Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Emily's Cat]

Oh yes.

Well, I'll qualify that a little. Testosterone is a one-way street. A woman who has taken testosterone for a while changes herself a bit, and it's not predictable what the changes will be in any individual, or how extensive. But yes, all the transmen I have encountered code as women once you've interacted with them for a bit, even if at first they code male because of their appearance.

Agreed. Transmen also tend to have the same conditioned behaviors that females have - be kind, be compassionate, don't invade, don't take up space, etc.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's what I've been saying. Trans people don't identify as the other gender, they identify as a set of (largely outdated, sometimes even outright offensive) stereotypes of the other gender.

It's like me 'identifying as a black man' but only in the sense that I want to eat watermelon and fried chicken.

It's why Drag Queens don't wear a sensible pair of slacks and a light blazer when they "become" women but a gaudy, over the top sequined showgirl persona.

It's gender blackface minstrel show basically.

 

[Rolfe]

Agreed. Transwomen also tend to have the same conditioned behaviors that females have - be kind, be compassionate, don't invade, don't take up space, etc.

You mean transmen. You may want to edit that.

I've heard a number of transmen complaining that nobody pays any attention to them and they get talked over all the time. Yes, work it out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can we say "It's [all] a fetish" as opposed to "It's a fetish [for some]," given gender dysphoria in the DSM?

It's not ALL a fetish. But a lot of what has cropped up recently certainly is.

Historically, part of the reason for the intensive clinical requirements before a person was allowed to transition was specifically to weed out AGP males, as well as those who are experiencing dysphoria as a transient event, often linked to other trauma or mental disorders.

The handful who were allowed to transition and live as if they were women to the best of their ability, were almost exclusively those who were HSTS (homosexual transsexual), whose homosexuality was extreme to a point of them wanting to be female so as to be more attractive to other males. For those HSTS males, the dysphoria has strong neurological components, including errant activation of the part of the brain that is responsible for our perception of ourselves (same area that activates with BIID and with anorexia nervosa).

The push to remove the clinical requirements and allow legal and social transition on the basis of self-declaration is largely driven by AGP males who were denied the clinical backing required. Clinicians identify those males as ones with a paraphilia - it remains a diagnosis in DSM-5, as a subclass under transvestic disorders. It is a sexual fetish, and a significant element of the fetish is wrapped up in being able to transgress female boundaries, and invade female spaces. That transgression and the discomfort it causes females, is part of what creates the sexual arousal in the first place.

Whenever you run across someone online (or IRL) talking about their "gender euphoria", be aware that this is a person talking about how they get an erection and feel sexual arousal at crossing female boundaries, and forcing females to take part in their sexual fantasies without consent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

All of the trans women I have seen dress and look like your average lady.

How does an average lady dress and look?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Describe how you expect "average ladies" to dress and how society should enforce that.

(And let's play spin the wheel.

1. Mumbled nothing.
2. No answer.
3. Accusation of transphobia.
4. Full fringe reset.)

I'm going for 4, with a smidgeon of 3 sprinkled on top for good measure.

 

[Rolfe]

Historically, part of the reason for the intensive clinical requirements before a person was allowed to transition was specifically to weed out AGP males, ... The handful who were allowed to transition and live as if they were women to the best of their ability, were almost exclusively those who were HSTS (homosexual transsexual), ...

Quite honestly, from personal observation, I think a fair number of AGP males were allowed to transition back then. But they were the ones who could fake it, either hiding their autogynaephilia from the therapists, or whom the therapists considered rational enough not to go into full manspreading "validate my fetish" mode. There was a long period of psychotherapy which included training in how to behave appropriately in women's single-sex spaces, before they were cleared to enter.

I don't approve of this. The male psychotherapists who devised this protocol didn't ask women if they were OK about some men being given permission to enter our single-sex spaces. But at least there was an effort to make these men behave and to weed out the ones likely to misbehave. Now what is proposed is a free-for-all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Skirt, blouse, shoes, long hair. Classic lady.

Holy cow, I'm not a woman anymore! Thanks, Mr, Man for setting me straight! Here I'd made the mistake of thinking (clearly that's where I went wrong, amirite?) that I am a female because I have a uterus, ovaries, and vulva... but it turns out that because I have short hair and wear trousers almost exclusively... I'm actually not female at all!

I guess that fibroid that almost killed me was just a figment of my imagination.

And I guess that since my bepenised prostate-haver of a spouse has long hair and likes sparkly things, they aren't actually male either.

Such science, so knowledge!

 

[Rolfe]

Still a heterosexual - or should that be a heterogender - marriage though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The other question is whether HSTS can be regarded as a fetish. Probably not, strictly speaking. It's an extreme form of male homosexuality where the man desires to present as female to his male partner. However, again the motivation for transition is sexual.

I was watching some animal show the other day about camouflage. It touched on defensive camouflage (looking like something innocuous or inedible so you don't die), predatory camouflage (looking like something innocuous so you can sneak up and eat the other guy), and sexual mimicry.

The section on sexual mimicry seemed like it had some parallels to both HSTS and AGP... with one being "defensive" and the other being "predatory". My amateurish take on it is that HSTS would be "defensive" sexual mimicry - appearing to be the thing that the other guy wants to mate with, so that they aren't challenged. But AGP would be "predatory" in that they're masquerading as female in order to gain access to females where they would otherwise be denied.

The example used was some kind of fish (I think salmon, but I can't recall) where most of the fish leave the nesting grounds and mature, but a small subset of males stay there, and they never visually mature. So when the others come back to spawn, those "immature" fish can sneak in and spread their sperm all over the eggs without being chased off by a female that rejects them, and without being challenged by competing males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If its just that you want access to women only spaces... that's kind of weird a little creepy and this is from me, the guy who is basically only in this discussion because I'm sick of it being used to demonize men.

It doesn't get used to demonize all males, but it is justification to exclude all males from female spaces. Not a one of us thinks that ALL males are predators - we know that sexual predators are relatively rare among males (IIRC, about 5%). But here's the thing: we can't tell the difference.

Let me try an analogy (assume theprestige's all analogies fail caveat is present )

Brown recluse spiders look almost exactly like a standard house spider. There are minor difference, but you need to really get close and examine them to tell whether a given mid-sized brown spider is the kind that is harmless and will just keep your house clear of flies... or if it's the kind that if it bites you will make your flesh rot off. Brown recluse are much rarer than house spiders. And even if you did encounter one, the chances of it biting you are really small, as most spiders aren't aggressive, not even the ones that make your flesh rot off.

But... and it's a big but IF you get bit by a brown recluse spider, YOUR FLESH WILL ROT OFF!!!!!!!!!

So... knowing the odds of any given spider being a brown recluse as opposed to a common house spider, and given the odds of a spider biting you... Are you okay with letting all mid-sized brown spiders wander across your bedroom ceiling? Or do you weigh the downside cost against the risk and decide that spiders must be outside, and if it's crawling across your bedroom ceiling it probably needs squishing?

 

[The Atheist]

And I guess that since my bepenised prostate-haver of a spouse has long hair and likes sparkly things, they aren't actually male either.

Haha!

About 5 years ago my wife had a "bull dyke" buzz cut, while I had a foot-long ponytail, so I guess we swapped gender somewhere.

I'll make sure to get her to have my next prostate exam, but I'm not sure I'm into getting her cervical smear done on me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Impartial and trustworthy aren't remotely the same thing. Sources don't need to be impartial to be trustworthy. It's worth keeping any partiality in mind when evaluating information, it can provide important context, but that's not disqualifying on its own.



Too many examples for me to believe it was just made up. Too many clips are long enough that I don't believe it's all just out of context.

I'm absolutely sure that it's cherry picked. Why wouldn't it be? That's only logical. But that's also OK. If the argument isn't "all trans people" (and I don't see anyone making that claim), then there's nothing dishonest about cherry picking examples which show a certain side of that group. It's worth keeping in mind that it's cherry picked, sure, but god damn, if you can pick that many cherries, you've got an orchard somewhere.

Oh well said!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can only take it in small doses, I don't know if I can make it all the way through. It's seriously painful to watch.

I watched the whole thing. It's hard to watch. It's so deeply incredibly offensive and so dehumanizing toward women. I've seen almost all of those clips elsewhere, scattered about (not a day goes by on twitter or tik tok that one of these people doesn't post this sort of stuff all on their own). But seeing it collected altogether was painful and a bit frightening.

 

[p0lka]

Impartial and trustworthy aren't remotely the same thing. Sources don't need to be impartial to be trustworthy. It's worth keeping any partiality in mind when evaluating information, it can provide important context, but that's not disqualifying on its own.



Too many examples for me to believe it was just made up. Too many clips are long enough that I don't believe it's all just out of context.

I'm absolutely sure that it's cherry picked. Why wouldn't it be? That's only logical. But that's also OK. If the argument isn't "all trans people" (and I don't see anyone making that claim), then there's nothing dishonest about cherry picking examples which show a certain side of that group. It's worth keeping in mind that it's cherry picked, sure, but god damn, if you can pick that many cherries, you've got an orchard somewhere.

Yes my mistake sorry, I was showing my own bias by equating the two.

That is a classic argumentum ad hominem, you know. Don't like the facts presented, trawl for some way to discredit the presenter.

All she has done is to compile material that is already available in public and put it all together. I'd seen most of it before. And more. Are you saying it doesn't exist because someone chose to make a compilation? Do you think any of it was "made up"?

How much of this fetishistic **** will you excuse as "cherrypicking" before you acknowledge that just maybe women might be granted the right not to have to put up with these people in female-only spaces?

I do like to know whether i'm getting an impartial opinion about a thing or whether it's coming with chips on the shoulder or internal baggage from the person saying it.

Should I just accept what anyone* says for instance? Is it an ad hom fallacy to point out they have a prior agenda?

edit:* replaced deepak chopra with anyone, I did a chopwins law thingy sorry.

 

[Paul2]

It's not ALL a fetish. But a lot of what has cropped up recently certainly is.

Historically, part of the reason for the intensive clinical requirements before a person was allowed to transition was specifically to weed out AGP males, as well as those who are experiencing dysphoria as a transient event, often linked to other trauma or mental disorders.

The handful who were allowed to transition and live as if they were women to the best of their ability, were almost exclusively those who were HSTS (homosexual transsexual), whose homosexuality was extreme to a point of them wanting to be female so as to be more attractive to other males. For those HSTS males, the dysphoria has strong neurological components, including errant activation of the part of the brain that is responsible for our perception of ourselves (same area that activates with BIID and with anorexia nervosa).

The push to remove the clinical requirements and allow legal and social transition on the basis of self-declaration is largely driven by AGP males who were denied the clinical backing required. Clinicians identify those males as ones with a paraphilia - it remains a diagnosis in DSM-5, as a subclass under transvestic disorders. It is a sexual fetish, and a significant element of the fetish is wrapped up in being able to transgress female boundaries, and invade female spaces. That transgression and the discomfort it causes females, is part of what creates the sexual arousal in the first place.

Whenever you run across someone online (or IRL) talking about their "gender euphoria", be aware that this is a person talking about how they get an erection and feel sexual arousal at crossing female boundaries, and forcing females to take part in their sexual fantasies without consent.

Thanks, that clarifies things a lot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also call me when a transwoman volunteers to get 3/4th pay to better fit in with her new sisters.

It has been noted by many females, often with respect to their relatively newly transitioned spouses, that somehow doing housework, helping with the kids, and making dinner don't seem to be something that "validates" transwomen, and their female spouses are still expected to do all of that non-paying work.

 

[Emily's Cat]

*Laughs* Everyone is asking the trans side the same question over and over and we are never going to get an answer.

We are never, ever going to get an answer on what factor of the other gender trans people want to... lay claim to I guess (not 100% what I'm trying to say but in the ballpark) and this entire argument is just so much... nothing until we get an answer on that.

Agreed

 

[Emily's Cat]

You mean transmen. You may want to edit that.

Yes, thank you. Stupid equivocating confusing jargon. Plus stupid friday fingers.

I've heard a number of transmen complaining that nobody pays any attention to them and they get talked over all the time. Yes, work it out.

That too - a lot of transgender identified females only look male in isolation. It's very easy to see the beard and the lack of breasts and make a quick assumption... until there are actually males in their presence. Then it's quickly apparent who the males are in most cases. Buck Angel is a very masculine presenting transman who has been trans for ages and ages... and still, if you see them in the presence of males, it's clear how much smaller and more delicately framed they are - even with the graying beard!

The same is true of even fairly well-passing transgender identified males. Blair White looks very feminine - with filters and in isolation. When they are shown without heavy filters and in the presence of actual females, however, it's not even a question. And they've had a LOT of work done.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Still a heterosexual - or should that be a heterogender - marriage though.

Only by coincidence Had my spouse liked sparkly things just a smidge less, I suppose I'd now be considered a gay man. I would have to turn my whole sense of self topsy-turvy!