TT Exulansic Youtube

WarriorN, Are you referring to CG being associated with 'Genspect'? Is that a registered charity? I thought there were quite a few people associated with that. Or are you referring to a different registered charity?

Makes sense. Sarcasm.

If people with CAIS want to be in women's spaces then surely it is batshit crazy not to side with women who will protect women's spaces. If women's spaces exist people with CAIS might be allowed in (in reality - enter unnoticed); whereas if they don't exist people with CAIS can be 100% certain that they won;t have access to women's spaces.

The only way the last paragraph does not make sense is if people with CAIS' priority is the validation that women's spaces provide, as opposed to the reality of them. I have no reason to suppose that people with CAIS use women's spaces for validation, so it seems insane not to side explicitly with people who want to protect them.

They have.

To repeat what I posted above in:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4405866-TT-Exulansic-Youtube?msgid=115227754

"IMHO the only analysis of Karyotype vs Phenotype in DSDs that makes any sense in the real world, both as it is now and as we would like to see it as GC Feminists, is the model published by DSD Families."

"The Story of Sex Development"

www.dsdfamilies.org/application/files/4915/7386/0021/ECOPY_Story_of_Sex_Dev_Nov_2019.pdf

CAIS gets a brief mention on page 8 as one of the rare forms of an already rare set of medical conditions.

Where VSDs are concerned, there is no "tidy" answer that ties XX to "absolute femaleness" and XY to "absolute maleness".

If we can accept that, then we can accept that the only rational, moral way of accommodating CAIS XY women/males is to accept that they are, to all intents and purposes "infertile women" (not "infertile men") - and then we can get our eye back on the ball: transgenderism and gender ideology.

It is not that "those people" have not bothered to "contribute something in terms of what they think that should look like" but that other people:

• are not aware of what they have contributed

• or are not bothering to consider what they have contributed

• or do not like what they have contributed.

They are never going to like what they have contributed if by "taking people with DSDs into account" they mean trying to shoehorn the 0.00125% of babies born with CAIS into a definition that suits the other 99.9875% of babies who do not have CAIS.

While Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) represents an estimated 1 in 80,000 births an even smaller number are XX males born with De la Chapelle Syndrome.

Neither of these conditions has any bearing on the fact that a massively greater number of people (though still a small percentage of the population) are unequivocally male or female but believe that they have a "gender identity" at variance with their sex.

People with CAIS and De la Chapelle Syndrome present with biologically-based, objectively verifiable exceptions to the general rule that XX = female woman and XY = male man.

These exceptions do NOT need to verified case-by-case with genetic testing because we are talking about definitions.

In real life, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the tiny number of CAIS XY males are, functionally to all intents and appearances, infertile women, and XX males are infertile men.

Definitions that have served us well for millennia do not include, and do not need to include, the unverifiable, hypothetical construct of "gender identity", invented in the 1950s by John Money.

The notion that "compassion" is the cause of any confusion about definitions is a straw man argument that has been repeated tirelessly by Exulansic.

I don't know why she does it because she has a fearsome intelligence so it's not because she is stupid.

Calls for compassion arise as a result of the arguments being made now that CAIS women should be registered or re-registered as male and treated as males for all legal and social purposes.

I find it particularly disturbing that "compassion" is then used as the rationale for further stigmatising CAIS women as "males with a disability". This is the "compassion" of a firing squad allowing the target to wear a blindfold.

The "disability" afforded "compassion" is not their distressing medical condition but the fact that people who apparently lack confidence in their ability to challenge gender identity ideology feel that they can bolster their argument by turning the history of human experience on it's head.

Scientific developments that have resulted in the ability to diagnose CAIS without invasive surgery do not mean that we now have a simple lab test to "unmask" males who are deliberately and stealthily impersonating women or who are delusional.

Instead, we have a test that can explain why a tiny number of women who are infertile account for the 1:20,400 to 1:99,100 of males (estimates vary depending on time and location) who have CAIS. This should ensure they receive appropriate health care and also that their families can receive relevant genetic information and guidance.

I believe that the conflation of CAIS women with the much greater number of trans identified males is not only unnecessary and misguided but it is regressive and harmful at a personal and societal level.

Only two of those issues have a call on "compassion", the harm at a personal and societal level. "Compassion" is was not an issue previously and is only a factor now as a result of the staggering lack of compassion and common sense that has erupted across Exulansic's fan base. Those who hang on Exulansic's every word and then parrot those words in every exchange.

I am glad that LangClegsInSpace had those screenshots as evidence because those are the things that horrified me at the time.

Exulansic was a TRA, is using people with VSDs as canon fodder. She has persuaded her fans that the only reason there is a "problem" with CAIS women is that we were all big softies and were gulled into being kind.

She has painted a minuscule group of women as potential sexual predators with the capacity to impregnate, not only without any evidence but against all the evidence.

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities"

This is what is being played out right now.

Everyone, do your own thinking. ClaireCAIS have repeatedly linked to easy-read references that are repeatedly ignored. Why?

Because you can't bear to contemplate that Exulansic might have been wrong on this and you might have to revise your ideas and disagree with her?

Because you are frightened that Karen Davis might shout at you and feature you in a sneering video?

Get a grip!

Clare Graham is currently on Gettr making defamatory accusations against a GC woman (one brave enough to be the public face of GC resistance, unlike most people here who merely complain on FWR behind the safety of anonymity) of her being obsessed with children's genitals and a pedophile - for asking safeguarding questions. A DARVO tactic straight out of the TRA handbook - Helen Stanisland is having that same accusation levelled at her too for asking the Stanisland Question. Clare has made herself the public face of her organisation, so why shouldn't she be asked questions about what is on her organisation's website?

Surely if people with CAIS want continued access to women's spaces they should be on the side of people protecting women's spaces? Surely if you want GC people on your side you should support the cause of GC people?

Generally they were actually, but after reading the disgusting pile on Clare Graham has received in the now three videos Ex has done on her rather than the fact she's operating within understood medical care structures for dsd and is only an employee of the charity I wouldn't be surprised if they disassociated themselves.

This is doing so much harm to individuals and also any discussion of this within the feminism v trans debate, and is a massive red herring.

People who have undiagosed CAIS - if ClareCAIS is correct - have nothing to worry about because they and everyone else will assume that they are women. People with diagnosed CAIS become more of an issue, but surely it isn't beyond the capability of DSD advocates to define under which circumstances someone with a DSD should be in female spaces.

I am sorry that anyone with CAIS is being hurt, but do think the blame for any hurt lies primarily with the trans activists deliberately using DSDs to muddy the concept of sex.

I can’t see in practice how anyone with CAIS would ever actually be excluded from women’s spaces, as nobody would ever challenge your right to be in them.

In practical terms, I think the criteria for access to women’s spaces should be the sex on your birth certificate. Anyone with a medically diagnosed DSD, who feel that sex recorded at birth was not appropriate, should be able to get their birth certificate amended. The GRA should be repealed.

For women’s sports, chromosome testing is probably necessary, and decisions on XY women based on their specific DSD. I would certainly include CAIS women, and exclude those with 5-ARD.

2nd image - I interpret that as "woman equals adult human female equals XX". I personally think that is a 100% reasonable position. There may be a better position which includes some people who are male at a chromosomal level - I would love to hear suggestions from people who know more about DSDs than me to propose one!

3rd image confuses me. What does "mostly CAIS male" mean? I think it is entirely reasonable for women to demand that no-one capable of impregnating a woman is in a woman's prison".

Exulansic needs to up her compassion quotient. Definitely. But she is basically right, her points are good, and her straight talking is essential and good.

I think it would be pretty straightforward to include something like CAIS in legislation specifically with regard to women's spaces and maybe certain other things.

I think for scientific purposes it might often be better to use a more strict definition.

But I don't think there is any way around it, now that there is a need to be very specific about this, because it has been challenged, it has to be talked about. That's not inherently cruel or anything like that. Annoying possibility, but it's what happens normally whenver there is a challenge to inclusion like this.

I saw the early threads on Ex's now deleted channel and I was horrified by her comments. This was back in early-mid january, before she made the video about Dalea. I haven't watched anything she's done since and I can't believe this is still rumbling on and escalating.

Here are a couple of her many comments from those threads, I would say these are representative.

I want nothing to do with anybody who thinks these are OK.

@ MangyInseam "Because that's where we are. We are having to try to give objective, scientific, specific definitions of who can count as a woman. Like it or not."

Yep. Obviously women should be compassionate to people with DSDs, but let's be honest. Woman equals adult human female equals XX. Simple. The average woman knows nothing about DSDs, and the numbers are so tiny as to be a complete and utter irrelevance worthy of zero consideration ever.

So, back to you ClareCAIS. IMHO if you want women to treat you the way that you want to be treated tell us how to define women so that you can be included?

[quote ClareCAIS]@NotMyGenderGoblin from what I’ve seen, the majority of GC voices are equally as appalled at the comments from Exulansic - this is not a GC versus TRA discussion. This is about someone who has made the most horrible & targeted comments about people with CAIS & now even MRKH[/quote]
The way I see it this is about you attacking someone whose main crime is to be blunt and insensitive, even though you will undoubtedly lose if their side of the debate loses, because you won't have women's spaces to access if GC loses.

Which means any person with DSDs who doesn't take a side -

Is not willing to stand for women's rights.
Is not willing to protect women's spaces that they themselves wish to use.

Surely if people with CAIS want continued access to women's spaces they should be on the side of people protecting women's spaces? Surely if you want GC people on your side you should support the cause of GC people?

[quote ClareCAIS]@NotMyGenderGoblin

You keep asking this You have repeatedly ignored quite a lot of questions (such as "how would you define woman to ensure that men can be excluded but people like you can be treated with all the compassion and respect that you want?") If you can;t answer that then I have a lot of sympathy with the "XX, get lost everyone else" approach

• and I can only state again that we are observed & recorded as female at birth, we are legally female & have bodies that are unable to masculinise & we are indistinguishable from any other women and anyone with eyes & ears will view us as women - what other choice do we have?

Do you want us labelled at birth & XY tattooed on our heads? Do you want us stripped of the sex marker we were given at birth, following diagnosis? Do you want 14-year-old girls with CAIS to be told they are disabled men & segregate then from spaces for both men and women? How would any of this work in practice - and do you think any sensible policy maker or health professional would support this?[/quote]
No, all I want is you to give me a definition of woman that works for you. "XX / adult human female" works for me. That is the definition I will fight for unless / until a better one is provided.

I can see why it doesn't work for you. Can we have your definition of woman for the purposes of protecting women's rights and spaces?

"XX plus anyone with CAIS" might work? (obviously someone with CAIS who doesn't know they have CAIS will be in women's spaces anyway so testing is not needed for this definition to work for people with CAIS).

"XX plus anyone recorded as female at birth"? (which, I suspect, would risk some males with male behaviours being unable to be kept out of women's spaces)

Or are you saying that women's aren't allowed to have a definition of "woman" to keep out men because it's not possible to have one that works the the tiny tiny number of people with DSDs?

The fact is that many many people think trans people are trans because they have a dsd. Here in Canada, which is behind the UK on this issue, that is one of the most common things you see with the general public. People find it belivable and it compels them to believe that it is just and appropriate to treat such individuals as they sex they identify as.

Those of us who want to maintain the definition of women in law and social convention etc are in a position of having to define who that includes in a way that is not about how people feel or self-identify.

That could be done taking people with real dsds into account, or not doing so. But if those people want their situation to be taken into account, they need to contribute something in terms of what they think taht should look like. And not some soft language about being compassionate - that is what caused this issue in the first place - rather scientific and specific definitions.

Because that's where we are. We are having to try to give objective, scientific, specific definitions of who can count as a woman. Like it or not.

""What the TRA pretending not to be a TRA conveniently forgets to mention is that Variations in Sexual Development can be entered into the equation, and accounted for, as biologically-based, objectively verifiable exceptions to the general rule that XX = female woman and XY = male man.""

Agreed.
I still can't believe we are actually arguing about 0.018% of the population.
This is not going to affect anyone in daily life. It's a red herring, and a great one it seems, as it's tied a lot of people up in knots and lets the real issues slip under the radar.
Meanwhile, in other news, big ass blokes still put on a dress and walk into female spaces............

[quote ScreamingMeMe]I wonder whether the reason the TRAs are so keen to co opt people with DSDs is because of "passing"?

This is what a TRA pretending not to be a TRA said:

"The fact that DSDs exist could potentially be seen to undermine the notion that a defined and distinct sex binary exists. If such a thing does not exist, then trans people could not be accused of not being ‘real’ women or men, as there would be no viable biological criteria for ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’ for them to fail to fulfill"

On this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4477423-What-is-the-biological-definition-of-a-woman-and-man?msgid=115025979#115025979[/quote]
"The fact that DSDs exist could potentially be seen to undermine the notion that a defined and distinct sex binary exists. If such a thing does not exist, then trans people could not be accused of not being ‘real’ women or men, as there would be no viable biological criteria for ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’ for them to fail to fulfill"

What the TRA pretending not to be a TRA conveniently forgets to mention is that Variations in Sexual Development can be entered into the equation, and accounted for, as biologically-based, objectively verifiable exceptions to the general rule that XX = female woman and XY = male man.

The exceptions do NOT need to verified case-by-case with genetic testing because the TRA is talking about definitions.

Definitions that have served us well for millennia do not include, and do not need to include, the unverifiable, hypothetical construct of "gender identity", invented in the 1950s by whacko psychologist John Money.

TRA pretending not to be a TRA can put that in his/her/their pipe and smoke it.

I wonder whether the reason the TRAs are so keen to co opt people with DSDs is because of "passing"?

This is what a TRA pretending not to be a TRA said:

"The fact that DSDs exist could potentially be seen to undermine the notion that a defined and distinct sex binary exists. If such a thing does not exist, then trans people could not be accused of not being ‘real’ women or men, as there would be no viable biological criteria for ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’ for them to fail to fulfill"

On this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4477423-What-is-the-biological-definition-of-a-woman-and-man?msgid=115025979#115025979

Thankyou, @NotBadConsidering, yes, that is what it looks like to me too. Exactly like that.

With a dusting of people who think that "she's got testicles, I've got testicles, so if my body looks like hers then I'm a woman" I can think of a few TW who have surgery and then believe themselves to be a "real woman" and even to be able to grow a cervix. So, perhaps TW with those beliefs think they are even more womanly than women with DSDs.

I am sympathetic to people with DSDs who are collateral damage in this. Just as I am sympathetic to women who need an all female rape crisis centre. The problem does not lie with either of those groups needs.

[quote ClareCAIS]@NotBadConsidering this is no longer one person on YouTube, this is multiple accounts & videos that are now even attacking a charity that is offering advice to young people with DSD

I agree it is batshit & will never take hold, but also horrible that young people searching for information about their medical history, will now find this[/quote]
The misperceptions around DSDs is not exclusive to TT and other accounts. Even the BBC can’t report on them accurately when it comes to sport for example. There is a perception that DSD = hermaphroditism which long predates TT, and even predates the Internet. Major news organisations do absolutely zero to dispel myths when reporting directly on these issues. Yes, it’s terrible that young people might Google and find horrible things like that, but there is also a paucity of good information in frontline reporting. And now we have supposedly reputable people repeating myths about “sex is a spectrum”, misusing the Scientific American article repeatedly, claiming conditions like Turner Syndrome prove sex is a spectrum etc.

The horrible things written on those YouTube accounts is just one facet. That’s not to excuse them, but to point out that there are people who should know better with far greater reach that spread equally harmful myths even if it isn’t as pejorative as those comments you’ve seen.

I wonder whether the reason the TRAs are so keen to co opt people with DSDs is because of "passing"?

I think it’s because they use sport and athletes with DSDs to further their cause to blur the perception of what it is to be a woman and even what it is to be female. All the rampant TRAs are also right behind Caster Semenya, Mboma etc and it’s no coincidence. It’s because they can say “Look! Semenya is a woman, has been raised as a woman, the public perception of Semenya is that she’s a woman, so what if her biology says otherwise! A woman is anyone who is perceived as one! The only difference between Semenya and a transwoman is timing of initiation of ‘living as a woman.’ Semenya did it at birth and I’m doing it now.”

It helps their cause because self-determination and identification is the same whether you’re an athlete with a 46XY DSD or a transwoman. Even the latest IOC guidelines put the two together.

Do you want us labelled at birth & XY tattooed on our heads? Do you want us stripped of the sex marker we were given at birth, following diagnosis? Do you want 14-year-old girls with CAIS to be told they are disabled men & segregate then from spaces for both men and women? How would any of this work in practice - and do you think any sensible policy maker or health professional would support this?

One person on YouTube said this. In no way would this ever happen and no sensible policy maker or health professional would allow it. I understand this is personal to you, but everyone else sees this suggestion of TT’s to be a bit batshit, and I can say with 100% confidence that her ideas on this particular topic will never take hold.