To believe that sex is not 'assigned' at birth, but observed?

[Splandy]

I filled in a form for British gymnastics yesterday and was asked whether my child's gender identity matches the sex he was assigned at birth. I started a thread about this elsewhere and other people said that they have also had this question on forms. Upon asking, one person was told that it is a result of new government regulations coming in, meaning they have to ask it.

Does anybody know what these regulations are? Is there anybody who genuinely believes that sex is assigned at birth rather than observed? If so, could you explain why? I am very concerned that something so clearly untrue is being slipped in under the radar. There was no option to disagree with the question and any answer implied that I agree with what the question states: that sex is assigned at birth.

Would be especially interesting to hear from midwives/doctors.

To clarify, I am talking about your biological sex. Not gender.

even though it seems to be the same procedure in all but name?

Can you imagine applying that standard to other medical procedures? It's not the same procedure at all because transwomen don't have cervixes. You can't just scrape cells off a random bodypart and say it's the same procedure as a completely different bodypart.

I mean, poor Jazz Jennings is having an artificial passage created from skin taken from their torso.

I mean, I'd love to go for a smear and just have them swab my torso, but it's not going to give me any meaningful results about whether I have cervical cancer or not. Skin cancer? Maybe. But not cervical cancer.

It will make statistics less reliable too as it will imply that less women are getting cerviacal cancer

sagamartha

It wasn’t me that mentioned cervical cancer and pap smears.

However, since you’re on. It is indeed something that pre-op AGP transwomen like to look forward to. As a previous poster mentioned, a transwoman was on here saying they had changed their sex legally and were now looking forward to getting their smear test letter in the post. As far as I recall, they were pre-op. Obviously people asked whether they would actually go to the doctors, and they said they hadn’t decided.

There was a fair amount of incredulity, but from what I understand, from an administrative point of view, they would indeed get that letter.

The problem is, they had fetishised women’s biology to the point where that letter actually meant something. It meant validation. That was the point.

No-one is put out if suddenly transwomen have to have a range of medical tests they would not have had to prior to transition!

They are profoundly insulted if these tests aren’t applicable or are used as validation or something to fetishise over.

Insisting an examination of a neovagina is called a smear test is one such example.

You can argue all the day long day about whether the language used for these tests matters, but when it’s perfectly obvious that they are being used as a fetish, then yes they bloody well do.

In the same way that transwomen say have their period. Because of the side-effects of drugs.

It’s fetishising menstruation. (You can buy menstuation kits that mimic blood in your pants).

I am a midwife. I note the baby's sex at birth, as I note whether they have 10 fingers and 10 toes. Perhaps I should start "assigning" fingers and toes to the babies?

There's that lovely young youtuber who does really brilliant reviews of all the different types of mooncups - really useful stuff. She was talked into doing a youtube of How To Fake A Period If You Are A Transwoman (wasn't called that, that's what it meant), which is a total slap in the face to all the girls and women who are sick to death of having to deal with the pain, expense and mess of real periods.

Fetishising mentruation indeed.

As a previous poster mentioned, a transwoman was on here saying they had changed their sex legally and were now looking forward to getting their smear test letter in the post

So that's your evidence for medical professionals being castigated for not offering smear tests to pre - op transwomen? A random transwoman on the internet

There was a fair amount of incredulity, but from what I understand, from an administrative point of view, they would indeed get that letter

Except the NHS clearly states that transwomen shouldn't get that letter or be offered on - as NHS guidelines on dealing with trans patients clearly state that transwomen aren't offered such screening.

So your understanding seems to be wrong.

In the same way that transwomen say have their period

Let me guess? Some transwoman on the internet said that?

It is indeed something that pre-op AGP transwomen like to look forward to

Based on someone saying so on Mumsnet?

sagamartha either you are someone who really doesn't know a lot about this subject, and is sceptical that all this is real - and that's totally understandable as it all sounds totally bonkers if we hadn't seen this stuff again and again - or you you know perfectly well all this bonkers stuff is out there, and not from some random on the internet but from many different sources, some of whom - inexplicably - seem to be treated as credible by others. Which is it?

sagamartha

So that's your evidence for medical professionals being castigated for not offering smear tests to pre - op transwomen? A random transwoman on the internet hmm

Perhaps you missed off the first part of my post? Where I said it wasn’t me who made that assertion.

Let me guess? Some transwoman on the internet said that?

I’m not sure where you get your information, but I get mine from the Internet. Almost all of it.

It sounds to me as though you don’t know what autogynephilia is.

There are literally hundreds of YouTube videos of transwomen talking about their periods. Some buy Tampax. Some buy menstuation kits. Some just claim they cry at movies and eat a lot of chocolate.

I suggest you do some research about AGP. It’s pointless having a conversation with somebody who only has half the information. The link below is a place to start.

He doesn’t even like feminists, so it’s not from a feminist point of view.

The NHS don't offer smear tests to transwomen and medical professionals have not been castigated for not offering them - especially to pre-op transwomen.

I am sure there are some transwomen who feel excited if they get such a letter - due to admin markers - but they are going to be disappointed if they turn up for such a test.

Just because some transwomen feel like that shouldn't really be used to castigate all transwomen - should it?

I’m not sure where you get your information, but I get mine from the Internet. Almost all of it

Have you spent time in the off line world with trans people instead of the online world of YouTube videos?

I have to admit I don't think that video does gender critical feminists any favours, Datun, and I say this as someone who is a gender critical feminist. His frothing daily mail "two types - feminine presenting gay men who are just mad for having as much submissive sex as possible, but are harmless to we butch straight blokes, and autogynophiles" distinction really isn't a nice watch.

I personally have no issue with old-school transexuals with bodily disphoria - and the trans friends I have in this category in RL certainly bear no resemblance whatsoever to that blogger's cardboard cut out stereotypes. (BTW, I googled the blogger in question when you first posted that, and couldn't find any academic or journalistic credentials for the guy - just his own youtube channel).

I don't think hyperbole like that does us any favours. There are genuine concerns - transing of children and teens, with irreversible medical interventions, male bodied individuals in women's spaces (communal open-plan changing rooms, rape crisis centres, homeless shelters), male-bodied individuals in women's sport, predatory men pretending to be trans in order to gain access to potential victims (and every single convicted rapist who has miraculously come out as trans while in a male prison is firmly in this category in my opinion). There are even academically reputable discussions of autogynophilia out there, together with informative first-person descriptions of it.

But I don't think this blogger's view of trans issues and mine overlap at all.

sagamartha

Seriously. Read about autogynephilia. We’re not making this up you know.

The reason you may not have come across it is because you can divide transwomen into two types. The video explains it. If you only know the one type, you will have a different opinion.

I’ve spent the best part of two years addressing this issue.

Also, I think Sagamartha is very effectively derailing the thread by picking up on one throwaway comment about cervical smears and blowing it out of all proportion, while ignoring the genuine issues (transing of children, male bodied individuals in women's spaces, etc.) And we're letting her get away with the derailment.

I've read the thread and am as gobsmacked as anyone about the (usual, sad) tg nonsense. (Pre-verbal boys undoing their babygrows to make a dress as a sign of gender dysphoria. Huh? Words sometimes fail even for the usually overly verbal.)

Getting back to the OP, 'whether my child's gender identity matches the sex he was assigned at birth': I have been noticing nonsense like this recently, and generally been vaguely annoyed by it. My attitude is usually that such questions really make no sense, so I ignore them wherever possible. When it's not possible, such as on a required field in an online form, I give a nonsense answer to a nonsensical question. Does my/my child's gender identity match the sex s/he was assigned at birth? 'No'/'Yes'/ 'Prefer not to say', all equally nonsense answers to a nonsense question. So I'll likely put 'No', if forced. My 'gender'? -- More often than not 'F', or sometimes 'None' or 'Neither'. (I'm a man btw, did I say?)

Is there any reason not to do this? If asked by the Gym (?) Association, well, the question didn't make sense, why would anyone expect a sensible answer? Any harm?

Also, I think Sagamartha is very effectively derailing the thread by picking up on one throwaway comment about cervical smears and blowing it out of all proportion, while ignoring the genuine issues

Should throwaway comments about trans people be ignored if they are not based on fact? It all adds up to help reinforce a certain view of trans people? There are people on the internet who make up false claims about other groups all the time in order to promote an agenda - it all adds up.

But I do think that children should not be given puberty blocking hormones.

Really PricklyBall

Well I’ll take that on board because I respect your opinion.

He seems to me to have lifted almost everything he said from Blanchards original typology. Which I read, although not all of it.

The ‘romantic attachment’ side of it was quite significant with HSTSs. Blanchard thought it was part of the motivating force.

I agree, he’s a bit of a dinosaur. But I thought that might work in women’s favour, because he’s not feminist.

I didn’t find anything to disagree with about his description, though.

What was it specifically you disagreed with in terms of his explanation?

I think the two things that struck me most were his tone (tone matters as well as actual words), and his whole "they want to be women having submissive sex" schtick, which just struck me as the sexist rantings of a man who had no idea of what it is to be a woman (born woman) navigating a world where sexual violence and the expectation that one should be sexually submissive are endemic. He seemed to me not to be suggesting that some gender dysphoric transwomen take on a submissive role as part of a parody of society's view of womanhood, but that all gender dysphoric transwomen want to adopt submissive roles because that's how (in the blogger's view) women are, only (again his view) when transwomen do it, their male sex drive means they're always up for it. It seemed to me to be equally objectionable towards transwomen with dysphoria and towards women.

I may have misunderstood it - I have to admit I did not watch the whole thing, only the first three or four minutes, because I found it so unpleasant I couldn't make it all the way through.

I agree with PricklyBall. The mainstream of this new TRA ideology has more than enough to show there's a problem. The more extreme end will contain views only held by a handful of nutcases and things which can't be substantiated as being genuine beliefs.

Arguments based on the more extreme end have a risk of being shown to be not soundly based. This will discredit more sensible arguments.

The mainstream of this new TRA ideology has more than enough to show there's a problem. The more extreme end will contain views only held by a handful of nutcases and things which can't be substantiated as being genuine beliefs

I agree. There's a whole lot of issues and claims that can easily be discredited and challenged. If more extreme claims are made about trans people that can be challenged, that runs the risk of the person making the claims being discredited.

Well I must admit, I haven’t watched it again since. But he was making a distinction between homosexual transsexuals and AGP individuals.

AGP absolutely relies on a view of women as victims. Submissive, compliant, humiliated. With or without gender dysphoria, that’s what AGP is. (Mostly they’re not gender dysphoric). I don’t disagree that he might also think negatively about women, but that’s the point. That’s how women are often viewed.

Homosexual transsexuals are basically effeminate gay men. Their ‘female’ femininity is the rejection of the masculine role, manifested as gender dysphoria.

Sex, sexual attraction and romantic attraction is a very significant part of transgenderism. (In men, it’s often different in women).

The problem with Rod Fleming is that he comes across as a fringe figure with no discernible expertise. This could be overcome if he was presenting very well structured arguments that are persuasive. But he doesn't. It comes across as "here's my reckon".

The point is that feeling we're correct is nowhere near enough. We have to present clear easily understood arguments that are soundly based and persuasive.

soundly based? Why are we held to higher standards than the trans lobby?

nauticant

Okay. I see where you’re coming from. I think it’s because I’m actually going backwards with this.

I’m so familiar with AGP so everything about it is such a gimmee. I’ve read reams. There is often, for me, a bit of a leap when you read about it in a dry academic paper, and then you see it enacted in real life.

Reading about how an autogynephile wants to fetishise female biology, and reading about when they actually do it are two completely different things.

The first is fairly academic, the second is infuriating.

So I guess Rod Fleming coming along and slightly dumbing it down into a bit of ‘blokey speak’ was something of a relief for me. It was his unquestioning acceptance, that perhaps was good shorthand for me, but not someone who is new to this.

But, I take your point, if anyone is unfamiliar with this, he may not be the best person to invoke, despite the accuracy of his description.