• 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.

Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually thought the prisons issue would be the one that would peak most people.

//nitpick// pique

But hey, out of sight out of mind. It seems to be the sports issue that's getting the most traction in public discourse.

People are a lot more passionate about sport than prisoners' rights, so use sport as the lever to gain traction on other areas. The premise is the same - putting blokes in women-only places is a stupid, misogynistic and illogical move.

Also, if blokes are allowed to play women's contact sports, you're going to see a lot more physical and emotional harm done to women than could ever happen inside jails. A lot more women play rugby than are in jail.
 
I think it's fair to say some parents would still complain if a cisgender female wore those things while teaching a class.

The real question is for how long such complaints will be tolerated.

We're already at the point where trans folks can wear novelty prosthetic genitalia without censure in law or policy. It's part of the expression of their valid lived identity, and is therefore untouchable. What if a woman made the same claim?
 
//nitpick// pique


No. I didn't mean "pique", that's why I didn't write it.

"Peak" used as a verb is a neologism, short for "peak-transing" someone. It's the term for the moment you were at your most supportive towards trans people, then the scales fall from your eyes and you see what's really going on. It's all downhill from then on, hence "peak".

Happened to me in September 2018.
 
I'm slightly curious about the game plan of the teacher with the outsize boobs. What was he thinking when he decided to go to work like that for the first time? He can't, surely, have been certain that he'd get away with it, that there wouldn't be the discreet call to see the head and a quiet "you can't come into work looking like that, go home and change."

If that had happened, would he have quietly complied, or would he have started making a fuss, demanding he be allowed to express his gender identity, and called the head a transphobe?
 
No. I didn't mean "pique", that's why I didn't write it.

"Peak" used as a verb is a neologism, short for "peak-transing" someone. It's the term for the moment you were at your most supportive towards trans people, then the scales fall from your eyes and you see what's really going on. It's all downhill from then on, hence "peak".

Well that's something I learned today!
 
This is a very interesting blog article by a lawyer.

Why single sex female spaces are not for biological males

The moment you say that it’s not proportionate or legitimate to exclude even one solitary biological male from your single sex service, then at that exact moment your service ceases to be a single sex service, and you lose your whole justification for excluding any male from that service. When you admit a biological male to what was a single sex female service, you are admitting in terms that you no longer have legal justification for your single sex service. You are now a mixed sex service.


The previous post is also informative, discussing the fairly sensible law from 2004, which confirmed that nobody could actually change sex but set out legal processes designed to make life easier for people (mostly men, then) with severe gender dysphoria, and how the hell we got from there to here.

With thanks to the Frontline Feminists

The treatment of this condition depends upon its severity and the circumstances of the individual. In severe cases conventional psychiatric treatment is inadequate. Ultimately the most that medical science can do in order to alleviate the condition is, in appropriate cases, to rid the body of its intensely disliked features and make it accord, so far as possible, with the anatomy craved. This is done by means of hormonal and other treatment and major surgery, popularly known as a ‘sex change’ operation. In this regard medical science and surgical expertise have advanced much in recent years. Hormonal treatment can change a person’s secondary sexual characteristics. Irreversible surgery can adapt or remove genitalia and other organs, external and internal. By this means a normal body of one sex can be altered so as to give the appearance of a normal body of the other sex. But there are still limits to what can be done. Gonads cannot be constructed. The creation of replica genital organs is particularly difficult with female to male gender reassignment surgery. Chromosomal patterns remain unchanged. The change of body can never be complete.

Again, there is no suggestion here that the condition of being “transsexual” is something to be validated or celebrated. Rather, everything described by the court as “treatment” is designed only to “alleviate the condition” and to do so, where appropriate, by increasingly drastic steps.


It all started with a legal ruling that so-called "sex change surgery" did not turn a man into a woman, and the recognition that to comply with human rights legislation it was necessary to work out some form of legal fudge to permit a transsexual man to marry another man, and to be regarded as a woman for the purposes of social security and pensions legislation.
 
There are topics that we have discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and which many of us get tired of having to reiterate. But I'll give it another go.

Females that identify as transmen and take hormones pass significantly better as men than the other way around. Testosterone is a one-way street. It causes physiological changes that cannot be undone. Muscle mass is the very least of it, and the only thing that is somewhat "reversible" if a female stops taking testosterone. Facial hair, on the other hand, does not go away. Once the biological switches have been tripped, even if a female stops taking testosterone, they will not stop producing facial hair. Similarly, once their voice drops - which is a result of testosterone - it will never rise again. These changes are permanent in females.

Males that identify as transwomen and take hormones almost never pass even a little bit unless they have considerable cosmetic surgery. Estrogen alone will result in a repositioning of fat on the body, leading to marginally softer hips and face, as well as deposits of fatty tissue in the breast. But estrogen will not stop a male from growing facial hair, nor will it raise their voice, nor will it alter their skeletal structure. If a male stops taking estrogen, they will revert back to a male-typical muscle and fat distribution in relatively short order. The visual changes caused to a male by taking exogenous estrogen are not permanent.

In humans, females are better at sexing other humans than males are, although both are very good at it. Shown faces alone, in monochrome, without hair or make-up or clothing indicators, females correctly sex an unaltered human about 98% of the time, and males do so about 90% of the time. I have my speculations about why that is, but it's a bit off topic.

Facial hair is a strong indicator of sex in humans, as it's an element that is dimorphic in all but extremely rare cases of female hirsuitism. If a person has a beard, we will - all of us - assume they are male and rarely look closer.

The net result of all of these factors is that females who identify as transmen are less likely to be accurately sexed by cursory glance than are males who identify as transwoman.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the topic of females who identify as transmen being required to use the single sex spaces of their biology... well, to be frank, most of us don't care which spaces they use. Some males would undoubtedly be put out by the presence of a female body being naked in their presence, and I can definitely empathize with that.

But the situations are not parallels.

I know some people don't want to admit it, but statistically males are materially more likely to be aggressive and violent, and to be sexual predators than females are. So there's an element of agency and risk involved in which spaces a transgender person uses, dependent on their sex.

I'll attempt a poor analogy here. Let's make the illustrative assumption that males are foxes and females are hens. If a hen decides that they are a "fox in spirit" and decides to go visit the fox's den... well, that's on them. They are the one who is accepting the known risk to themselves. The foxes may not like the hen in their den... and the foxes are completely capable of forcing that hen to either leave or face the easily foreseeable consequences of their presence.

On the other hand... if a fox decides they are a "hen in spirt" and decides to wander on into the hen coop... well that's something altogether different, isn't it? The hens are certainly not a threat to the fox, even if they greatly outnumber the fox. A single fox in a henhouse could cause immense harm if they so desired. And despite there being many hens to only one fox, it is the fox that represents the threat.

To break this analogy down to its salient point: When a female that identifies as a transman enters a male-only space, they are willingly accepting a risk to themselves. When a male that identifies as a transwoman enters a female-only space, they are imposing a risk on everyone except themselves.

Thanks for that thoughtful response, I respect it and appreciate you taking the time to spell it out again. To me, that is a lot more reasonable than this:

....snip....
When I was younger, adults told us we could be what we wanted to be, and our sex shouldn't dictate our life choices. Now, the slightest sign of a "wrong" toy preference and girls are being told they're really boys and need puberty blockers, testosterone and a mastectomy. It's horrific.

Which to me (even if it is supposedly hyperbole) comes off as bigoted and delusional. And that's what bothered me to start posting here.
 
It's a mild exaggeration. If you think a mildly exaggerated account of what is actually happening is bigoted and delusional, I suggest that's your problem, not mine.

Have you actually looked at what is being done to these children? They're being encouraged to believe it's actually possible to change sex, that they can have an operation that will do that for them, when they're too young to understand that that isn't possible. They're being "affirmed" into the obsessive belief that all their problems - not fitting in, being bullied, being same-sex attracted, hating the thought of their bodies maturing - will be solved by "transitioning", and that anyone who tries to help them explore their feelings and question whether major disfiguring surgery is really their "true self" hates them and wants them dead.

They're being deprived of puberty. Have you really thought about what that means? It's not just about the maturing of our sex organs, it's a whole-body process that encompasses skeletal maturation and brain maturation. The puberty these poor girls are fleeing from is the very thing that will sort out their confusion and discomfort.

Anyone who has been given puberty blockers before they have experienced an orgasm will never experience an orgasm. Have you thought about what that means? These children are being turned into non-functional cosmetic facsimiles of the sex they aren't.

If adults, with mature brains and mature bodies, want to transition and are sure about what they're getting into, good luck to them. (But you still do not have legal right of entry to the intimate spaces of the sex you aren't.) Men and women who transition after puberty retain sexual function and are capable of going on to have reasonable sex lives. Puberty-blocked children will never do that. The adults who are encouraging this believe that cosmetic result is everything, and if a boy looks convincingly like a woman that's the best result, even if what he really is is a castrated male with an artificial cavity which he certainly won't get any pleasure out of. Maybe think about the mind-set of the people who think this result is a success?

What is being done to these children is an abomination, an abhorrence. It's right out of the Mengele playbook. It makes breast ironing, foot binding and infibulation look positively civilised.
 
Last edited:
Oh but it's not social contagion, how dare you suggest such a thing. Everyone knows their own gender and they can't be wrong. Even when they keep changing their mind about it. It's all about greater social acceptance so people who would have stayed in the closet are coming out.

We must clamp down on this rampant transphobia that causes the huge suicide rates in trans youth and mourn all the transphobia-fuelled murders that afflict this, the most marginalised group in society.

No, me neither.
 
Look at this. She's "really supportive" of unisex (mixed sex) changing rooms, because it "makes everyone feel included."
I imagine when she says everyone she means, like, non-binary females rather than the bros who walked in on her.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
I imagine when she says everyone she means, like, non-binary females rather than the bros who walked in on her.


I'm not sure she could clearly explain what she meant by that. Or understand that she does not feel included, therefore everyone is not included.
 
I've read the guidance and it is sensible and reasonable and as narrow as any such guidance can be.

But with a presumption that the issue with sex via deception is the gender identity of the assailant, not their sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom