Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[ponderingturtle]

As I said. It's a personal matter. If a lesbian put the moves on an androgynous looking heterosexual male, you'd never call her bigoted for opting out when she realised her mistake.

I would think that they should question exactly what is and isn't important to them. See when that happened to Cassandra Peterson(Elvira) she became friends and later lovers with the woman she thought was a hot guy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The sex of an XY woman is male. The sex of an XX man is female. Generally speaking -- no, in the vast majority of cases (which can get needlessly complicated if venturing into a non-functioning SRY gene).

So you are going with women with androgen insensitivity are really men then I see.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think a more accurate term would be "heterosexuality".

Because you clearly lust after a guy when you find out he is trans.

I get it trans people are icky and you refuse to find them attractive and it is their fault if you did momentarily.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why the dishonesty? You don't want that. I don't want that. No one wants that. You know no one wants that.

And yet, here we are, posting as if anyone in the world was advocating for it.

Those of us who think that only biological females ought to be allowed in girls' sports want the rule to be like the ones that were used everywhere, without question, until about 2010. And everyone knows that, too. Somehow, there were no genital inspections required.

So a freak with androgen insensitivity must be clearly labeled as male for her whole life. No sports for her as a girl.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This goes back to the BBC article where lesbians claim they were pressured into sex with trans women for fear of being "transphobic" (and "genital fetishists" and "perverts"). Attraction triggers are amoral. Maybe in an ideal world, people would be more turned on by virtuous character traits rather than body shape, but it's not so easy to transcend to the beast within.

Because introspection and questioning what specific sex acts are most important to you is clearly beyond most people I guess. I should stop expecting too much from you.

 

[Meadmaker]

So a freak with androgen insensitivity must be clearly labeled as male for her whole life. No sports for her as a girl.

*Yawn*

 

[Louden Wilde]

That does not state the policy that you are articulating there. Please find something that actually supports your statements.

It quite clearly does support what I was saying:
Key Points
Given that biological males experience a substantial performance advantage over females in most sports, there is currently a debate whether inclusion of transgender women in the female category of sports would compromise the objective of fair and safe competition.
Here, we report that current evidence shows the biological advantage, most notably in terms of muscle mass and strength, conferred by male puberty and thus enjoyed by most transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed as per current sporting guidelines for transgender athletes.
This evidence is relevant for policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It quite clearly does support what I was saying:
Key Points
Given that biological males experience a substantial performance advantage over females in most sports, there is currently a debate whether inclusion of transgender women in the female category of sports would compromise the objective of fair and safe competition.
Here, we report that current evidence shows the biological advantage, most notably in terms of muscle mass and strength, conferred by male puberty and thus enjoyed by most transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed as per current sporting guidelines for transgender athletes.
This evidence is relevant for policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

Nope still does not support your claim that the testosterone cap only applied to those with some specific list of disorders and not all disorders that could cause that.

 

[Meadmaker]

For what it's worth, my limited knowledge of AIS is that they would be subject to the testesterone cap, because they are XY, and have testes. I think.

I'm ok with that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The amount of blood tests needed to play varsity sports really is a lot higher than I would have though.

 

[Meadmaker]

The amount of blood tests needed to play varsity sports really is a lot higher than I would have though.

When you think for yourself, you sometimes make sense. When you think for other people, not so much.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When you think for yourself, you sometimes make sense. When you think for other people, not so much.

You need DNA and hormone level testing, the latter involves a blood test for sure. This is clearly needed for fairness.

 

[Emily's Cat]

All of the examples I provided reduce people to a single role or function (e.g. lighting fires, donating sperm) but I wouldn't say any of them are unnecessarily reductive if you're trying to pick out a specific attribute.

I suspect there is something else going on here, something to do with the feeling of embarrassment people experience when discussing things they do in private.

The difference is in the way it's used.

Yes, a male person who donates sperm is sometimes referred to as a 'sperm donor', similar to how someone who donates a kidney is a 'kidney donor'. In those cases, there's actually some intent to separate the individual human from the item in consideration. Most people receiving a donated body part for a transplant don't actually want to acknowledge that it came from a real human who died. Most females using a sperm donor don't actually want to associate that sperm with a real human person, it's supposed to be anonymous. But I don't think that 'donor' is the reduction you think it is. It's a description of the role that person is playing, the sperm and the kidney are the item related to that role. You might note that sperm donors aren't referred to as 'ejaculators' and kidney donors aren't referred to as 'piss filterers'.

The other terms you listed aren't reductive, they're simply descriptive. Firefighter is a description of a vocation. So is actuary, computer programmer, etc. Using those terms to describe a person is an additional adjective that doesn't in any way reduce their implicit humanity, it doesn't reduce their completeness as a person but rather expands their essential humanity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting side note. I don't know how you tally the excact balance of views, but it doesn't affect my original point in any which way. It is simply wrong to dismiss and marginalize a whole community of very diverse people. Plus that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition. I'm sure that pretty much everyone here agrees on these two points, you included?

Yes, I would say we all agree on those points in general.

Where we disagree is in what constitutes 'dismissing and marginalizing', and whether that has any relevance to a person who does NOT have gender dysphoria.

* Note, gender dysphoria itself is not necessarily a serious medical condition. No more so than acrophobia is a serious medical condition. Most people have some degree of acrophobia, just as most people have some degree of gender dysphoria at certain times of their lives (puberty, for example). I would say that severe gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition, just as severe acrophobia is a serious condition - when they are severe they interfere with a person's ability to live their lives and place them or other people at risk.

 

[Cain]

So you are going with women with androgen insensitivity are really men then I see.

Apparently, you do not see. You're conflating sex and gender.

Because introspection and questioning what specific sex acts are most important to you is clearly beyond most people I guess.

More equivocation. People can determine what is important and right, but they have considerably less autonomy when it comes to what they find attractive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And here's one I hadn't heard of.

The "right to gestate".

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/do-transgender-women-have-a-right-to-gestate/

It's a brief piece from National Review about people who are transwomen wanting the right to a uterus transplant so they can actually become pregnant and give birth. It hasn't happened yet, but research suggests it is possible.

Honestly, I don't know how to feel about that. If medical science makes it actually possible to do, I'm inclined to say it's ok to try it. National Review isn't keen on the idea, and I think they bring up some good points, but ultimately I would err on the side of allowing people to do what they want to do, and the burden of proof should be on the people who wish to stop them.

"Suggests it's possible" is a pretty serious stretch.

There have only been a very few successful *uterus* transplants from a deceased donor to a live female. Most attempts ended in the death of the recipient. Of those that survived the procedure, I believe only one has managed to carry a fetus to term. That person was unable to deliver vaginally, and a c-section was required.

Making it possible for a male to carry a fetus is far more complex than a *uterus* transplant. There's far more involved than just the baby-holder. There are complex interplays between the entire female reproductive tract and the endocrine system, the brain, and all the other organs in the abdomen. A female's body has evolved with looser connections between their internal organs, allowing them to move out of the way as their uterus expands. Hormones fluctuate to provide the appropriate balance of developmental phases and nutrients to the fetus. I'm skeptical of whether even a complete reproductive tract transplant would be sufficient to allow a male to carry a child.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And for what it's worth, I cannot accept the mere self-identification as the only necessary criteria in some areas, especially is sports but also (with some qualifications) about changing rooms and other such facilities.

But I also profoundly dislike this relentless polarization of the debate towards the extremes. In the wider society these questions are simply cynical tools for conservatives in their endless culture wars. One of the choicest targets is the entire trans community. The laws that are proposed or already implemented are crude and intentionally divisive, and not directed towards these rare and extreme cases but aimed at the legitimacy of, yes, the entire trans community. This can never be accepted.

Great... how about you actually bother to read the positions and perspectives presented in this thread by those who object to self-declaration? Because we've all suggested what we think are reasonable compromises on many different topics, all of which get dismissed out of hand, and we get called names and dismissed as bigots by those who insist on complete and total capitulation.

Essentially, you're castigating people who aren't posting in this thread.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Apparently, you do not see. You're conflating sex and gender.

As long as they are banned from women's sport. Though I guess we should change it to female sports.

More equivocation. People can determine what is important and right, but they have considerably less autonomy when it comes to what they find attractive.

But this isn't about what they find attractive, this is finding someone attractive right up until you find out they are trans. That shows what the bias is.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Nope still does not support your claim that the testosterone cap only applied to those with some specific list of disorders and not all disorders that could cause that.

You're really not reading my posts, and I think essentially just trolling. I noted that current T levels are not the only factor to take into consideration.
What do you think you're trying to convince people of?

 

[Emily's Cat]

True, but it seems clear that many (I'm thinking most) women don't like the terms. & I ( & many others) strongly suspect that the folks/companies using the (female-related) terms are using that phrasing so they can not be accused of transphobia. Because if they say 'women', They'll get the protest that "not all women have cervixes!", but not it's not women who've had hysterectomies complaining...

Also "you're excluding me, I'm a MAN who has periods!!!"