'Because biology' is not a good argument

Why does the trans narrative constantly... constantly!... call on analogies and make these huge false equivalences!

It almost as if it has no substantive logic to its own arguments, eh?

That article is a car crash and even the "point" about adoption is just an in to plough out the usual GF bollocks.
Don't people like this get it ... the problem isn't transgender the problem is self ID and how it will be abused. And already is being abused. Oh and nicely brushed over women's refuges too.
Although her talk of "misinformation " was a nice irony.

Historically men have always been interested in the making and having of children, and less so the raising. Childcare was womens work and responsibility, yet these same women were often at the mercy of their husbands and how much money they would allow them etc. It was much harder for them to work or earn, and near impossible once they'd married or had children. No contraception, marital rape was legal and socially acceptable, if not expected, so family planning out of their control. Women were often basically skivvies/brood mares, while their husbands worked 9-5, and did what they liked the rest of the day and spent their money how they liked. If a woman were to get pregnant out of wedlock, her and her child would be social lepors and likely destitute. Maybe a small fine or payment could be gotten from the man, but often he'd get away scott free. Such shitty, hypocritical, lazy oppression, for 1000's of years. All because of our biology. The same biology that now has nothing to do with being a woman?

From what I recall from the 'transman refusing to fill in the mother box on their kid's birth certificate' debacle - an adoptive mother is not legally a mother but a parent. Only the person who did the actual gestating and birthing is the mother, legally speaking.

And after the adoption, without even trying to lactate, going into breastfeeding groups/courses while the child is bottlefed* This is how TRAs look like with their demands.

I suppose the equivalent would be if an adopted child was being medically assessed, the doctor asking for the child's genetic history and the adoptive parents saying "OMG it is literal violence to suggest our child doesn't share our genetic history

Also this.

I believe that the advice with adopted children is to be very open with them about the fact that they are not biologically yours isn't it? Same with children who are born from egg or sperm donors?

Because that is the reality of the situation and the child deserves to know the reality. Because denying reality almost always leads to all sorts of fucks ups further down the line.

This whole post is a mess.

If you adopt a child and raise it, you're a parent. Not the biological parent, but equaly as much as a parent. The biological difference is known by the law, the adoptive parents and society no matter the sex of the adoptive parents.

An analogy would be a woman who plans to adopt demanding to be let into to labour training courses, while taking a place another woman would need. And after the adoption, without even trying to lactate, going into breastfeeding groups/courses while the child is breastfed. This is how TRAs look like with their demands.

*"You are his mother though"

You adopted him? Biologically you're not his birth mother. In legal and practical terms you are though. No amount of wishing or drugs or surgery could make you his birth mother, no matter how fab an adopted mother you are, or how much you love him. It is what it is, it shouldn't impact on your relationship now.

Just as men born men are men, no matter how much they wish otherwise.

Your point has made me think about what seperates "mothers" from "fathers", other than biology and stereotypes, mothers are more caring and nuturing by nature (yet when men act in more feminine ways they get flack from other men and sometimes women, 50+ years ago a man would often have been mortified to be seen pushing a pram etc).

This is not analogous to being female. You can parent, but you can’t ‘woman’

This ^

X post!

spannablue, somebody who adopts a child is not claiming to have given birth to a child, they are taking on the legal role and responsibility of being a parent.

This is not analogous to being female. You can parent, but you can’t ‘woman’.

'Womanning' as a job.

It's an argument which feminists reject.

When you're looking at 'parent' as a social role, you're going to talk about the things that parents do for their children, the things they should do for their children, their legal responsibilities to their children. Parent is an actual role that you perform, a job that you carry out. You can't define 'woman in a social sense' in the same way. Not just as a feminist, but generally as a sane person.

On the other hand, if you do try to do this, it has to be anti-feminist, because if you are defining woman in the same way as you are defining a parent, it has to be about what women do for other people, how they relate to children, how they relate to men.

I, for instance, can't identify as Queen Elizabeth's oldest daughter and then expect to become queen.

To be fair, neither can the biological oldest daughter...

It takes a sperm and an ova to make the baby - cos biology

The words 'son' and 'daughter' can be used by biological or adoptive parents - cos society.

People are either male or female - cos biology

People can have what ever identity they choose - cos society

There are immutable and life long differences between the sexes - cos biology. No amount of believing otherwise will change this.

But your sons will legally be able to access the information about their actual biology at 18 and contact their father's if they wish. Presumably as they get older you will give them the scientifically correct information about their biological heritage in age appropriate ways. Thus the "lies" about their biology/parenting that you are currently telling them are on par with father Christmas or the tooth fairy... They do no harm, add fun, happiness, magic (and in the case of adoption stability and understanding) to their lives, but in reality we all know it's not actually scientifically possible!

What a load of nonsense. You still presumably accept that there are two definitions of mother in your case, the biological mother and the adoptive mother.

The same applies to a woman in that there is a biological woman and a trans woman. The two can never be the same thing, no matter how much of you you chop up and how many pills you take.

I suppose the equivalent would be if an adopted child was being medically assessed, the doctor asking for the child's genetic history and the adoptive parents saying "OMG it is literal violence to suggest our child doesn't share our genetic history

Yes ^ this is the analogy here.

This is a false equivalency and most people will see it that way.

My husband’s mother died when he was an infant after a short illness. He had a new mother forced on him 3 months later, a semi-organised marriage through the church. He had to call her mum and continue to pretend she was his mother, despite remembering his own. He could not speak too much about his actual mother, or it upset the new mother. If others spoke of his mother, she was always referred to as ‘natural mother’ while the new mother was now ‘Mum’. The biological Mum was now given a different name, in order to prioritise the feelings of the new Mum, over those of the children. Denying reality caused my husband enormous harm, pain and almost complete memory loss of his own mother and their relationship. It denied him his rights, to know where he came from and to know about and connect with a significant part of what made him who he is.

Pretending adopted children don’t have biological parents, would be hugely damaging.

I think this is in fact the argument being made here, that 'woman' should also be a role with two definitions, biological and social.

Yes, it probably is. It's an argument which feminists reject. What the heck is the 'social' definition womanhood apart from regressive, sometimes downright oppressive and discriminatory stereotypes?

The child has one biological mother and one social /legal mother.

You, quite rightly, have the same legal protections as any other family.

It is socially and legally correct to call the children your sons. It is not correct biologically. The biology part is objective - factual and may have implications in real life in a VERY limited number of circumstances (for example medical history.)
For everyday life, it is correct to call them your sons. The word ‘son’ has a long history of being used for a non biological child. Adopted children, fostered children, and also certain relationships.

There is no link or analogy that works with being trans here at all. Your children are your children. Emotionally, socially, legally and with a strong bond of love. That they are not your biological children is a fact but it affects nobody else but your family.

One of the reasons society is happy to accept that adoptive mothers are mothers in everything but the birth experience is this: we know that there is no significant objective difference in the psychology or behaviour of adoptive mothers that might get in the way of them fulfilling that role successfully. In other words, they are very, very similar to biological mothers in their behaviour and attitudes.

This is not the case with transwomen. Their socialisation will not have been that of a woman, and too many transactivists demonstrate this, by conforming to male patterns of behaviour with regard to aggression and entitlement, for example. They appear to have the same levels (as a population group) of criminality as men. Many of them clearly have the kinds of fetishes that are rarely found in women. There are simply too many differences here for ordinary people to accept that transwomen are women in everything but biology.

If transwomen were on average as similar to natal women as adoptive mothers are to birth mothers, we probably wouldn't be having these discussions.

This analogy could be used to support the position that

1. trans men are female and no one is saying they are actually male (she is not the woman who actually gave birth and they didn't conjure up sperm)
2. trans men are deemed men by the law (adoptive parents are the legal parents)
3. trans men are men to themselves and to the people who know them, whatever the law or biology says ( I know it, he knows it, it is an unshakable truth to us. something integral to her life.)

I don't know the criteria for being given legal parental status. But, this analogy can't really be used to answer the question: what criteria should we use to allow a female to be viewed as a man by the law? 3. Should a willingness to state 3 give someone admission to 2 on its own? I'd say no personally.

I hope you are not claiming to be a female lesbian
How bloody bigoted