hormone profile with male reference values) would also be incorrect.

In practice is the same thing, because we’re asked to give preference to gender identity over sex.

Sex should only matter in regards to medical issues (e.g. any transgender people in a medical setting absoloutly needs to inform their doctor towards their medical history, which includes medical transitioning) and sexual partner (e.g. tell you sex partner, just to make sure they are okay with it). Everywhere else it should go by gender identity (with allowances for making requierement regarding stages of physical transitioning, for cases where physical sex based differences are relevant).

So, women don’t have right to have their own things despite that sex is a easily observed trait that has been acknowledged through millennia and that has shaped our lives. However, everyone must accommodate trans identities despite the fact gender identity being a very new belief. Why don’t you say directly women must submit to men and are done with it?

As I said, every law that has granted rights to women was based on sex, even if this is not being explicit, because until very recently everyone understood there are only two sexes. To say that women’s rights weren't granted on the basis of sex is to rewrite history.

Where did I say anything about "women having to submit to men"? It's just that rights granted to women based on being women or female don't exist, what does exist are laws against discrimination based on sex, with some exemptions that are subject to considerations of practicality.

As for fairness in sports, should we, then, abolish age categories, too? And what about weight categories in sports like boxing? Should the Olympics and the Paralympics be fused and disabled athletes compete against body-abled athletes?

fairness in sport is something that is generally preffered (as otherwise the outcome of a competition would be too predictable). But it isn't a right.

And here’s a review of trans people and sports: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

I have seen that article before, and I have seen it criticised. As I aid, the issue is being debated.

BTW, it’s only in 2015 that the IOC allowed trans identified males to participate in the female categories with the condition of lowering their testosterone levels for a year. We're going to witness the full effects of this policy in the next games whenever they're done.

actually incorrect. The Stockholm consensus ( https://www.pdga.com/files/StockholmConsensus_0.pdf ) concluded in 2003 that transgender women should be allowed to compete in the women category, which was adopted by the IOC in 2004 ( https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/wspaj/15/1/article-p3.xml ) . The document you linked actually mentioned said consensus. The document you linked was just the clarification of the 2015 rules, which set the maximum allowed level for testosterone in competing women (transgender and intersex) to be 10 nmol/L (this has been lowered to 5 nmol/L in 2018 https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-release/eligibility-regulations-for-female-classifica )

Re sexual orientation: this is a reconceptualization that most people disagree with.

really? You think most people would think that a heterosexual man/ homosexual woman would be sexually attracted to this person https://www.reddit.com/r/transpassing/comments/lm3fjd/2_years_on_t_how_am_i_doin_still_feel_like_my/ ? Can you show me any such heterosexual man/homosexual woman?

Re women’s discrimination: We’ve already gone over this. Someone else being mistaken about your sex doesn’t make you the opposite sex. And employers do discriminate women on the basis they’re the only ones who can get pregnant.

irrelevant in this regard. If someone is discriminated based on apparent gender, that discrimination is gender identity based. And the employer-example is a good case for this, as they may discriminate based the assumption of a employee with a female apparent gender being able to become pregnant, but as far as I know, no employer is demanding fertility tests for women who apply. The employer just assumes the possibility of a pregnancy based on the employee appearing female, regardless of the employees biological sex.

Edit: BTW, I'm from Argentina. Here, self-ID is a thing since 2012, but abortion wasn't legalized until last December. Don't tell me this nonsense is only happening in the developed world.

Every transgender person I have met on the internet has been supportive of abortion rights.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T23:10:50+00:00

How do you make the leap to conversion therapy not working being the same thing as observable biological processes? How does that make it not a social construct?

If gender identity were a social construct, a change in social enviroment would be able to change it.

How does that make it not a social construct? Gender is a social construct so how is an identity based on it biologically evident?

if by "gender" you mean "gender role", then "gender" is a social construct. But gender identity is not based on gender role and is not a social construct.

how many do I correctly know the gonads.

98%or so.

a. ) now you are straight up forging quotes. What I wrote was Of how many people you call "she" or "him", "woman" or "man" every day do you know with certainty which gonads they have? . Under b.) I will treat your answer as if you had actually answered my question.

b.) really? You have examined the gonads of 98% of all people you have ever called "she","him", "woman" or "man" ? Or have you actually (you know, like normal people) looked at their physical body (and most likely in the vast majority of cases their clothed physical body, meaning you have no idea what kind of genitals they have) and assumed from their secondary sexed characteristics?

No those are sexed features.

precisely.

Sex is not defined by comfort or enjoyment of ones sexed features.

true. Gender identity is defined by this.

Discomfort or distress with ones sex and sexed features does not change ones sex.

no one claims that experiencing gender dysporia changes ones biological sex.

It is not evidence of a gender identity.

except it absoloutly is, since gender identity refers to which set of sexed physical vcharacteristics you are comfortable with.

It is not a logical reason to erase sexed terms.

but it is a reason to make gendered terminology inclusive if not all affected have the same gender identity. And I have already presented my proposal on how to be inclusive without erasing the terms "men" or "women", since it does make sense to emphasize the typical case.

The erasure of sexed terms is the choice to ignore sex based oppression, or to make the wild claim that infanticide of female infants, forced births, child marriages, and all other forms of sexed oppression faced by female people is actually due to a female gender identity.

different forms of female oppression can be either sex based or based on apparent gender. Infanticide, restrictions to abortions or underage marriages are based on biological sex, sexual harrasement and gender pay gap are based on apparent gender. I have never seen anyone make the claim that the sex based forms of oppression you mentioned were based on gender identity.

Also, how is this relevant? In what way exactly does saying "Women and other people with a cervix should undergo regular cervix screenings" over "Women should undergo regular cervix screenings" promote or ignore female oppression?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T22:12:01+00:00

What observable evidence is there? Not self reported feelings, actual biological processes. Gender is a social construct itself. Identity is a psychological construct, not an observable reality. It is all ideas and theory and a whole lot of sexism.

Gender Identity is very much not a social construct. If it were, conversion therapy to turn transgender people cisgender would work, which it very much doesn't ( https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-conversion-therapy-associated-severe-psychological-distress-n1052416 )

In terms of observable criteria, there is the clear distress felt by gender dysphoric transgender people at their physical sexed anatomy, that is lessend when the physical sexed anatomy is changed from the one of the birth sex to the one of the gender the person identifies as. Gender dysphoria is a neurological medical issue that, similar to clinical depression, is currently diagnosed based on psychological means but is treated via medical ones (antidepressiva for clinical depression, hormone therapy for gender dysphoria)

The terms are sexed. Applying gender rhetoric and sexism to them is a choice.

no, they aren't. Of how many people you call "she" or "him", "woman" or "man" every day do you know with certainty which gonads they have?

not person who likes things assigned to female people by a patriarchal society.

really? Having Breasts, feminine facial features, lack of facial hair (usually), high levels of estrogen and a vagina were assigned to female people by a patriarchal society?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T21:46:18+00:00

Replacing well defined and understood medical terminology with the transgender paradigm is replacing biological sex with a social construct.

The transgender paradigm is a social construct and sex is observed biology.

a.) gender identity is not a social construct.

b.) why should gendered pronouns or the categories "man" and "woman" be based on biological sex?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T21:11:54+00:00

But how do you become associated with either category? For most of us, it is simply a biological fact. Only trans people, and perhaps some limited segment of "cis-identified" people though it can't really be proven, have an inner sense of gender. The vast majority of us know what sex we are based on bodily realities.

of course transgender people are aware of the biological sex they are, after all, the physical sexed features are the source of their gender dysphoria. If you don't feel distress about your physical sexed features (simplifying here, for more in depth criteria see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Diagnosis ) you are the gender identity of your physical sex.

Well, except that it does not need to be. That's why we have the words "man", "woman", "male", and "female". For the purposes of healthcare, sexual relations, sports and physical events, private issues, and various other situations where our biological realities impact the ways that we interact with the world. If there were no biological difference, there would be no need for the words.

of course there are biological differences between the typical male and female anatomies, what is questioned is that the terms "man" and "woman" are biological terms, simply because the people in this categories typically have a similar biology.

The whole inner identity is a fiction. It is loosely based on stereotypes of how biologically different people behave, but it is meaningless.

Gender identity is not stereotypes or gender roles. A person could love to perform activities stereotypical for and love to wear the clothing stereotypically asociated with their birth sex, and still have a different gender identity, if the person in question experiences gender dysphoria in regards to the sexed anatomy of their birth sex.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T20:57:48+00:00

But most of the world is not going to accept "the transgender paradigm" as a substitute for reality. Sex is biological, and no matter how hard you try to replace the reality of sex with newfangled social constructs, sex isn't going away. You can't erase it, override it, paper it over or make people unsee it.

who is trying to replace biological sex with social constructs? What is attempted, is to stop going by biological sex and instead go by gender identity where biological sex shouldn't matter (e.g. outside the bedroom or medical care). And of course it is possible for a transgender person to be seen as a member of their gender identity instead of their birth sex.

And speaking of your post, is "transgender punctuation and SPAG" a new thing too?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T14:09:32+00:00

so "If one of you has a penis and one of you has a vagina", "if both of you have a penis" and "if both of you have a vagina" ? Yeah, that admittedly seems more economical.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T13:15:48+00:00

And why are men not expected to be inclusive too? Why are words like ejaculators, prostate havers, impregnators, individuals with testicles, non-birthing parents, bepenised people, and etcetera not being imposed?

well, from an equality standpoint, yes, in the same contexts in which anatomy based terms are used for subjects pertaining to the female biological sex, anatomy based terms should also be used for the male biological sex. Also, "non-birthing parent" is being pushed for (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-birthing+parents%22&rlz=1C1GIWA_enDE641DE641&oq=%22non-birthing+parents%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i30.4615j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 with https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9262007/Academics-Australian-National-University-told-staff-stop-using-word-mother.html in particular) and while I could not find "people with prostate" I could find "people with prostate cancer" ( https://www.google.com/search?q=%22people+with+prostate%22&rlz=1C1GIWA_enDE641DE641&sxsrf=ALeKk01zFurYGzvAtuVhwzvj8kSLYpH6TQ:1613738413313&ei=rbEvYMfBEuTBlAa0-6iIBQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiHzIqH_PXuAhXkIMUKHbQ9ClE4MhDy0wN6BAgGEDo&biw=1920&bih=975 ) instead of "men with prostate cancer".

In these last years trans activists have preached, quite successfully, about the importance of using “inclusive language”. Words related to womanhood like woman, mother, breastfeeding, among others are now considered exclusionary of trans identified people. As result, people are pressured to be inclusive of trans people and not trigger them when talking. That is how terms like people with periods, menstruators, pregnant people, birthing parent, uterus-havers, individuals with cervix, people who bleed, chestfeeding, non-prostate owners, among many other have entered the scene. What is more, transactivists have not considered women’s opinion over this change in language, regardless of how dehumanizing this language often is.

Also, despite how much they boast about being intersectional, they don’t care either how confusing this new language may be for non-native speakers or for people with lower levels of education.

well, my solution (that I wanted to propose in a thread to the same subject) was something along the lines of "Men/Women and other people with [anatomical term]" and "Men/Women and other people who [biological process]" . That would be inclusive of people with poor language skills/poor anatomical knowledge while also being inclusive of transgender (who, depending on the state of transition, might still have the anatomical features/biological processes of their birth sex) and intersex people (who, depending on the intersex condition in question, might have anatomical features/biological processes that are at odds with the sex of the gender they are identifying as). This has also the advantage of clarifying which anatomical feature/biological process is the relevant one in question.

Questions 1 and 2 aren't directed toward me, so I am skipping them.

For all, don’t you think it’s contradictory that you complain that GC reduce people to their genitals when we insist on a sex-based definition of women and men, and then you impose new words that reduce women to their body parts and body functions?

"men" and "women", as understood under the transgender paradigm, are social categories, not biological ones. Of course, for the purpose of healthcare, biology still has to be adressed, and because the scientific terminology relating to biological functions is often cold, clinical and difficult to understand, language using this terminology is also cold, clinical and difficult to understand. Therefore my suggested solution of "Men/Women and other people with/who ...", covering both the typical cases (non-intersex cisgender people) while still including the atypical ones (intersex and/or transgender people)

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T11:11:54+00:00

gah is this cover bad. Like, seriously, even though the lens of transgender. The person to the right of the one in the wheelchair and the leftmost person in the lowest row are essentially drawn as men, and the second person from the left in the lowest row is quite clearly meant to be a transgender man, which means that by including that person on a cover of a book regarding lesbianism they are misgendering this person by considering them women. So whether one views it though the lense of gender identity or biological sex it is offensive either way, so how did this ever pass muster?

And why, just why did they put that many transbians on the cover?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T10:12:32+00:00

actually, at the start there is a disclaimer reading "this video is not a way to know definitively whether you are trans or not. Everyone's journy is different and no meme or video can tell you what your identity should be. This is simply a collection of common relatable moods for transfemmes and particular trans lesbians from when they were closeted. If this helps you, all the better, but its mostly for laughs".

so, basically, the "just kidding" backpedaling to avoid consequences.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T10:02:26+00:00

as far as I am concerned, both transbians and non-transgender lesbians should be free to make their own subreddits.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T09:34:31+00:00

argh, I made a mistake. It was supposed to be "If you have a penis and your partner has a vagina", "If you have a penis and your partner has a penis", "If you have a vagina and your partner has a penis" and "If you have a vagina and your partner has a vagina".

Why four? Well, two people that typically have either one set of genitals or the other (not going into atypical cases here, because that is a whole other rabbit hole) makes four possible combinations.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T09:27:45+00:00

just because biological sex is a spectrum, does not mean the position on said spectrum is arbitary. And, no, trans activists are not demanding to be recognized as the opposite sex (biology), they are demanding to be recognized as the opposite gender (social).

do these authors present any solid, concrete criteria that cover all cases?

Read the papers... The first one at the very least.

can you quote the solid, concrete criteria?

Now, show me those papers disproving there are only two sexes, please.

how exactly would such a disprove of biological sex as a strict binary even look like for you? Since even outright mixed gonads are dismissed by you. And don't ask for some third or intermediary gamete, because that is not the claim that is being made.

Maybe if you weren't so focused on extremely rare cases in order to justify your worldview you would understand

a complete definition of biological sex has to include all existing cases, no matter how rare.

Read the papers... The first one at the very least.

And, seriusly, read the paper about gamete competition and gamete limitation.

again, I do not dispute that the modell of biological sex as a binary is not an usefulll generalization, it's just not a complete modell. Let me explain it to you by physics: the general theory of relativity describes gravity and makes, compared to the newtonian theory of gravity that also describes gravity, several quite counterintuitive claims (gravity affecting time, there being such a thing as a space time continum that is "bended" by mass), is vasytly more difficult to apply (I'd know, I had a course in it) and was, at the time, quite controversial and seen as political ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity ). Today it would be rather easy to find a peer reviewed paper that calculates gravity based on the newtonian modell. Does that mean that the general theory of relativity is a bunch of nonsense? Of course not. It's just that for the vast majority of cases the simpler, easier to use modell is sufficent. Analogously, for the vast majority of cases the modell of biological sex as a binary is usefull, easy to use and intuitive. But when considering all cases one has to use the more complicated, difficult to use and counterintutive modell, as otherwise one starts to encounter problems with cases covered by the complicated but not the simple modell.

And here you have another article explaining how there are two sexes.

which defines the sexes based on gonads which we already had (if definition were solely based on gonads, a gonadectomy would mean that the person in question would no longer have a biological sex) while dismissing ovotesticular cases merely based on rarity (which for an all including definition of biological sex can not be done). Therefore this article is not providing a compelling case for dismissing the modell of biological sex as a heavily bimodal spectrum.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-19T09:27:39+00:00

It's not irrelevant since trans people are only changing superficial things. Here're two news stories about how hiding hiding their actual sex nearly cost two trans identified females their lifes.

https://www.womenarehuman.com/woman-committed-to-passing-as-male-nearly-dies-from-medical-condition/

https://www.womenarehuman.com/how-the-gender-identity-movement-led-to-the-death-of-an-infant-endangered-a-womans-life/

a.) it is hardly only superficial, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(female-to-male)#Effects , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(male-to-female)#Effects , https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004563215587763 , https://bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(20)30087-8/fulltext with the latter being particulary relevant to the first case you mentioned, let me quote: Laboratory values There is limited evidence to guide how best to interpret laboratory values in the transgender woman, particularly those who have been on hormonal therapies.22 These hormonal therapies have varying effects on haematological and biochemical parameters, and this should be considered when interpreting these results. There are many reference ranges and calculated laboratory parameters that use sex routinely, and examples include: (i) Renal function: creatinine concentrations are influenced by many factors, including diet and muscle mass. Creatinine concentrations decrease in transgender women taking hormone therapy as a result of a decrease in lean body mass.73,74 The Cockcroft–Gault formula for creatinine clearance and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease glomerular filtration rate equation for calculating glomerular filtration are examples that utilise sex. A lower creatinine will correspond with a higher estimated glomerular filtration rate, giving the perception that filtration is occurring at a higher rate. There are no studies looking specifically on how to interpret renal function in the transgender woman, but it is important to consider whether the sex assigned at birth or the gender identity has been used in the electronic medical record, and which sex has been used for the calculation when commenting on any changes in renal function, particularly when hormone therapy has been recently commenced. Confusion over eligibility for transplant in a transgender patient has been reported because of this issue.67,73, 74, 75 (ii) Haematocrit and defining anaemia: reference ranges for the evaluation of haematocrit levels in transgender persons have not been established; however, a decrease in haematocrit is often observed in transgender women on hormonal therapy.53 The European Network for the Investigation of Gender Incongruence study53 found that, in transgender women, serum haematocrit had decreased to a level that can be found in the reference range of the identified gender from 3 months after the initiation of gender-affirming hormonal treatment. In transgender women continuing established hormone therapy perioperatively, haematocrit can be interpreted within the reference ranges for the female sex. It is unclear what reference range to use if there has been cessation of therapy; however, with parts of the world moving towards a unified haemoglobin reference range, this may not be of consequence in the future.

b.) weren't you claiming that transgender people almost never pass?

c.) the source you used consistently and clearly intentionally misgenders both men thoughout the entirety. This is highly offensive to transgender people.

d.) for the first case, the transgender man in question did not at all "hide" his birth sex. In fact, his doctor outright told him to stop testosterone ( https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200814-why-our-medical-systems-are-ignoring-transgender-people ), despite the fact, that the resulting change in muscle mass would suggest changing back to the female baseline, since that is what the relevant factor in question was.

e.) for the second case, the transgender man in question did not "hide" his birth sex either, he was just ignored. In fact, the transgender man in question (who had stopped taking testosterone after losing his insurance https://apnews.com/article/b5e7bb73c6134d58a0df9e1cee2fb8ad ) quite clearly stated that a pregnancy test had come up positive, which, together with the stated birth sex and interrupted hormone therapy clearly should put pregnancy into consideration for the stated symptoms.

I don't know about you, but trans people often claim to be the opposite sex.

they claim to be the opposite gender to their birth sex. No transgender person claims to have changed chromosomes or to have changed to produce the gametes of the opposite sex to their birth sex.

By replacing sex with gender identity, trans identified males are allowed access to women's only spaces like bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, prisson, and etcetera.

as described in the article I linked, there is no such right to sex segregated spaces.

They are also participating in female sport categories despite their biological advantage

first, there is no right to fairness in sport. Second, how much of a biological advantage a transgender woman that has been on hormone therapy for at least a year (current olympic guideline) has, has been debated. Third, despite the olympics allowing transgender participants since 2004 there had been no transgender women athlethes taking any top spots in the olympics. And fourth, in regards to elite sport, the debate around biologicasl sex and fairness has quite clearly been centered around intersex cases (remember the Caster Semenya case?)

They have access now to awards, scholarships and shortlists previously reserved to women.

first, there is no right to awards, scholarships or shortlists. Second, on what basis do you conclude that these things should be restricted based on biological sex and not gender identity?

They're being counted in statistics as female, skewing important data.

there is no right for having statistics to be recorded in a manner one prefers. In that regard, I would actually prefer for both gender and birth sex to be recorded, so that systematic issues regarding transgender people can be analyzed.

They're also demanding people base their sexual orientation in gender identity rather than sex.

that is not a demand, that is a reconceptualization of sexual orientation as not being based on biological sex. I already explained, that in my view, sexual orientation is based on apparent gender, rather than pure "gender identity" (since a pre-everything transgender person is unlikely to appear as the gender they identify as) or pure "biological sex" (in the way you define it) )(since that would mean that a transgender that has significantly transitioned would still be attractive to people attracted to their birth sex)

They're also changing language in such a way the word woman has become taboo, yet the word man has remained untouched (I'm making a thread about this, actually)

The word "woman" is not becoming taboo. It is merely avoided in contexts were not everyone involved is a woman. That this avoidance can be problematic and often leads to clunky or downright dehumanizing language is an issue I wanted to tackle in a post I have been planning to make on this board for some time now.

Furthermore, pretending that women are not discriminated based on their sex makes it impossible to fight against all the unresolved sexism.

it's not quite that straightforward. It depends on which places one talks about and which acts of discrimination one talks about. Are sex-selective abortions, menstruation huts and female genital mutilation sex based? yes, but they aren't happening on a structural level (I'm not argueing, that there aren't cases of it happening) in the western developed world where the majority of transgender discourse is taking place. Are issues regarding acess to menstrual hygine products and abortions sex based? Mostly yes, with the "mostly" being aformentioned intersex issues (some women don't menstruate or can get pregnant, while I admittedly never heard of a case of a PMDS-Man being abducted by some dr. Frankenstein, forcibly getting an embryo in his uterus implanted and then needing an abortion), but in this regard transgender rights aren't erasing rights regarding these issues at all, transgender people aren't restricting access to menstrual hygine products or abortions. Are sexual harrasement and gender pay gap sex based? Not really, the groper isn't going to check whether that female appearing person has ovaries before groping her breasts, and no boss is going to base their decision on whether to pay that female appearing employee less based on whether said employee has ovaries. So these last issues aren't sex based, they are based on apparent gender.

It has everything to do with self-ID. The "sex is a spectrum" rethoric is pushed by trans activists in order to justify to being recognized as the opposite sex.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T23:12:16+00:00

At not point, I said Müllerian and Wolffian ducts define which gametes the bodys produces. You're the one who said it. The gonades are the place where gametes are produced. And I already explained the basics of sex determination even if you "forgot" about it.

except that would requiere to define biological sex solely by present gonads, which, as we had already established when talking about swyer syndrome and when talking gonadectomy is not what you define biological sex on.

I only brought müllerian vs. wolffian ducts up because it is the closest I) can come up with to make sense of your "what gamete the body is intended to produce"-criteria.

It would depend on the predominant features. This disorder is very, very rare, yet you're here trying to use it as a gotcha

"depend on the predominant features" - exactly. It is a spectrum, and you put a case that is somewhere in between into one of the two typical modes based on an arbitary judgement about which mode the case is closer toward to.

I've told you this already: we don't use edge cases for making generalizations.

one doesn't include edge cases when making generalizations, no. But when someone makes a claim that is supposed to apply to everyone, edge cases have to be included. So, when you make a claim towards their being a strict binary with no one ever falling outside it, you have to include every single edge case.

They are genetically males. They have testes even if they body don't respond properly to androgens. They don't have ovaries. In the case of CAIS, it makes sense to treat them as women in most cases since fenotipically they look female, they are raised as female, and they don't find out about their condition until their teenage years at least. But they're still genetically male.

And a passing, post-op transgender woman does fenotypically look female and is - with increasing time since transition - increasingly female socalized. If they did social transition in early childhood, they may even be raised female. Therefore, does - by the same line of logic - it not make sense to treat them as female despite being genetically male?

Also, to find the path back to the actual topic of this thread: if sexual orientation is based on biological sex, and CAIS women are biologically male, does that mean, a man/women who is sexually attracted to a CAIS woman, even after being informed of her condition, would not be heterosexual/homosexual ?

You make it sound like they were hermaphrodites, they are not. They have uterus and fallopian tubes, but they don't have ovaries where to produce ova. They can't get pregnant. They have testes. They are males.

actually, sometimes there are ovaries ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800541/ ). I actually (when researching the condition) found on reddit a transgender woman with this condition, that had one functional testicle and one non-functional (but hormone producing) ovary ( https://www.reddit.com/r/TransDIY/comments/gcvnwl/transitioning_mtf_while_intersex_how_to_approach/ note: this was in transDIY, were she was pretty much asking on how that would mean for her medical transition), and then there is also the mikey chanel case ( https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/mikey-chanel-pmds-trans-teen-who-was-raised-a-boy-is-four-months-pregnant-after-finding-she-has-ovaries-womb/683136 - unfortunately I do not know on how that case developed, as her instagram and tiktok acounts appear to have disappeared)

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T22:40:35+00:00

Becuase that is indeed the case for most trans people. I repeat, most people who identify as trans don't have any DSD, therefore, most trans identified males are 46, XY and most trans identified females are 46, XX (1, 2).

you are mising the point. The point is, that the fact that transgender people still have the chromosomes of their birth sex is utterly irrelevant.

There are only two sexes: male and female. And you can't change sex, nor naturally not through "medical transition". Most trans identified individuals have no DSD, yet people like you keep using DSDs as gotcha in order to further their cause. Yourself have admitted this much in this thread when you said that because DSD exist we have to take your claims of being the opposite sex seriusly.

I make no claim of me being the opposite sex. And under the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell, claims towards a change in position on the spectrum are waranted. The problem is, that you keep insisting on a strict binary were for a "sex change" it's either everything or bust, so under your conception a transgender person would have to change their chromosomes and start producing gametes opposite to the ones of their birth sex - despite you not demanding the same level of adherence to the biology of the typical binary sex in order to sort people with natal intersex conditions into those binaries.

Every law in the world regarding women issues is sex based (or, in some countries, it was before gender identity was enshrined in law) because utill very recently everyone understood there are only two sexes and that SEXism was based on sex.

and which right would that be? How are they "Erased" by being instead based on gender identity?

So, yes, you along many others are saying there are more than two sexes in order to justify self-ID.

the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell has nothing to do with self-ID.

If you had actually bothered to read them, you would know the authors meant two sexes, and only two sexes, not two typical sexes among other atypical ones.

do these authors present any solid, concrete criteria that cover all cases?

And I'm still waiting for those papers disproving there are only two sexes.

again, I have been bombarding you for days with evidence proving that the strict binary is to simplistic for all cases.

Also, I've not changed my criteria, you're the one who keeps either misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

then please name your criteria. Because I don't see a concrete criteria. "what gamete the body is intended to produce" is not a concrete criteria, unless you define it further. Which precise anatomical features or biological processes determine which gamete the body is "intended to produce"?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T20:15:44+00:00

At this point we might as well scrap the concept of guides specific to a particular sexual orientation, and just make one guide with the four chapters "If you have a penis and your partner has a vagina", "If you have a penis and your partner has a penis", "If you have a vagina and your partner has a vagina" and "If you have a vagina and your partner has a vagina". Covers any conceivable case, in particular since any of these constellatiions is a possibility in every orientation (say, two transbians getting together)

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T18:56:16+00:00

I'll repeat it as many times as I need it: what define sex is not chromosomes, but gametes.

then why does the argument against transgender people always go on about "you are still XY" (towards transgender women) "you are still XX" (towards transgender men). And no, you aren't defining it by gametes either, since clearly neither gamete production nor present/absent parts of the reproductive system whose function is handling the gametes are the defining features either.

The sex is a spectrum is pushed by transactivists because if they can convince the public that you can't trust biology to decide who is female and male and, therefore, it's better deciding it by gender identity. There is nothing scientific about it, it's pure ideological nonsense pushed by people who have no problem to appropriate someone else's struggles in order to erase the hard earned rights of half the population.

You are pulling that one straight from your rear end. Of course biology is real, it's just not a strict binary in this regard. And, no, gender identity and biological sex are not the same, and no one who has any sense (admittedly, not everyone does) and the whole basis for the transgender identity is this seperation, as transgender means, that there is a mismatch between ones position on the gender identity spectrum and on the spectrum of biological sex, with medical transitioning being an attempt to bring the two spectra into better allignment.

And, no, sex based rights aren't erased because there is no such thing in the first place ( https://rgellman.medium.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-sex-based-rights-in-the-uk-140554a2c42c describing it specifically for the UK [note: it's what I had at hand right now], which applies for a lot of other countries too. I don't know in what country you live, so if your country does have sex based right in its law, please point them out to me). What does exist are protections against sex based discrimination, with some exemptions that are subject to considerations of practicality.

However, I easily found some reviews stating how there are two sexes, even limiting my search to open access articles.

Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

What do isogamous organisms teach us about sex and the two sexes?

Two sexes, one genome: the evolutionary dynamics of intralocus sexual conflict

again, no one is saying that biological sex doesn't typically fall into two modes. Its just that there are atypical cases that do not cleanly fall into either of the typical modes.

Sorry, I didn't expect you were aware about how science works after seeing you arguing things like definitions must be inclusive.

definitions must be inclusive of everything falling under said definition. The definition of chair for example has to include every object that is a chair, regardless of how unusual the chair in question is.

And, yes, as a master of science in physics, I am well aware of how science operates.

Now, where are all these peer reviewed papers disproving the sex binary?

I'm bombarding you now for literal days with phenomena disproving the strict binary of biological sex, and all you have been doing is shove these phenomena into these binary boxes, without defining concrete criteria (or, more precisely, changing your criteria arbitarily, in the sense of a criteria being used for one case and completly ignored ion another one).

And for the sex is not a social construct, tell that to the many racist transactivists who claim sex is a social construct invented by the white man.

do any of the academics espousing the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell claim that biological sex is a social construct?

Yeah, I figured out you won't be convinced there are only two sexes not matter who says it

there are two typical sexes, covering the vast majority of humans spanning up a spectrum. And, no, it doesn't matter who says something, it only matters whether they have evidence (which, for disproving the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell would mean a anatomical feature/biological process only and always found in one distinct state in one sex and only and always in a different distinct state in the other sex).

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T18:12:42+00:00

Oh, good, so you do understand the difference between normal function and a disorder. That is exactly what happens with DSDs. They're rare medical conditions. Exact symptomatology depends on which specific condition we're talking about, but infertility is a common issue. However, people with these conditions are still either male or female despite this.

I did at no point of that use the word "disorder". And, if you look correctly, I wrote "inimical to the physical health of the organism in question". This does not cover infertility.

I've already addressed this point, but if you I repeat it for you, here we go. Male reproductive system is intended to produce sperm at some point in the life of a male individual. Female reproductive system is intended to produce eggs at some point in the life of a female individual. This fact remain true despite that sometimes things go wrong and some people are unable to produce gametes, or only can produce abnormal gametes or a lower number of gametes than normal. The fact that some people undergone gonadectomies doesn't mean their bodies weren't/aren't built around the potential capability of producing a certain type of gamete.

And what defines which gamete the body is "intended to produce"? Since apparently neither gonads nor müllerian vs. wolffian ducts.

Swyer syndrome are female XY and we have talked about them already even if none of us used this name beforehand.

Müllerian agenesis is DSD that affects females, where the uterus and vagina are underdeveloped or absent. Usually, they have functioning ovaries.

for swyer you argue that these people fall under female, despite the gonads not being ovaries but undifferentiated streak gonads (e.g., typically ), with müllerian ducts present. For müllerian agnesis you also argue that these people fall under female, despite the absence of müllerian ducts (meaning the body is lacking the parts intended to deal with the gametes produced by the gonads) based on the presence of ovaries. So, which one is the defining element? The ovary, the müllerian duct, both or neither (in which case, again, how do you define which gamete the body is intended to produce) ?

Ovostesticular disorder is very rare and I guess it's probably best to be analyzed in case by case basis.

I'm not putting into question, that it is rare. But your aknowledgement of "case by case"-basis betrays, that it is a spectrum were assigment can become rather arbitary, with both types of gonadal tissue present in varrying proportions.

(did you confuse it with masochism?)

no, I just misspelled "mosaicism"

is the presence of two or more cell lines with different genetic material (not necessarily the sex chromosomes) in a same individual caused by errors in the cell division during embryo development. The clinical effects of this depends on the tissues involved and the percentage of cells with the abnormal genetic material. Usually people with mosaicism present milder forms of the disorder associated with the abnormal genetic material.

so on what basis do you decide, for each person with any particular percentage of cells with XY/XX ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46,XX/46,XY ) or X/XY ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45,X/46,XY_mosaicism ) what biological sex they belong to? Since you insist on a clear binary, it must be an unambigious, clearly defined criteria.

Are you really going to name every genetic anomaly under the sun?

if necessary, yes. Thats why I didn't wanted to get into this type of debate in the first place.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a male only condition where their bodies don't respond to androgens as the name says. The lack of sensitivity can be partial or complete.

People with complete androgen insensitivity are male? so, this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_Gaby_Odiele (they admittedly identified as a women - which was the gender assigned at birth - last time I looked them up) is male?

Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome (PMDS) is a DSD that affects males, where uterus and fallopian tubes are present because of mutation on the AMH gen on its receptor gen. They have otherwise normal male reproductive organs.

they have a male reproductive system and parts of the female reproductive system. So they have parts intended to support sperm and parts intended to support ova.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T17:22:23+00:00

No, IGM's happen because people are stuffed into a strict binary that accepts only male and female, with anything other being considered a "disorder" that must be corrected. Full acceptance of the "biological sex as a spectrum"-model would also mean full acceptance of everyones position on said spectrum, and therefore not pathologizing people with intersex conditions as "broken men/women".

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T17:16:08+00:00

What do you mean, inclusive language ?

the whole "menstruator" and "People with a Cervix" type language.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-18T17:05:48+00:00

Actually, I've got the survey rsults, and there was an actual homosexual response https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-06/ipsos-mori-lgbtq-polling-tables_260620_public.pdf (page 18)

The numbers given are, that 9% (48 respondents) of all men and 6% (36 respondents) of all women asked claimed to be only attracted to the same sex (6% (8 respondents) in genration z claimed same sex attraction only, page 19).

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T21:12:21+00:00

if you read the campgrounds definition of "guy" exactly, technically a transgender man could qualify (assuming phalloplasty, which the vast majority never gets) so that might be a usefull rebuttal here if anyone claims it to be trans-exclusive.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T21:05:56+00:00

depends on how many will hear about this case. If this gets widely know, it will go that way.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T20:52:58+00:00

Do you have any experience with this phenomenon? How does it work for you?

I'd say yes, some days I'm leaning more towards men, other days more towards women.

Do you see any patterns?

not really, no. Though I sometimes wish I could see a pattern.

How do you feel about it, and does it pose any challenges, especially in a monogamous relationship?

I'm currently not in a relationship, but if I were, I don't think it would be too much of a problem. I don't think that it is that strong for me, and an established relationship is definitely strong enough to keep the challenge low, unless the relationship already has other, more serious problems.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T18:47:54+00:00

lol, you should totally do that.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T15:43:51+00:00

And if sexual attraction meant only what attracts us to another person sexually initially when we first see or meet them, then I'd agree. But that's a difference between our POVs: According to your view of sexual attraction, all that matters are the easily observable characteristics that initially attract us to someone sexually at first glance.

I see things differently. I think that sexual attraction involves both the most obvious physical characteristics that initially catch our eye and spark our interest AND all the other characteristics that come into play as we get to know another person. Depending on what the person's other characteristics are - personality, intelligence, sense of humor, sound of their laugh, the way they eat, their politics, their tastes in food and music and art, their views on all sorts of things - he or she will become more or less sexually attractive to us.

Sometimes, the less obvious traits that we find repellant override the obvious traits that caused us to see the person as sexually attractive to begin with. Most everyone has had experiences of being initially very sexually attracted to someone when first spying them, but being totally turned off when we got to know them a bit. And everyone who's been in love and had a long-term relationship knows, what draws two people together in the first place is not necessarily the only thing - or the same thing - that keeps them sexually attracted to one another and together over the longer term.

of course there is more to sexual attraction than initial attraction, but initial attraction is the primal part that sexual orientation is about. Otherwise you could get sexually attracted to a person of the wrong apparent gender if said persons personality were just likeable enough.

Again, this goes back to an earlier point I made. You seem to think sexual attraction is solely about swiping left or right on dating apps, hooking up and having ONSs - that it has nothing to do with pair-bonding, establishing relationships that can last over time, procreation and raising children. I get the impression you don't believe that most people are looking for intimate partners in life, that you think most people just want casual, short-term sex. You also don't seem to get that as sexual partners come to know one another and fall in love with each other, we usually find ourselves attracted to elements of each another that go well beyond secondary sex characteristics.

You also seem unaware that as we age, most people lose the physical characteristics that once caused others to see us as sexually attractive at first glance - and many of us no longer care as we did in the past about the superficial physical characteristics that initially caught our eye and drew us to others sexually as well. Yet funny thing is, people who've gotten past the stage in life when secondary sex characteristics matter a great deal still have sexual feelings and still have sex.

Look at someone like Linda McCartney. Over the course of her marriage to Paul, she lost the secondary sex characteristics she had as a young woman that presumably caused her to catch Paul's eye and fancy in the first place. Like most women, she put on weight over the years and in her 50s her face became more "mannish" looking. During her long battle with breast cancer, she lost all her hair too. But it sure never seemed like her husband's love and desire for her diminished one bit.

of course once an emotional connection is established, physical attraction becomes less important. But for the emotional connection to be established, there needs to be an initial attraction to build on.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T15:31:59+00:00

And people with chromosomical anomalies are still either male or female. Saying they are something in between is likely to cause more IGM.

if anything, it is the other way around. by saying that everyone is either clearly male or female, the point is made that anyone who doesn't is broken and needs to be fixed, causing more IGM.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T15:26:34+00:00

So we can define the anatomy of the breast without including disorders like a tumour?

we can define the anatomy of a typical, healthy breast. But breasts with tumors or are otherwise atypical are still breasts.

Why not sex as well?

we can define biological sex as typically falling into the categories of typical male and typical female anatomical phenotypes. But atypical cases that don't fall into these phenotypes exist, therefore these phenotypes are not covering all cases.

Why do you think sex must be defined by disordered development? You’re being extremely inconsistent.

I'm not defining biological sex by atypical development, I'm defining biological sex in a way that acounts for atypical development.

Why define something by how it’s typically not?

because I am not doing that?

Sex isn’t a spectrum.

yes, it is. And by insisting on a strict binary you are categorizing people who do not fit into typical male or typical female anatomical phenotypes as "broken men/women", which is the line of argument that leads to IGM.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T15:03:38+00:00

I was asking you for pancreas in general. Ok, I will reframe the question to make clearer what I meant. Is one of the functions of the pancreas to secrete insulin? Yes or not? Is a lack of insulin secretion pathological? Yes or not?

The production of insulin is the function of the pancreas. A pancreas that does not produce insulin is still a pancreas. The lack of insulin secretion is pathological, since the lack of insulin is inimical to the physical health of the organism in question.

I've said multiple times that what defines sex is gametes. Female is the sex that produce large gametes (eggs) and male is the sex that produce small gametes (sperm). Gametes are produced in the gonads: sperm in the testes and eggs in the ovaries. Testes are part of the male reproductive system. Ovaries are part of the female reproductive system.

1.) and now you are back to defining biological sex based on active gamete production, ignoring that not all people are producing gametes. In particular do transgender people on hormone therapy stop producing the gametes of their birth sex.

2.) yes, testes and ovaries are part of the respective reproductive systems. And are quite often removed by transgender people, meaning they no longer have the complete reproductive system of their birth sex.

3.) gonads that are neither testes nor ovaries do exist, for example undifferentiated streak gonads in people with swyer syndrome or ovotesticular disorder.

Therefore, the following karyotypes are male: 46, XY (typical male karyotype); 47, XXY; 47, XYY; 48, XXYY; 49, XXXYY. And the following karyotypes are female: 45, X; 46, XX (typical female karyotype); 47, XXX; 48, XXXX; 49, XXXXX.

In rare cases, there are mutations involving the SRY gen. This gen may be translocated from the Y chromosome to X chromosome resulting in an XX male. In other cases the SRY gen remains in the Y chromosomes but it becomes dysfunctional because of mutations, resulting in a XY female. As I said, there are other genes involved in sex determination, so an XY female and XX male may be result from mutations in other genes.

4.) this still means that there are people with male birth sex and XX and people with female birth sex and XY. Therefore there is still an overlap of chromosome-sets between the biological sexes.

5.) what about mosachism? People don't always have only one type of sex-chromosome sets in their body.

6.) what about androgen insensitivity syndrome?

You didn’t answer the question. If not all biological functions become indistinguishable from the opposite sex because of exogenous hormones, then how we can talk about a sex change induced by hormones? Biological functions becoming more similar (which is quite the overstatement) doesn’t make you the opposite sex and, since there are only two sexes, therefore you can’t talk about a sex change.

None of this disprove the fact that, for humans, sex is binary and immutable. It only show that biological process are complex and sometimes mistakes happens.

precisely because of these mistakes not "all biological functions" have to become indinstingushable from the typical case, since, by your own admission, one doesn't have to have "all biological functions" of a particular sex to be grouped in your systematic with that sex. So, since sex can not be boiled down to gamete production (since not all people produce gametes) nor chromosomes (since there are people of the female sex with XY and people of the male sex with XX) nor müllerian vs. wolffian structure (which would be the closest thing to considering a particular structure to be "what gamete the body is organized around" - compare Müllerian Agenesis [neither müllerian or wolffian structures] and Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome [wolffian structures and varrying parts of müllerian structures]), what biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof is always completly and immutably in one state in all people of one particular sex and always immutably in a different state in all people of the other sex?

There is no such biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof that is absoloute. Instead we have a list of factors (in particular: chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, internal reproductive system, external reproductive system , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans#Sex_determination ) that for the vast majority of people neatly all align to one of two states (male and female), with the atypical cases sorted in by which way they lean towards in this list of factors. The "sex as a spectrum"-conception is simply the aknowledgement that this list isn't a clean binary in the sense of these factors not always being perfectly alligned and that there are cases where it becomes difficult which way this combination of factors lean towards.

We don’t need to examine someone’s chromosomes or gametes to tell their sex. As I said elsewhere in this thread, secondary sex characteristics don’t define sex, but they are usually a good way to tell someone’s sex. Sex is about reproduction and we have evolved to be able to tell the sexes apart. If we weren’t able to say who kind of humans are able to get pregnant and what kind of humans can impregnate the former our continuity as species will be quite complicated.

secondary sex characteristics are typically the result of sex hormones (one of the factors in the 5 factor list) which typically correlate with functional gonads of the respective binary sex (a different factor in the 5 factor list) which together with external reproductive organs (another factor in the 5 factor list, and the usual basis for considering a person to belong to one binary sex or the other at birth, with the rest of the factors assumed to allign until proven otherwise, since, again, the factors all alligning is the typical case) are already 3 of the 5 points. Of course, it is still fully possible for the other two factors not to allign and it is also not guaranted for the gonads to allign (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome). But evolution does not care all that much for atypical cases other then selecting them out, as the atypical cases (e.g. not all 5 factors alligned) tend to have either no or significantly less reproducrtive sucess.

Also, interesting that you mention secondary sex characteristics, as that is usually the first thing medically transitiong transgender people try to change.

But in the event of the very rare case of a passing trans, so what? Other people being mistaken about your sex doesn’t make you the opposite sex, it makes you a good liar. But a lie can’t be kept forever.

someones physical body is not a lie. Also, the example was someone who (due to lack of knowledge about chromosomes or gametes) only defines sex based on primary and secondary sex characteristics. From the point of view of such a person, there would have been a sex change, just with the result being infertile.

Most trans identified individuals are still recognizable as their actual sex, especially IRL.

do you have statistics regarding this?

Show me a single peer reviewed study where is proven that sex is a spectrum.

a.) can you show a peer reviewed study disproving that model? In the sense of this study finding a clear cut biological function, anatomical feature or list thereof that is in one state in all female and another in all male humans?

b.) in scientific procedure, you can not "prove" a theory, you can present evidence fitting the theory (which is what all those intersex cases here are about, since they fit better with the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell than with the "biological sex as a strict binary"-modell) or disprove it.

c.) the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell is not even a theory, it is a categorization methodology.

Despite that there are several academics speaking out against the “sex is a spectrum” idea and here are some links showing this:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable

https://colinwright.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex

https://www.womentalkback.org/post/emma-hilton-sex-denialists-have-captured-existing-journals-we-are-dealing-with-a-new-religion

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-020-02464-4

I've read those links. None of them present any new point and several of them misrepresent the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell (for example https://colinwright.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex conflating biological sex and gender identity and claiming that a denial of biological sex was taking place, or https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/ claiming that "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell means that biological sex were a social construct )

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T11:46:22+00:00

Not really. So far I haven't seen a definition of pansexual that makes sense. It has either been defined as bi with no preference (which is really just a particular point on the bi spectrum, not something new), "Hearts not parts" (e.g. appropiating the original bi definition, also biphobia by supposing bisexuals don't care about personality), including transgender people (which transgender people I've seen find transphobic as it others them from their gender) or including of non-binary people.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T22:39:37+00:00

No I am not. So breasts are defined by being both tumorous and non tumurous? Shit definition. Doesn’t work.

no. A breast is a breast, whether it has tumors or not. A breast with tumors is merely atypical, unhealthy.

The definition does not need to include disorders that are better defined by their aberration from normal development or function.

which is why the word "typical" is important here. The "normal" development/function is the typical one, the "aberation" is the atypical one.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T22:21:23+00:00

What’s supposed to be under the definition. Which is not disorders. Saying humans are bipedal isn’t saying amputees aren’t people. They are people with a disorder, injury, or defect that made them not bipedal.

except that you are saying that people who - whether by birth or aquiered - have some other number of legs than 2 aren't human if you define humans as having 2 legs (instead of defining humans as typically having 2 legs). That this is generally considered as " a disorder, injury, or defect" is irrelavtn to this.

Another example you chose to ignore: some breasts have tumours. If we define the breast without including tumours as a part of normal anatomy, are we dehumanising breast cancer sufferers?

a typical, healthy breast does not include tumors. A breast with tumors in it is an atypical, unhealthy one. Both are breasts.

Descriptive of the typical system as it functions. Not descriptive of what it should be and also what it is when it does wrong.

"descriptive of what it should be" is what you are trying. I clarified here always with "typical", see my definition "humans are typically bipedal", carrying both the typical system (that the vast majority of humans have two legs) while including the atypical cases.

That’s what you’re doing when you claim disorders of sexual development are actually just the ~spectrum of possibilities~ for human sex.

biological sex is a spectrum, in the sense of there being people whose biology does not completly fall into the female/male categories. Insisting on on an absoloute binary harms these people, as this often results in involuntary medical intervention in order to ensure people with these conditions better fit into said binary.

Also, please avoid the term "Disorders of sexual Development" as that term is considered quite problematic by intersex organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development#Controversy

and thing is, that is not just my claim, and I am increasingly tired of an argument I did not wanted to go into in the first place. Take it out to academia https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-title-ix/#:~:text=The%20science%20is%20clear%20%E2%80%94%20sex,too%2C%20exists%20on%20a%20spectrum.&text=Traits%2C%20including%20hormone%20levels%2C%20can,what's%20considered%20normal%20face%20discrimination.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T21:42:25+00:00

An inclusive definition is not scientific or accurate

A inclusive definition is scientific and acurate if it includes everything that is supposed to be under the definition. So in regards to your example if humans are defined as bipedal, this definition would mean that people with more/less than two legs would not fall under that definition and therefore not be human. This is pbviously not acurate. What is acurate is that humans typically have two legs.

Is a seizure disorder not a disorder because it’s just electrical impulses in the brain?

it is an atypical behavior of the brain that is generally considered to be inimical. What does this have to do with anything?

You don’t seem to understand what definitions are or what purpose they serve.

they express, in words, the meaning of a word or group of words. Definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive.

Taln_Reich