Shout out to all the non-man lesbians

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 · 2021-01-26T17:30:23+00:00

the transbians won't like this.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-17T18:47:54+00:00

lol, you should totally do that.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T20:29:06+00:00

yeah, I'd say at around 2015 reality ceased to exist and was replaced by a parody.

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 · 2021-02-20T02:19:27+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 · 2021-02-16T12:56:24+00:00

And it makes no sense, because in every single case body is still aimed to support one or another gamete. We are not magically producing third gamete, or gamete that is "on spectrum".

The conception of biological sex as a spectrum does not requiere a "third gamete" or a "in between" gamete, it means that how much of the biological processes/anatomical features meant to support one or the other gamete is present is on a spectrum, with in the vast majority of cases it being fully one or the other.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T10:48:16+00:00

It’s either one or the other barring a DSD.

except that you can't barr intersex conditions from the definition of sex.

I define by genes, (SRY activation) and gametes, (reproductive system).

so is it either

a.) chromosomal (e.g. sorting people with chromosomal anomalies into the wrong biological sex)

b.) active gamete production (which would not work with people who, for whatever reason, don't produce gametes)

c.) müllerian vs. wolffian ducts ?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T10:36:22+00:00

If my example with the fingers didnt' work for you, then tell me this. Would you say the pancreas don't really secrete insuline because some people are born with a defective insuline gen and, therefore their pancreas can't secrete insuline?

The pancreas does secrete insuline in people where the pancreas does secrete insuline, it does not secrete insuline when it can't secrete insuline, with the usual case being the pancreas being able to secrete insuline.

Humans can't change their sex. Neither naturally nor with the help of medical technology. There are rare cases of XX males (usually because of a translocation of the SRY gen on a X chromosome) and rare cases of XY females (in many cases because of mutations in the SRY gen). These rare medical conditions don't prove you can chage sex and neither are related to transsexualism/transgenderism.

they proove, that biological sex can't be reduced to chromosomes, and therefore the argument that biological sex is unchangable because the chromosomes are unchangable is wrong.

They don't produce a third gamete

I didn't say anything about a "third gamete"

1.) because it proves that you can not boil biological sex down to the chromosomes, and therefore the argument "transgender women still have unchangebly XY and therefore are male and transgender men still have unchangebly XX and therefore are female" does not work, since there are males with XX and females with XY.

It doesn't prove such thing.

yes, it does. Since chromosomes are not the sole determining factor on classifying biological sex, it does not make sense to treat them as such when discussing transgender topics.

Humans have known for millennia that there are only two sexes and have not problem telling them appart.

and if you presented a human that doesn't know about chromosomes or gametes with a passing post-op transgender woman, said human would no doubt consider her to belong to the female sex. So since you argue otherwise, clearly the definition changed.

2.) this person http://www.georgianndavis.com/uploads/9/8/1/7/9817516/published/img-2601-1.jpg?1532125390 JPG JPG was born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. This person https://preview.redd.it/n1afy66vr7861.jpg?width=1520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01d9e6cb438bee421b4b80e8f3dacb948d00ddcb JPG JPG was also born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. Neither has a penis. Which one is male? Neither? Both? one or the other (if yes, which one) ?

I'm not going to speculate based in this little information. Also, I've my doubts you're going to be honest with me here.

in this case, I've been entirely honest. So please answer the question.

except that we have already established above one doesn't have to produce sperm to be male or eggs to be female.

There is not we here. You're the only one saying such thing. I've already explained to you why this is not the case.

no, you said it. A person doesn't have to produce sperm to be male or ovulate to be female.

I did not state that all biological functions become indistingushable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones, I stated they become more similar.

Our exchange here started because you said sex change was possible thanks to "medical transition" (or to be more precise you said some people think that, but it has become clear in this thread that is your position, too). Here is your original quote:

I have seen that contested, with a line of thought where it is conceptualized that medical transitioning is considered to result in a change to biological sex, as the exogonous hormones change biological function.

Are you backtracking now? If not all biological functions become indistinguishable from the opposite sex because of exogenus hormones, then how we can talk about a sex change induced by hormones?

I did not state, that all biological functions become indinstinguashable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones. i did state that biological functions become more similar. This represents a change in biological sex in the (increasingly accepted in academia) conceptualization of biological sex as a spectrum, where the cases of all the biological functions being either clearly male or clearly female being on the respective ends of said spectrum.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T10:04:04+00:00

One time, I had anorexia Nervosa and I stopped ovulating and menstruating. This did not mean I was a man. In fact it was medically significant that I had stopped making gametes as a 23 year old female and led to the diagnosis of AN.

The cessation of ovulation did not make my ovaries or uterus disappear, nor did it turn them into testes or a vas deferens. The entire time I was still a female, since my body developed into a female body in utero. Even without making gametes, the gamete factory was still developed.

This is a part of what other users mean when they suggest you learn a bit more about human development. You’re misunderstanding the entire gamete argument.

a.) and you misunderstand the counter to the gamete argument. No, you did not become male because you didn't ovulate. Therefore ovulation is not conditional to being female.

b.) so do you define biological sex based on müllerian vs. wolffian ducts ?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T10:44:47+00:00

Sex is about reproduction. We're an anisogamic species, which means we reproduce through the production of specialized cells with half the DNA (gametes) of different size. Male individuals are the ones who produce small gametes (spermatozoon) and females are the ones who produce large gametes (ovum).

what about people who don't produce any gametes?

There are several genes involved in sex determination in humans, but the golden star is the SRY gen. Basically, if this gen is present the embryo will develope as male, if not it will develop as female. As this gen is located in the Y chromosome, XX individuals are females and XY individuals are males.

what about people with chromosomal abnormalities regarding the sex chromosomes?

"Medical transition" doesn't change anything about it. Everyone of your cells keep having the same sex chromosomes you've since conception not matter how much exogenus hormones you take and not matter how many surgeries you undergone

true. It doesn't change the chromosomes. Which is utterly irrelevant, since most of the differences in biological function (fat distribution, pheromones, muscle development, secondary sexual characteristics) depend on the hormone levels, which, in medical transitioning are changed (further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(male-to-female)#Effects , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(female-to-male)#Effects )

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 · 2021-02-21T00:41:59+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 · 2021-02-20T16:59:21+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 · 2021-02-20T15:05:11+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 · 2021-02-19T23:10:50+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 · 2021-02-19T20:57:48+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 · 2021-02-19T10:12:32+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 · 2021-02-16T12:37:17+00:00

Why there should be a singular one? There a lot of biological processes, that are starting in womb that are determening sex and which are making people of different sex have different processes in the future. You know that we can determine if kid is male or female (and even predict most intersex conditions) by just mothers blood test and ultrasound when kid is just a foetus in mother's womb and only 10-11 weeks old? Changes are already noticeable, long before birth.

precisely. There is not a singular biological process/anatomical feature that determines biological sex, but it is a composite of a lot of biological processes and anatomical features, that may or may not be alligned. In the vast majority of cases, they are aligned. This is where the conception of "biological sex as a spectrum" does come from.

If you mean not just process, but factor, the definition - there is exactly one such factor - development of body to support one or another gamete type. It is so simple and covers every single case, that it is unclear how it can be an object of discussion at all.

The object of the discussion is on how to define what gamete the body is supposed to support. That's why I bought up müllerian vs. wolffian ducts as those are the respective anatomical features dealing with the gametes released from the gonads.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T11:35:49+00:00

Why on earth wouldn’t you exclude a disorder from the definition of the typical order?

because a systematic definition has to cover not only the typical cases, but also the atypical ones.

Are we not bipedal since some people are born with ameliorated legs?

humans are typically bipedal. This does not exclude cases of people who aren't.

Why do you keep insisting I’m saying active gamete production/release? I’ve explained it to you twice and others have countless times as well. At this point I can o lay assume you either aren’t capable of reading comprehension or you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand. Your refusal to answer what’s asked of you on top of you ignoring me to repeat yourself leads me to believe it’s a combination of both. Seems like a waste of time to continue, no?

so if it is not active gamete production (as you just said), chromosomes (due to atypical cases regarding those), or müllerian vs. wolffian ducts (as you said below) which solely determine biological sex, what singular anatomical feature or biological process is then the sole determiner in all existing cases?

I don’t define it by ducts, but wolfram are male and mullerian female in typical development.

and atypically?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T09:56:37+00:00

Chromosomal anomalies are happening more rare than in 0.01% of people. Most of us aren't transgender and most transgenders aren't intersex. So sayingg XX/XY or just speaking about SRY gene alone is enough to determine sex of 99.9% of all people. And in 0.01% our bodies are still developed to support either male or female gametes, even if we are most often infertile. Infertile woman is not a man.

The argument from chromosomal anomalies doesn't have anything to do with claiming that transgender people have chromosomal anomalies, it is to refute the argument "A transgender man/woman still has XX/XY chromosomes and is therefore forever female/male", since you can be male wuth XX-chromsomes/female with XY-chromosomes. And for definitions, edge cases (which yes, chromosomal anomalies are) matter, especially since transgender people are edge cases themself.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T21:10:03+00:00

They are a bastion of both male heterosexuality and male gynandromorphophilia as they feature males to cater gynandromorphophilic men too.

quoting wikipedia on "gynandromorphophilia" : In scientific literature, the term gynandromorphophilic is often used for men who are attracted to trans women who possess a combination of male and female physical characteristics.[20] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_to_transgender_people#Terminology ). This is clearly false use of terminology on your part, as none of the transgender women featured had visually apparent (and since they were featured in pictures, that was all the perceptive input the readership had) male physical characteristics. Also, if heterosexual men are not attracted to transgender women, wouldn't that mean, that they would be repulsed by the transgender women featured, regardless of them being indistinguashable (at least in terms of the medium used) from women?

but never men (whether transgender or non-transgender) as ones.

You just said they did. Playboy features males gynandromorphophilic men find attractive.

please pay attention to what I said. What I said was, that the playboy has never featured non-transgender men or female to male transgender people.

It clearly shows that the user base of play boy wasn't just heterosexual men but also significant group of bisexual gynandromorphophilic men. Playboy catered two categories.

if the Playboy was catering to bisexual men too, then it would have featured men (and, just to clarify, the use of the term "men" here excludes transgender women) too.

It seems like your argument is that as gynandromorphophilic men exist then heterosexual men can’t exist and therefor male heterosexuality should refer male gynandromorphophilia instead.

no. My argument is, that male heterosexuality includes attraction to any person that appears to the male in question as female, regardless of the sex or gender of the person. In regards to "gynandromorphophilia" (which, again, is defined in academia is attraction towards people with female secondary sexual characteristics and male primary ones) I refer back to my previously introduced conceptualization of "genital preferences" as a component of sexual orientation. So a man who would be attracted to people he perceives as women (but not people he perceives as men) and does requiere said people to have female primary sexual characteristics would be a CGP-Heterosexual ("Congurent Genital Preference"), a man who is in addition attracted to gynandromorphs (as previously in this paragraph defined) but still not towards people he percives as men would be a NGP-Heterosexual ("No Genital Preference"). A man solely attracted towards gynandromorphs (as previously in this paragraph defined) would be an IGP-Heterosexual ("Incongurent Genital Preference").

Abstract knowledge affects perception and perception affect the vision interpretation. The eyes don’t see the world the way our consciousness sees the world as the latter is the already interpreted version. If I know someone is male there is no way for me to perceive this male as female, he will be perceived as the male he is and I am not attracted males, so zero attraction as I am a lesbian, not gynandromorphophilic.

so, for you knowledge of someones birth sex influences your perception and therefore the apparent gender you have of said someone.

I don't know what this "apparent gender" is supposed to refer to. It’s not assumed sex, as you suggest someone can know someone is male yet label the apparent gender "female" anyway making it seem more like its a gender identity thing.

"apparent gender" refers to what sex/gender a person appears to an observer, based on said observers previous and current perception and state of information about the person. This category is independent of birth sex and gender identity (as in, for example, someone can be of the male birth sex and identify as male and still appear female [say, a particulary feminine crossdresser], can be of the male birth sex and identify female and appear male [in the case of a poorly passing transgender woman] or can be of the female birth sex and identify as male and appear male [in the case of a well passing transgender man] )

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T19:11:51+00:00

Sexual attraction is rooted in instincts that arose coz we are members of an animal species that reproduces sexually. As a species with higher intelligence, we humans come up with all sorts of ways to rationalize our sexual orientation, tastes, preferences, behaviors. But what we find sexually attractive is not a product of rational thought. It's a matter of primal, primitive urges and animal instincts that evolution has endowed us with.

precisely. It is not rooted in rational thought, but in primal animalistic instincts. So the abstract knowledge "The person I perceive with my senses to be female/male was born male/female" doesn't measure into sexual attraction. Therefore, sexual orientation is based on apparent gender.

Ah, but methinks you have indeed made your personal feelings quite clear.

I did not. I merely stated what I know about how other people feel about this issue.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T18:45:49+00:00

Their bodies still have either a male or a female reproductive system regardless of how well or not it functions.

just an entry ago "male" and "female" were entirely determined by gamete production. Quite a moving of goalposts.

Would you say the fact humans have 10 fingers is false because there are cases of people who are born with more fingers?

An example that actually quite nicely illistrates the point. The number of fingers can be artifically changed. So humans with 10 fingers have 10 fingers, whether born with that number of fingers are not, humans with 9 fingers have 9 fingers, whether born with them or not, and humans with 11 fingers have 11 fingers, whether born with them or not, with humans usually having 10 fingers. Analogously, males with XY chromosomes are male, whether born male or not, males with XX chromosomes are male, whether born male or not, females with XY chromosomes are female, whether born female or not, females with XX chromosomes are female, whether born female or not, with males usually having XY and females usually having XX.

Moreover, most trans identified individuals are your typical XY male and XX female (1, 2). Why, then, does QT keep using the people who actually have these conditions as a gotcha?

1.) because it proves that you can not boil biological sex down to the chromosomes, and therefore the argument "transgender women still have unchangebly XY and therefore are male and transgender men still have unchangebly XX and therefore are female" does not work, since there are males with XX and females with XY.

2.) this person http://www.georgianndavis.com/uploads/9/8/1/7/9817516/published/img-2601-1.jpg?1532125390 was born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. This person https://preview.redd.it/n1afy66vr7861.jpg?width=1520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01d9e6cb438bee421b4b80e8f3dacb948d00ddcb was also born with testes and XY chromosomes and had the testes removed. Neither has a penis. Which one is male? Neither? Both? one or the other (if yes, which one) ?

That doesn't mean taking exogenus hormones changes all your biological functions and you become indistinguishable from the opposite sex. As I said, if you're male you're not going to start producing eggs. If you're female you're not going to start producing sperm.

except that we have already established above one doesn't have to produce sperm to be male or eggs to be female.

That doesn't mean taking exogenus hormones changes all your biological functions and you become indistinguishable from the opposite sex

I did not state that all biological functions become indistingushable from the opposite sex due to cross-sex hormones, I stated they become more similar.

Even whith all the body changes induced by hormones, usually we still can tell your sex without need of seeing you naked.

depends on the stage of medical transitioning.

Also, acording to Report of the 2015 US Transgender Survey ( https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF , figure 4.14 ) 57% of transgender people are rarely or never recognized as transgender without telling people so (32% sometimes, 9% most of the time and 2% always)

Your genitals are still the same you had before taking all these hormones.

and after the genitals were surgically reconfigured into an approximation of the opposite birth sex?

Edit: Sex chromosomes may actually have more effects on sex differences beyond the development of a female or a male reproductive system. Somo quotes from this article about this topic:

which brings us back to sex chromosomes not being the sole determiner of biological sex.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T17:12:15+00:00

There are thousands of differences between human females and males, most of which develop long before the puberty of adolescence that gives rise to secondary sex characteristics. Sex differences exist at the cellular level of each and every cell in our bodies and affect all our organs and systems. Most of the innumerable sexually dimorphic features of human beings are not visible to the naked eye the way breasts, beards, broad shoulders and wide hips are. But just coz you can't see 'em doesn't mean they are not there.

and just because they are there doesn't mean they are relevant. The sexually dimorphic features visible to the naked eye you named ("breasts, beards, broad shoulders and wide hips") are quite clearly rather influental towards sexual attraction (and therefore sexual orientation), definetly more than features that can not be perceived ever could be.

As for your links, all of wikipedia's material on transgenderism has been written by TRAs and other gender ideologues.

if wikipedia is wrong and you have better sources, you are free to correct wikipedia. After all, Wikipedias tagline is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T17:05:57+00:00

Most of the differences in the biological function of female and male humans are not visible to the eye.

preciesly. And since they aren't perceived, they are irrelevant to sexual attraction and therefore in regards to sexual orientation.

The secondary sex characteristics you are so focused on represent just a teensy-tiny fraction of the sex differences in female and male human beings.

But they represent the vast majority of the sex differences relevant for sexual attraction.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T16:56:10+00:00

Erotica made by men for other men and by women who have adopted this model is mostly pictorial. You'll never understand human sexuality if you keep viewing everything exclusively through a male lens/gaze and seeing males as the human norm.

1.) if sexual attraction being based primarily on visual cues is purely the "male lens", then what is female initial sexual attraction based on?

2.) as males make up half the human population, the "male lens" would still be a necessary component for a complete conceptualization of human sexuality.

Sounds to me like you don't have a very varied social circle, and that you've had very little in the way of IRL sexual relationships - and perhaps none with female humans.

Most female-attracted men and boys who aren't misogynists and who have healthy view of sexual relations with girls/women and respect for us are not "grossed out by anything having to do with menstruation" like you are. At all. This is true even of young men who've come of age during the age when online porn has been source of what passes for "sex education," and who've been influenced by the extreme misogyny of the internet and the widespread disgust/dissociation towards natural human bodies and their natural processes that gender ideology and a lot of online culture with its penchant for artifice, posing and plastic surgery promotes. Yes, some of these men share your revulsion. But certainly not all. Not even most.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/119625-what-guys-really-think-of-period-sex

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/amp51811/sex-talk-realness-guys-on-period-sex/

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a10039967/period-sex/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/14-men-and-women-get-very-very-real-about-period-sex_n_572cb40ee4b016f378957b12

https://www.essence.com/love/sex-while-menstruating/

Since female people personally gross you out so much, then obviously you wouldn't want to have sex with any, nor should you! It sounds like you're convinced that most men would prefer having sex with a male who has been hormonally and surgically altered to appear somewhat like a member of the opposite sex than with a bona fide female. Which is your prerogative.

But if that's the case, it's silly to set yourself up as authority on human sexual attraction. Fact is, the revulsion you feel towards female human bodies and processes that you assume everyone else must feel too is NOT a universal human sentiment held by all persons of both sexes and all sexualities.

3.) at no point did I state that I am grossed out by menstruation. My statement was, that men in general tend to be grossed out by menstruation. I did not make any statment towards my personal feelings on the matter.

4.) That man tend to have a ngeative view of menstruation has, in fact, been a cross-cultural phenomen, with patriacal societies clearly having significant taboos towards it ( According to anthropologists Thomas Buckley and Alma Gottlieb, cross-cultural study shows that, while taboos about menstruation are nearly universal, and while many of these involve notions of uncleanliness, numerous menstrual traditions "bespeak quite different, even opposite, purposes and meanings."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_and_menstruation , Many religions have menstruation-related traditions, for example: Islam prohibits sexual contact with women during menstruation in the 2nd chapter of the Quran. Some scholars argue that menstruating women are in a state in which they are unable to maintain wudhu, and are therefore prohibited from touching the Arabic version of the Qur'an. Other biological and involuntary functions such as vomiting, bleeding, sexual intercourse, and going to the bathroom also invalidate one's wudhu.[68] In Judaism, a woman during menstruation is called Niddah and may be banned from certain actions. For example, the Jewish Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman.[69] In Hinduism, menstruating women are traditionally considered ritually impure and given rules to follow.[70][71] , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation#Society_and_culture)

5.) even if the secondary effects of menstruation do influence the amount of sexual attraction, this clearly is not sufficent to overrule visual factors.

6.) what about women that don't menstruate? Menstruation suppression is a thing, and a significant portion of women do not wish to experience menstruation (With the recent FDA approval of menstrual suppression medications, researchers have begun to shift their focus to the attitudes of American women toward their periods. One study in particular found that 59% of the women they surveyed reported an interest in not menstruating every month. Of these, 1/3 said they were interested in not menstruating at all anymore.[96] , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_and_menstruation#Menstrual_suppression). If the capacity to menstruate were a crucial component of sexual orientation, women who don't menstruate would be entirely unattractive to female attracted people.

Besides, the issue under discussion was not whether people find menstruation or the capacity to menstruate sexually attractive. The issue was your claim that there'd be no way a male human could tell if a potential sex partner of his had the capacity to menstruate. Which I refuted.

my claim was, that sexual attraction, and, by exentsion, sexual orientation is primarily based on "apparent gender" as in, what the person in question perceives to be the other persons sex/gender to be. And menstruation has little to no significance in regards to this, as women that don't menstruate due to birth control or hysterectomy are not suddenly perceived to not be women by their sexual partners.

No, that's a supposition. Many complicated processes have to occur within a human body for the internal sex hormones to be turned into the ectohormones known as pheromones. Also, a male human who takes exogenous estrogen does not have the same hormone profile as a female human.

with the processes in question also controlled by hormones. And post-gonadectomy the hormone levels aimed at by transgender people are the same as in cisgender people of the same gender ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(female-to-male)#Hormone_levels )

Also, the research indicates that women emit particular pheromones during different stages of the ovulation-menstrual cycle, with the ones most attractive to members of the opposite sex occurring at the time of ovulation.

with the changes in phermones also caused by changes in hormones. If a transgender woman wanted, she might as well try to emulate the hormone levels (and therefore phermones) at the time of ovulation. Just permanently.

Pray tell, how is a male, even a male with a surgically constructed pelvic pocket he calls a vagina, going to approximate a female's vaginal secretions? How can he mimic the the pheromones of ovulation, in female breast milk and female urine?

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of lesbians and heterosexual men don't decide whether they are attracted to a particular women based on her vaginal secretions, urine or breast milk.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T11:06:50+00:00

You're viewing the vagina solely from a male perspective. Even when we are having heterosex, women don't experience the vagina as "merely a hole to be fucked."

which is irrelevant, since that is not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about how her partner feels about the vagina in question.

You're also viewing (hetero)sexual relations as though they are always for pleasure only and thus completely divorced from reproduction. When, in fact, many people of both sexes are indeed concerned with finding someone to procreate with from the time they first become interested in sex and start dating. Also, lots of people have sex for the expressed purpose of TTC.

if the person in question does care about having children, then this would also necessarily exclude any women who don't want to or, whether by choice or not, can't have children, regardless of transgender status.

You seem to be assuming that the sex heterosexual people have is only hookups or ONSs with people they've just met and hardly know. But lots of people meet and get to know other people before having sex with them - in fact, that traditionally has been the norm in M-F relationships. In the process, the two people get to know all sorts of things about each other - often including whether a seemingly female potential partner menstruates, how recently her last period was, whether she gets cramps, what kind of menstrual products she uses, does she get PMS of PMDD, and so on.

You further seem to be assuming that there's no way a male could tell whether his apparently female partner menstruates coz female people don't have sex when menstruating. When, as a matter of fact, many do and always have. Many women are extremely desirous of sex when menstruating.

If you really think it's so hard for male people to tell if the female potential partners they know are capable of menstruating or giving birth, it sounds like you haven't spent much time around female people between the age when the puberty of adolescence begins and menopause ends observing the changes that many girls and women's bodies go through over the course of our/their monthly cycles. Such as the way many of our breasts markedly swell prior to when our periods start, and the way the shape of our facial features, ankles, wrists and abdomen subtly change over the course of the month due to varying degrees of water weight.

I have never seen anyone female attracted, whether it's lesbians or straight men, going on about how attractive they find their partners capability to menstruate. In fact, given how grossed out most men are about anything having to do with menstruations, their partner not menstruating might as well be a plus.

But what do mean by imperceptible here? You seem to be suggesting that the only sense that really matters in sexual attraction is sight, and that any factors that aren't glaringly obvious to the eye of a male who is not particularly observant, sensitive and/or experienced and familiar with the bodies of (biological) girls and women are the same as imperceptible. When, in fact, sexual attraction has to do with all the senses - smell, touch/feel, taste, hearing as much as with sight - and also with many far more mysterious factors that we humans pick up on but which are beyond or below our conscious awareness. Such as pheromones.

1.) while other senses might come into play, sexual attraction is primarily visual, or why else do you think most erotica is visually (e.g. videos, pictures).

2.) phermones are a nice point, since the sex phermones released by a human are entirely determined by the hormone levels of the human. So, a transgender woman on HRT would actually have a female phermone profile.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T10:53:52+00:00

I think you'd benefit from learning about human development that occurs before birth. Sex is a done deal long, long before the moment of birth.

sure, sexual dimorphic development does start pre-nataly. But the vast majority of sexual dimorphism - except obviously the reproductive organs themself - develops in puberty due to the drastically different hormone levels of male and female puberty.

As to the claim that "exogenous hormones change biological function," yes that's true - but lots of substances we ingest affect biological function. When many of us breathe in the male gametes (pollen) of certain trees, our biology goes haywire in the form of a severe allergic reaction. But if you meant to say that exogenous hormones change a person's sex, no they don't - though in both sexes, exogenous hormones certainly can change aspects of sexual function such as one's ability to produce or mature & release viable gametes. Which is why hormonal birth control is a thing.

nonsensical comparison. A human breathing in tree pollen does not become "more similar" in terms of biological function to a tree. A human of the male/female birth sex taking cross-sex-hormones does in biological function (fat distribution, pheromones, muscle development, secondary sexual characteristics) become more similar to a human of the opposite sex. ( further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(male-to-female)#Effects , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_hormone_therapy_(female-to-male)#Effects )

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-04T06:22:49+00:00

Next time a TRA tries to argue, that LGB-drop-the-T-movements are just a cover for transphobic rightwingers, point them to this instance.

Taln_Reich · 2021-01-25T16:08:57+00:00

In my opinion someone "coming out" should also entail stating what you are coming out as, as otherwise its pretty much meaningless.

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 · 2021-03-04T17:38:30+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 · 2021-03-03T08:18:35+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 · 2021-02-25T13:34:22+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 · 2021-02-23T18:56:37+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 · 2021-02-23T09:45:53+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 · 2021-02-22T13:10:48+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 · 2021-02-21T20:36:34+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 · 2021-02-21T00:09:29+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 · 2021-02-20T20:11:59+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 · 2021-02-20T18:44:38+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 · 2021-02-20T01:25:12+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 · 2021-02-19T21:46:18+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 · 2021-02-19T11:11:54+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 · 2021-02-18T20:15:44+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 · 2021-02-17T15:26:34+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 · 2021-02-16T22:39:37+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 · 2021-02-16T21:24:38+00:00

So we are a bipedal species?

humans are typically bipedal.

We don’t define a human as a 0-3 legged because a disorder in the usual development does not make the usual development obsolete. What possible reason is there to define something by the typical process going wrong?

an inclusive definition must acount for atypical cases, otherwise the atypical cases are excluded from said definition. In your example of "Humans are bipedal" that would then exclude people who (naturally or aquired) have more or less than 2 legs.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-16T16:00:36+00:00

There is no spectrum there, there no cases and can not be cases of both systems working.

doesn't have to be. Partsd of both being present is enough.

So that person is producing sperm or can produce and is not producing ova and can not produce ova.

while posessing features biologically meant to support ova.

same as there are people born without hands - it does not make human hands "on a spectrum"

well, technically they are. Humans can have 0, 1 or 2 hands, with 2 being the typical case.

And I am missing the point on finding out are they males or females. Those people deserve love and often need medical help and acceptance, not being used as "gotcha" to prove that "there people who are less or more males/females!", which leads to othering and hurts them.

attempting to shove intersex people into strict binaries hurts them, as that is taken as a pretext for subjecting them to involuntary medical intervention so that they better fit into the binary box.

And I am missing the point on discussing them in relation to transgender people - even if "they are different sex", this does not prove that someone born male can become female.

because with the conceptualization of biological sex as a spectrum, the perspective on what medical transitioning does changes. A transgender man starts (assuming no prior intersex conditions) as fully on the female side on the spectrum of biological sex. Hormone therapy (besides many other physiological changes) causes ovulation and menstruation to cease, meaning the process of relasing as well processes meant to support the gamete cease as well, moving the position on the spectrum away from "fully female". Hysterectomy (which for transgender men is often a necessity in the long run) then goes further on this, removing one of the fundamental biological features necessary for the support of the ova in a reproductive role. True, the transgender man is never going to reach the opposite side of the spectrum (e.g. starting to produce sperm) but with the "biological sex as a spectrum" conceptualization he is clearly no longer at the same place as he started at.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T22:10:54+00:00

There seems to be a lot of redundancy in this list. What are the differences between "Cis Man", "Cis Male", "Cisgender Male" and "Cisgender Man" ? For the people who wonder what in this list would still fall under "other": well, there is now this "xenogender" stuff around, none of which appeared in this list, also there's whole buckets full of variations on "non-binary". Basically, tumbler makes up new genders regulary (Just for curiosity: the LGBTA-wiki https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Category:Gender has 754 items in its category for gender identities)

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T21:58:56+00:00

This (which I guess refers either to this https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7d08/gay_men_are_just_trans_girls_with_training_wheels/ or this https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/796h/nothing_new_under_the_sun_lesbians_are_female_but/ ) is quite clearly BS. Sexual orientation and gender identity are entirely different things, so any TQ who says that is out of whack even by TQ standards.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T18:59:13+00:00

lol, I am the one who knows them. They were the ones who taught me men are adult human males and women are adult human females and that sex is immutable. If I would date male people they would of course conclude I am attracted to male people as I don’t date people I’m not attracted to. In your hypothetical scenario this male wouldn’t be in stealth so there would be no reason for my parents to counterfactually perceive this male as “female” so they wouldn’t (unless your hypothetical scenario would include my parents getting brain transplants from people who believe in sex change). They would just conclude my type in males is estrogenized.

1.) so estrogenized that the type of "male" you are into looks like a female?

2.) I think I find the reports of people who were in that situation playing out more credible than how you imagine that situation playing out.

3.) what if the transgender women were stealth towards you? If she looked like an attractive woman, and you wouldn't know that she was born male, would you be attracted toward her or would you magically know that she were male and therefore not be attracted? (as in: if I take your knowledge about the birth sex as part of your evaluation of the apparent gender, would sexual orientation then be based on "appartent gender" ?)

So if I told you that the person in this picture https://preview.redd.it/g27ibqc27kh61.jpg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12dfd09d03d584f8e6e75188171ce622613dec39 JPG JPG was male, you would be unable to perceive said person as female, right?

Here you make an erroneous assumption I would see you as a trustworthy source of who is male or female.

please state whether you perceive the person in the picture I linked as male or female.

Yes, if I think someone is male I perceive them as male and there is no reason think of someone I know is male as not being male.

and of what percentage of people you see every day do you know with certainty of what their birth sex is? Do you ask everyone or do you assume based on external appearance?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T14:04:47+00:00

Even if we pretended birth sex could be “undetectable” it still wouldn’t make it nonsensical to desire someone of the correct birth sex. We consider many things we can’t see as important in attraction. A straight woman could meet a good looking man, find out it’s her father and lose all attraction even if she can’t see these unattractive shared genes without a microscope. Maybe far into the future parents can change their genes so they become genetically unrelated to their children. Most children would probably still perceive their parents as unattractive due to their parent origin. To me origin matters, even if we could create man-made females I would still only be attracted to natural females. Even a historical difference can make a difference in attraction.

people are free to apply whatever criteria for partner selection they want. But I do consider conceptualizing sexual orientation as being based on imperceptible things to be nonsensical.

I was raised by homophobic religious parents. Had I hypothetically introduced a woman-identifying male as my romantic partner to my parents then yes, my parents would take my male partner's sex as evidence of male heterosexual attraction. They probably wouldn’t want me to have a trans partner either but it would be a different type of disapproval as they wouldn't see anything sinfully homosexual about it.

I highly doubt that. They would clearly notice that your partner is female in external appearance and, since people are usually at least initially attracted based on external appearance, conclude that you were attracted to said appearance. So, it seems rather doubtfull to me, that they would look at your (hypothetical partner) who as far as they can see looks like a woman and conclude that you are attracted to men, just because you told them that said partner was born male.

Blair White looks male to me as my knowledge of how males can look like has been updated with this male look. I can’t think of someone I know is male as being female when my brain knows that’s counterfactual. My brain categorizes known males as male and known females as female automatically. The only trans people I would continuously mistakenly perceive as being of the opposite sex are trans people who would stay in stealth forever as I wouldn’t know any better (otherwise my brain would correct itself and update the perception).

so your perception of someone is entirely shaped by your presumptions. So if I told you that the person in this picture https://preview.redd.it/g27ibqc27kh61.jpg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12dfd09d03d584f8e6e75188171ce622613dec39 was male, you would be unable to perceive said person as female, right?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-15T11:38:46+00:00

It’s dependant on the assumed sex of the stranger. If the man had turned back around and was ‘apparently female’ again, but the assumption of being actually female was gone, there would be no further attraction.

well, of course previous perception is retained in the evaluation of the apparent gender.

It’s the difference between attraction being based on superficial appearance and attraction being based on what superficial appearance further suggests about a person, i. e. their biological sex. At most I would say sexual orientation is based on sex and apparent sex (I don’t think gender comes into play at all in the case of orientation). If attraction was based on apparent sex and not actual sex, information about actual sex wouldn’t affect the attraction.

I'm not sure that "actual sex" is really overriding apparent gender. Case in point, the Playboy, pretty much the bastion of male hetrosexuality has, repeatedly, featured transgender women as models(obviously we are not talking about ones that are still obviously of the male apparent gender), but never men (whether transgender or non-transgender) as ones. While the magazine was open about the models in question being transgender. Which means that there were clearly heterosexual men attracted to transgender women, even after being informed of the birth sex of the person they were jerking of to.

You also have to consider, that sexual attraction is rooted more in the primitive, animalistic instinct of humans, going primarily of the persons perception. Abstract knowledge (e.g. the other persons sexual orientation, fertility, marriage status or, yes, not percepted "actual sex") might cause the person to cease persueing, but the sexual attraction based on the perceived properties is most likely still persisting.

So I’ve read your point b a few times now, and I admit, I’m having a hard time understanding what the judgement of a homophobic government proves about the fundamental nature of sexual orientation. Can you explain how this (or even your homophobic parent example, for that matter) is relevant to understanding the nature of sexual orientation?

well, if people who judge other people based on their sexual orientation, whether we are talking individually or on a societal level, consider sexual orientation as a concept to be based on apparent gender, is that really not an argument for considering it to be based on apparent gender? Fundamentally "Hetrosexual", "Bisexual" and "Homosexual" are labels for certain sets of behavior. It is a societal consensous to associate these labels with these sets of behaviors. The homophobes mentioned (individuals and gouvernments) clearly are part of said societal consensous, and as far as I can see, the societal consensous is, that sexual orientation is based on apparent gender.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-14T19:28:24+00:00

Also, what does it matter that you claim you've seen a surgically constructed "neovagina" in a male that "looks good" anyways? A vagina is a unique female organ that is not about its looks. A vagina has myriad functions. It's a self-cleaning muscular tube with its own unique flora that serves as the passageway for the removal of the sloughed off uterine lining during menstruation, and as the birth canal that women use to give birth to new human beings. It's not merely a hole to be fucked.

That might be. But in terms of sexual relations, I fail to see how any of the functions other than "merely a hole to be fucked" are relevant. You really think that a hetrosexual man is going to base his sexual attraction towards a person who's apparent gender he clearly perceives to be female even after said person is completly naked in front of him on whether the person in question menstruates or is capable of birth (e.g. factors said man can not perceive - which brings me back to the point that considering imperceptible factors to be relevant to sexual orientation is nonsensical)?

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-14T19:11:29+00:00

You can just say ‘sex’. Sex doesn’t change after birth.

I have seen that contested, with a line of thought where it is conceptualized that medical transitioning is considered to result in a change to biological sex, as the exogonous hormones change biological function. To stay clear of argumentation around this, I used "birth sex" (as in: the sex of the person at the moment of their birth) to be clear.

An attraction based on the assumption that someone is a certain sex, in cases where they have intentionally perfectly obfuscated their sex, does not contradict the idea that attraction is based on sex. It affirms it. If you're only attracted to male people and people you mistake for being male, your attraction is based on sex. My heterosexual male friend didn't become bisexual when he checked out a person he thought was a woman from behind. As soon as he turned around and my friend realised he was male (a man, not a transwoman), the attraction was gone, because it was based on the assumption that he was female.

Your exmple does not refute my model, in fact, it affirms it. For your male friend the "apparent gender" of the stranger, based on rather limited perception, was female, so there was attraction. Once more exact perception took place, your friend reconceptualized the apparent gender of the stranger as male, and the attraction ceased to exist. And all of this was independent of the biological sex of the stranger. So, my point that sexual orientation is based on apparent gender, and not gender identity or birth sex stands and is confirmed.

I do think the parents would contextualise this relationship as being heterosexual-- that doesn't mean that they'd be okay with it, but I don't think, if they knew their daughter's partner was male, that their issue would be that their daughter was dating a woman.

This does not match up with reality.

a.) it does not meet up with the reported instances of actual interactions between conservative homophobes and transgender-cisgender same-gender pairrings. Which usually goes along the lines of the homophobe first critizizing the pairing on homophobic grounds, while also considering the transgender persons gender identity invalid(e.g. considering transgender women to still be men and transgender men to still be women). If the contradiction between those objections is pointed out, this usually results in evasive behavior.

b.) neither does it meet up with how changing legal gender tends to work with legally recognized relationships. When my country, in 1980 (e.g. well before same sex marriage was a thing) introduced a law governing changes to the legal gender for transgender people, there where rules stating that someone undertaking this change could not be married and could not marry another person of the same legal gender, so, quite clearly, the people who wrote that law had something against people of the same legal gender and apparent gender (and, yes, given the requierements in terms of mecial transitioning this 1980 renditiong requiered for a change to ones legal gender it quite clearly was about apparent gender) being in a relationship, regardless of birth sex. When same-sex civil unions were introduced, the rule was changed so that an existing marriage would become a civil union and people with changed legal gender could get into civil union with people of the same legal gender and marriages with people of the opposite legal gender (e.g. the same as cisgender people). And when same sex marriage was introduced this part of the rule was entirely dropped (e.g. existing marriages being unaffected and transgender people can marry irrespective of the legal genders of the people involved). So, quite clearly, how much legal homophobia a transgender person attracted to the apparent gender of their gender identity received followed the same trajectory as for a nopn-transgender person. (Note: the requierements in terms of medical transitioning have been pretty much dropped since the 1980 rendition, but the requierements for a change to legal gender are still considered rather stringent)

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-14T02:15:02+00:00

Not GC, but since I wanted to write a post here somewhat similar in topic, I'm going to chime in anyway:

1.) "Defining sexual orientation purely based on birth sex" vs. "Defining sexual orientation purely based on gender identity":

In my view, both these approaches are deeply flawed due to being overly reductive. If we were to define sexual orientation purely based on "Gender identity", then there wouldn't be any such thing as "Heterosexual" or "Homosexual", since before medical transitioning "Gender identity" is a purely internal to the person having this gender identity, and therefore imperceptible to the person feeling or not feeling the attraction. And basing sexual orientation on a imperceptible factor is obvious nonsense. But defining sexual orientation purely based on birth sex doesn't make sense either, since if we were to assume a well passing post-bottom-surgery (I'm getting later to this particular point) transgender person the birth sex (instead of the gender identity) wouldn't be perceptible to the person feeling or not feeling the attraction either and therefore also be nonsensical. Also, a practical dimension to this: imagine some homophobic couples daughter came home with a pasing trans women as her partner. You really think this couple would take birth sex based auguments toward their daughters hetrosexuality?

Now, how to make sense of this? Well, it might make sense to essentially have a category along the lines of "apparent gender", that, in contrast to birth sex or gender identity is mutable and describes as what sex/gender the body of the transgender person appears to be to the observer. And then consider sexual orientation of said observer as being tied to what "apparent gender" said observer prefers.

2.) "genital preferences" as a sub component of sexual orientation

Now, I think it might make sense to split sexual orientation into components, broadly along the lines of primary and secondary sexual characteristics. As in, I have clearly seen some people who express that they don't particulary care about the genitals but absoloutly requiere secondary sexual characteristics in line with their sexual orienation but there are also a lot of people who do requiere both primary and secondary sexual characteristics to align with their sexual orienation (and this is not limited to a general exclusion of transgender people - at least when one talks about transgender women, as apparently vaginaplasty still has a serious lead onm phalloplasty ), in fact at a different point in this discussion a transgender women does report that her male (heterosexual IDing) husband clearly falls into the latter category. And I have also seen people who ID as bisexual who express, that they find that contrasting primary and secondary sexual characteristics are a deal breaker for them (if sexual orientation was solely based on genitals, that wouldn't make any sense).

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.

On the other hand, I can also see an argument being made for "NGP" essentially being kind of bisexual, as I will elaborate in 3.)

3.) pushing the blurred line:

This is the point I'm still working on. Fundamentally, genitals are a nice, clear line that can be drawn (after all, even among people with intersex conditions actual ambigious genitals are an absoloute rarity, meaning everyone around you most likely has either a penis or a vagina and not soemthing in between), so if we discard this line (as suggested by 2.)), well, where is the line then? If we were to ask a NGP-Heterosexual man/ NGP-Lesbian wether they would be okay with a trans women at stage X of her transition, we could push the line further and further (as now there aren't any real hard lines that oculd be drawn), until they would have to consider whether there might be a pre-everything transgender women that is feminine enough that they would accept her as their partner. But if they consider this (and not doing so would requiere drawing the line on a pretty arbitary point), well, what is the perceptible difference towards a very feminine man? There isn't one (and I have already said what I think about imperceptible factors in this question). But if the heterosexual IDing man/Lesbian IDing woman include what is indisputable a man in their consideration, well, wouldn't that clearly be bisexuality (was planning on asking thsi question on r/asktransgender)? E.g. going against the core finding of point 2.).

This is where I'm currently still trying to work things out.

If you read this lengthy response, I thank you. If you didn't, please give it a shot.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-08T20:35:12+00:00

Thing is, it kind of depends on which part of the oppression one is talking about, and which degree of transition had taken place. Obviously, societal power dynamics do not care how someone refers to themself or what someone claims with no factual backing. But the thing is, Blaire White has done quite a bit more than that. To use your example: if Blaire White had been around that time, and walked into the Bank, with her legal gender on offical documents being a woman and looking like a woman, she probably wouldn't have been given a credit line, because everyone would have perceived her to be a woman, with the legal documents backing this perception up. Now, let's say it had been Jammie Dodger ( a different Trans Youtuber, this one a Female to Male transgender , person on the left in this picture https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesun.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F07%2Fjamieraines2.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesun.co.uk%2Ftech%2F3967546%2Fhow-do-you-have-sex-trans-youtuber-jamie-raines-reveals-weirdest-things-people-ask-him-as-video-site-celebrates-pride%2F&tbnid=2d3vnKM_fv7qgM&vet=12ahUKEwjDoZvEjtvuAhUMyaQKHfiJAVIQMygaegUIARDCAQ..i&docid=xZ6qxfAIrTczZM&w=577&h=484&q=jammie%20dodger%20youtube&ved=2ahUKEwjDoZvEjtvuAhUMyaQKHfiJAVIQMygaegUIARDCAQ) who does look like a man, and who's legal documents do consider him to be a man, he probably would have been treated like a man, the fact that he was born female not withstanding.

Essentially, how society treats someone depends (primarily) neither on what this someone identifies as or what this someone is, but on what this someone is perceived to be. The exception here are issues directly related to the sexed biology, say, issues around aboprtion.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-08T15:11:33+00:00

I very much agree with the points she made in this video. A lot of the current trans-discuorse is lacking in nuance and willingsness to compromise, resulting in everyone being worse of by the activism. Transgender people by the loss of allies and growing hostility, LGB people due to association and cotton-ceiling/boxer ceiling type arguments feeling like conversion therapy, and non-LGBT people due to being screamed at as "transphobe"/"TERF" for bringing up concerns that really need to be adressed.

Taln_Reich · 2021-02-03T20:44:50+00:00

Those won't be allowed either. I've seen what the people behind the ban of r/biologicallesbians wrote. They pretty much stated, that even the mere idea of a cis-only-space is transphobic. maybe make it anatomy dependent? Like r/vaginaonlylesbians with the sub's purpose essentially being "For women with vaginas who only love other women with vaginas". If someone considers that transphobic, point them to all the TRA's who claim that no one say that you aren't allowed genital preferences, and that this of course includes post-op trans women. If an actual post-op transbian turns up, make sure to not do anything that they can latch on to claim any inherent hostility to said trans women (yes, that means post-op's have to be included, but like 90% of TW's aren't post-op, and for transbians that number is probably more like 99%, so it should be easy for the actual lesbians to keep control of the sub). Also, make sure that the rule against transphobia is in a list of "no racism, sexism, homophobia, biphobia or transphobia" the banners found that suspiciously specific about r/biologicallesbians (and make sure that rule is enforced). This idea might not be perfect, but at lkeast it keeps the girl-dick brigade out (there is not much of a inverted-penis brigade)

That was an idea that came to me about how a sub that centers actual lesbians could be created in the toxic wokeness that is reddit.

Taln_Reich · 2021-01-31T00:33:39+00:00

I actually agree. If it were still/again the truscum in charge of the T, I would see less to no reason to drop it, since my issues with the trans community boil down to three points (1.) "no means no" - e.g. cotton ceiling/boxer ceiling type rhetoric is not acceptable 2.) "hands of kids" - I'm rather quezy about medical transitioning for under 16 year olds 3.) "don't let strangers in" - you need dysphoria to be trans, e.g. the truscum viewpoint)

Taln_Reich · 2021-01-29T21:18:03+00:00

I don't know the context of this, but apparently that comment is at least rather unpopular.

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 · 2021-04-29T20:48:24+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 · 2021-03-27T00:11:43+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 · 2021-03-11T10:33:31+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 · 2021-03-04T17:15:57+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 · 2021-02-27T11:54:14+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 · 2021-02-25T13:15:55+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 · 2021-02-23T15:59:32+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 · 2021-02-22T20:06:33+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