• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Atheist said:
Ok, so I'm a woman then.

I definitely feel more comfortable in a woman's body than a man's body.
Click to expand...

Well, if the shoe fits ...

More seriously, I have only my own experience to call on, so maybe there are many people without gender dysphoria that would jump at the option of a perfect mind transfer into the body of the opposite sex. I don't know.

Also, I don't think sexual fantasies count (not saying that's you, but that's the only place my mind turns when thinking about that:D).
 
Olmstead said:
Well, if the shoe fits ...

More seriously, I have only my own experience to call on, so maybe there are many people without gender dysphoria that would jump at the option of a perfect mind transfer into the body of the opposite sex. I don't know.

Also, I don't think sexual fantasies count (not saying that's you, but that's the only place my mind turns when thinking about that : D).
Click to expand...

I assumed it was a PIV intercourse joke.
 
Olmstead said:
Gender reassignment surgery is pretty drastic. As is taking hormones. I think there's a big difference between the normal discomfort most people feel with regards to their bodies, and what people with gender dysphoria experience. Yes, it's impossible for them to TRULY know how the opposite sex feels, but I'm willing to accept that someone who wants to remove their penis has a real problem being in a male body, and that they would have much less of a problem being in a female body.
Click to expand...
you describe a man who has chosen to have his body surgically altered to resemble and function as- inasmuch as is possible- a woman's body. There is nothing wrong with that, and a person who has reached the age of majority should not be prohibited from doing so.

The man you describe is still a man, however. A Trans-woman more accurately put, but a man nonetheless.

A hypothetical analogy.
Suppose some unethical doctors somewhere took a chimpanzee and altered it through chemical and surgical means to resemble a human in all external and internal respects to the extent of their ability.
Would it then be human?

You might respond that it would lack the cognitive ability to qualify- yet we do not consider severely cognitively impaired individuals to be anything other than human- so that line of argument seems closed In much the same way that undeveloped sexual characteristics- or the onset of menopause- do not cause men or women to be considered anything other than Men and Women.

My part you can guess of course, since I made up the hypothetical. The Chimpanzee, despite the manpulatin of its body to make it more human-like, remains a chimpanzee as it does not meet the three requirements to be a Woman: Adulthood, Femaleness, and Humanity.

A trans person- regardless of the surgical and chemical treatments that might be available to them- does not become the opposite sex because of those alterations, even when those alterations are to conform to arbitrary behavioral characteristics as well as physical ones. But they remain female or male based upon their biology, not the alterations made to it. When a trans man asserts they are simply put "a man" they are missing one of the three qualifying aspects of that label (maleness) the same way the experimental animal in the analogy is missing one of the three characteristics (humanness)
 
Ziggurat said:
In terms of providing a definition, you've just kicked the can down the road from not defining "man" and "woman" to not defining two "particular gender labels". It's like if I tell you I have a florp, you ask me what a florp is, and I tell you it's a kind of gizzlepat. You still know nothing about what I have.
Click to expand...
the second bit of the post you quoted addresses it I think?
p0lka said:
...some people are indoctrinated to one or the other by things like "ladies don't do that" or "be a man",

religious indoctrination is acknowledged as a bad thing yeah?

I think gender indoctrination is much worse.
Click to expand...
 
I must admit I rode the whole definition demand pretty strongly for a long time, but since then, I've pretty much given up on it.

Once you utter the sentence "Men can have babies." you aren't really speaking the English language anyway.

So, I generally know what people mean when they use the newspeak variants of the words, and I'll just occasionally point out the linguistic issues when they seem to matter.
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
You do you, boo.

But men can have babies and women can have penises. :)
Click to expand...

More seriously than my last response, you can redefine words all you want, but the underlying reality is that male and female sexual organs and sexual functions are important, and if you redefine "man" and "woman" in such a way that they don't refer to those organs and functions, we'll just need to coin a new pair of words that does refer to those organs and functions.

So, fine. Men can have babies.

Now we need a new pair of words to use when we talk about the group of people who can have babies, and its opposite, the group of people who can make the first group have babies.

(And, note to all: Please don't say anything about sterility. That would be stupid.)
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what the new terminology turns out to be, I can see some justification in keeping spermshooters out of the prison facilites designated for housing ovulators.
 
Emily's Cat said:
No more so than referring to an adult human female as "bleeder" or "gestator" or "menstruator" or "birthing body".
Click to expand...


1) No, your examples are not comparable. The Atheist's deliberate use of "it" was explicitly aimed at denying the gender - and any gender, for that matter - of a transwomen with whom he was upset or angry. The terms you list are, by contrast, intended to afford respect to certain groups of females (even though I realise you don't understand this - see below).

2) You still appear confused wrt the terms you've listed. For example, the terms "people who menstruate" or "birthing body" are intended to be used solely in the context of transmen.

3) This "adult human female" mantra is really achieving some sort of cult status, isn't it?
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
We already have the term birthing person so we're halfway there.
Click to expand...


And that term is used strictly and solely with transmen who give birth, if (and only if) it's the term that they themselves prefer to be used for them. A ciswoman giving birth will never be referred to in this way by hospitals/midwives/etc.

A lot of ignorance around. Shame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom