• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Collin237 said:
I'd be worried if they said it in public. But this is an unknown person in an unknown place. Consider this hypothetical scenario:

A woman's son has recently become female. She punishes him by requiring him to eat dinner alone. Unbeknownst to him, she has placed a hidden webcam in the dining room. One day, he goes into the dining room and makes a hateful rant. His mother checks the webcam to see what the fuss is about, and posts the recording on Twitter.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of crap hypothetical that drives replicants to shoot interviewers.
 
Collin237 said:
I'd be worried if they said it in public. But this is an unknown person in an unknown place. Consider this hypothetical scenario:

A woman's son has recently become female. She punishes him by requiring him to eat dinner alone. Unbeknownst to him, she has placed a hidden webcam in the dining room. One day, he goes into the dining room and makes a hateful rant. His mother checks the webcam to see what the fuss is about, and posts the recording on Twitter.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this hypothetical scenario. Why don't you just state what it is.
 
Rolfe said:
Anyway, I really dropped by to post this link. The writer is a woman who still identifies as a transman despite what she has been through, but she wants people to know about the aspects of transition that aren't emphasised to people embarking on the process, including minors.

https://www.newsweek.com/we-need-ba...r-dysphoric-kids-i-would-know-opinion-1567277
Click to expand...

I love this line from the article:
The truth was that I didn't fit in as a dominant, aggressive, assertive lesbian.
Click to expand...

So, the problem is that she was too dominant, aggressive, and assertive to fit in, and the solution is - more testosterone!

Hmmm......I never went to med school, but intuitively, it doesn't seem like that's really going to have the desired results.
 
Meadmaker said:
I love this line from the article:


So, the problem is that she was too dominant, aggressive, and assertive to fit in, and the solution is - more testosterone!

Hmmm......I never went to med school, but intuitively, it doesn't seem like that's really going to have the desired results.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the article, but it seems to me the reasoning must have been something like:

1. I'm way more aggro than the average lesbian, and that makes it hard for me to fit in.

2. Dialing back the aggro isn't really who I am; for better or worse, I probably need to lean into it.

3. Aggro is a stereotypically male trait... maybe the best explanation is that I'm really a man, and I'll fit in better if I embrace it.
 
theprestige said:
I haven't read the article, but it seems to me the reasoning must have been something like:

1. I'm way more aggro than the average lesbian, and that makes it hard for me to fit in.

2. Dialing back the aggro isn't really who I am; for better or worse, I probably need to lean into it.

3. Aggro is a stereotypically male trait... maybe the best explanation is that I'm really a man, and I'll fit in better if I embrace it.
Click to expand...

The article was quite brief, and focused on the physical complications that resulted after the author transitioned, and the medical issues associated, but that does appear to be the reasoning.
 
theprestige said:
I haven't read the article, but it seems to me the reasoning must have been something like:
Click to expand...

The article doesn't really go into any depth about the decision, because that's not really the point of it. And wisely so: the point of the article is about how little information is provided to transgender patients about the difficulties and complications of transition, and how little information even the experts in the field have about long term consequences. The goal is put the brakes on the rush to medically transition children, since if even adults are having problems understanding the consequences of their decisions, there's really no hope that children will be able to. That argument applies regardless of the reasons someone might have for transitioning, so the decision to basically not explore that aspect within the article makes sense.
 
I am probably going to regret getting involved in this discussion again, but since I am frequently brought up again and again here, why not? But just to make some things clear: I will not put up with misgendering or insults in any way. If you refer to me as "a man" or "male" I will just ignore you (or report you if you continue to do it, not that I think anything will be done about it). And as I have stated many times before, I will not get bogged down in definitions of what a woman is or trying to prove I am a woman.

That said, when I have said in the past I am a biological female, I am not delusional. I was assigned male at birth, I do have XY chromosomes, I don't have a female reproductive system, etc. These are all biological differences between us and cisgender women. I mean it in a hormonal and neurological sense, and also because I don't want to be referred to as male even though I have some remnants of male physiology. I don't really care if it is or isn't scientifically accurate to call myself female, that is what I consider myself and also what we have to state to help us ensure equality with other women/females.

And yes, even though I have been on HRT for over three years taking estradiol and progesterone, I do still have a penis. But genitals do not define gender and it doesn't make me any less of a woman just like a man having a vagina/vulva doesn't make him any less of a man. I also don't consider it a "female penis" since it is just an appendage and has no gender of its own.

I have no intention of getting bottom surgery in the near future or possibly at all, but that is okay because it is not necessary to go through every single aspect of transitioning just to please other people. We all experience dysphoria in different ways and that is why I am saving up for top surgery and electrolysis, because those procedures are far more important to me than getting rid of a penis that never really bothered me that much.

There are differences between a transgender woman like me and cisgender women, but my point is that those differences are ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We shouldn't be excluded from places and opportunities reserved for women as we are women just the same, just a different type of woman.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Maybe it's the brick and mortar industry that's releasing all the trans-chemicals, and now they're trying to distract us by hyping up trans-activism. Sort of a "pay a lot of attention to the curtain in front of this man!" strategy.

But that doesn't make sense. Brick and mortar is being killed by e-commerce. Jeff Bezos must be the one distracting us from the increase in transsexuals... by pointing global society directly at transsexual issues.
Click to expand...

It's chemtrails, get it right. The North Koreans are releasing chemicals during flyovers to turn all the men into trans-women because then no one will be eligible to enlist in the military.

Fortunately we will be saved by an epic team up of Austim Powers and Maxwell Smart.
 
Boudicca90 said:
We shouldn't be excluded from places and opportunities reserved for women as we are women just the same, just a different type of woman.
Click to expand...


You are not a woman. You are male. Women fought hard for spaces free of males and you have no right at all to be in any of them. Women don't exist to validate you in your delusions. It's not our job to cosset your mental health or endanger ourselves just so you don't feel offended.

You are a male. You have every right to be in male single-sex spaces, so use that right. Don't walk all over women's rights with your size 12 high heels.
 
Boudicca’s clarification is exactly what I charitably expected she had meant by what she said and while I can understand the frustration of the Word Police, I just can’t begin to get worked up about the slippery slope end of days nothing-means-anything-pocalypse situation or why it is automatically more important to point out Facts About Biology using More Standard Words And Phrases than the more comfortably couched terms.

And I know that isn’t really much of a contribution to the topic but plenty of posters feel like posting to say ‘why can’t I just call a spade a spade’ so I don’t see why I shouldn’t post to say ‘why do you have to jump up to point it out every single time though? Is it the end of the world if someone is happier to call it a flat shovel?’
 
Boudicca90 said:
And as I have stated many times before, I will not get bogged down in definitions of what a woman is or trying to prove I am a woman.
Click to expand...
The definition of woman is pretty much the only important unanswered question in this thread. If you're not going to answer it, I don't see much point in coming back. Especially considering how unpleasant this conversation is for you otherwise.

That said, when I have said in the past I am a biological female, I am not delusional. I was assigned male at birth, I do have XY chromosomes, I don't have a female reproductive system, etc. These are all biological differences between us and cisgender women. I mean it in a hormonal and neurological sense, and also because I don't want to be referred to as male even though I have some remnants of male physiology. I don't really care if it is or isn't scientifically accurate to call myself female, that is what I consider myself and also what we have to state to help us ensure equality with other women/females.
Click to expand...
This is not coherent. You say that you are biologically female, but not in a biological sense.

Also, it seems like you're picking a de facto definition based on what you want, rather than based on what is real. If you're not actually equal to females, then it is wrong to assert that just to get the equality you want.

I do recognize the supreme convenience of being able to assert a property without defining the property, in order to enjoy all the benefits of that property without having to answer any questions. This is a privilege that very few people have. it's not clear to me why transsexuals should be among the very few.

And yes, even though I have been on HRT for over three years taking estradiol and progesterone, I do still have a penis. But genitals do not define gender and it doesn't make me any less of a woman just like a man having a vagina/vulva doesn't make him any less of a man. I also don't consider it a "female penis" since it is just an appendage and has no gender of its own.

I have no intention of getting bottom surgery in the near future or possibly at all, but that is okay because it is not necessary to go through every single aspect of transitioning just to please other people. We all experience dysphoria in different ways and that is why I am saving up for top surgery and electrolysis, because those procedures are far more important to me than getting rid of a penis that never really bothered me that much.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that everyone involved in this thread pretty much agrees with all of this.

There are differences between a transgender woman like me and cisgender women, but my point is that those differences are ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We shouldn't be excluded from places and opportunities reserved for women as we are women just the same, just a different type of woman.
Click to expand...
Biological differences in size, strength, and other attributes are indeed relevant at some scale of the scheme of things. In the grand scheme? I'm not sure. What's the grand scheme? The eventual heat death of the universe? Honestly you could be locked in a room with a talking bear that alternately mauled you and misgendered you for the rest of your life, and it would be ultimately irrelevant at that scale.

Is the grand scheme your own personal life and experiences? Anything that doesn't matter to you doesn't matter, but that's just narcissistic solipsism. Or solipsistic narcissism. Either way, you live in a society, and it's a non-starter.

Is it sex-segregation in sports? Well, it's irrelevant in that scheme because you've already dismissed that scheme as irrelevant. Which just brings us back to narcisolipsism.

Is it public policy? No, it's supremely relevant to you in the scheme of public policy. And relevant to everyone else as well.

So.

If you won't define "woman". Will you at least explain at what scale of scheme the super important work of being recognized as equal to biological females is ultimately irrelevant?

Because right now it kinda sounds like it's very relevant to any scheme of addressing your concerns, and totally irrelevant to any concerns anyone else might have.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom