Violence Against Women

But women aren't being left alone, are they? That's the issue.

If we could all simply live and let live, it would be lovely. But there are mutually incompatible issues. Not sure why women have to be the group to back off. Is it because we don't experience 'loads of prejudice and anger and hatred'? Or because we really should be used to those things by now, whereas they just sting that little bit harder to men?

"Perhaps kim means you're not a trans woman, but trying to explain the experience of a trans woman. We get something similar here from time to time when men try to explain what what the experience of being a woman is like. On another message board I used to frequent, the handful of members who were persons of colour were forever being told by white British folks that they knew better than they did what it was like to be a person of colour. That sort of thing."

"Apologies - looking at the context, "transman" rather than trans woman above."

Hi KRITIQ, although I often hugely agree with what you say, I don't in this case. I know what it is to be a woman and I feel I can comment on the brutal mutilation of a healthy woman's body.

"I think there's a word for that. Feminists call it "mansplaining"."

I know all about mansplaining kim147, but the issue of transsexuals is complicated. Transpeople believe very strongly that they know what it is to be the opposite sex. That is a HUGE assumption. When MTFs suggest that this vagueness (in the sense that there is no physical evidence) is the definition of woman, they are inherently mansplaining - assuming they are more expert in what makes a woman than women are themselves- to the point that they get to define what a woman is.

For this reason it is silencing for a MTF when speaking to a woman to imply "you are not trans, so you can't talk about trans" - especially since I was in that post responding to errors KRITIQ had made about the annorexia, self-mutilation and the 'physical benefits' of brutal surgery.

Apologies - looking at the context, "transman" rather than trans woman above.

Perhaps kim means you're not a trans woman, but trying to explain the experience of a trans woman. We get something similar here from time to time when men try to explain what what the experience of being a woman is like. On another message board I used to frequent, the handful of members who were persons of colour were forever being told by white British folks that they knew better than they did what it was like to be a person of colour.

That sort of thing.

MooncupGoddess "Actually it would be interesting to have a proper discussion about FTMs, rather than the usual ill-tempered and repetitive fighting over MTFs. Unfortunately this thread is not it."

Though I've never been on one of the MN trans* threads before, I agree it is interesting to look at FTM from a feminist perspective.

"As an aside, if we lived in a society without ludicrous imposed gender roles (something surely everyone on this thread wishes for) it would be much easier to get a sense of whether transsexuals genuinely have something different about their make-up that means they feel a natural affinity with the other sex rather than their born sex. Or whether many of them have internalised gender roles, realise they don't suited the roles of their born sex and hence at a very early age subconsciously decide they should belong to the other sex."

But there is something about sex being something other than a reproductive category that is contentious. Saying 'I believe I should have testes and produce sperm- and my having ovaries producing eggs just feels wrong, I know it with all my conviction' - doesn't change the fact that my ovaries cannot become testes. And so what is this 'affinity' with, if it is not about reproduction? What is the distinction between a transsexual and someone who has a very strong affinity with the opposite gender?

"Since we don't have this ideal society, and in the absence of any science bar the vaguest speculation, it is impossible to make any firm judgements as to the causes of transsexuality and I am pretty unimpressed by anyone who claims that we can."

I would add that since many people feel at odds with their prescribed gender role, most people feel affinity with people of both sex, some with the opposite more than their own - at what point do you say someone is a transsexual as opposed to being one sex who is more comfortable appropriating the prescribed gender role of the opposite sex?

"More explaining from someone who has no understanding. I was wondering when you'd pop along"

What do you mean by having no understanding?

Oh look EBAL your tag partner has arrived as predicted.

"So sorry, it's not something one can compare to anorexia or self-harming because there is clearly NO positive physical or mental health outcome as a result of the individual's actions."

Actually, anorexic people gain a sense of 'control' and self harmers feel 'purged'...which are short-term mental positives.

Also there are actually no 'physical' benefits to having this surgery. It is very dangerous, has many complications, numbness from scarring, etc and leaves you infertile (if the full hysterectomy). Though taking sex hormones gives people both physical and mental benefits there are also some negative physical side-effects for this too.

Of course it is a major form of mutilation. Sheesh!

head

desk

AF suggested that you were as disruptive as an MRA, not that you were one, EBAL.

Yes, precisely OMC. And it seems that EBAL is managing to be even more successful at disrupting this arena than when we had the invasions of MRA's. I am very saddened to see posters whom I respect immensely falling out with each other.

At least when the MRA's were shit stirring all the regulars in this section were united against them.

I know some trans activists might describe this as cis-plaining; but I was told in another FWR thread this was a technique used by people trying to disrup feminism discussion areas. Which EBAL seems to be doing quite successfully .

Thanks, TeiTetua.

Surely the experimentation is consensual though? Doc says, 'Look, we just don't know the long-term effects of this'. Transitioning person says, 'Thanks for telling me, it is an unquantifiable risk I'm prepared to take.'

People do that in all kinds of medical situations, and I'm not persuaded that it is uniquely worrying or wrong in this context.

Sorry, I forgot the [[.
jcem.endojournals.org/content/93/1/19.full

There are sources out there, if anyone wants to look (it doesn't seem as if anyone does, but still).

I just did a search on and came up with this, which has the right kind of medical-research jargon in it, though it's readable by normal people:

jcem.endojournals.org/content/93/1/19.full

Unfortunately, what it says is that as far as long-term results of hormone treatments are concerned, "we just don't know". It doesn't seem as if there are any immediate and startling results, anyway.

I think that if transexuals are indeed being experimented on, it's something they feel is important enough to take risks for.

This is why your argument of no known results = medical experimentation falls down.

Here - chocolate might cause cancer

So every time I pick up a Curly Wurly I am unwittingly engaging in a medical experiment as anectodal data says that eating chocolate may increase my risk of cancer? No, I am making a decision based on the fact that I believe the consumption of said curly wurly would make me feel better.

Sorry for being so simplistic when surrounded by some very knowledgable and erudite posters, but sometimes a simple concept needs a simple explaination when faced with an illogical argument.