For thinking it is odd for trans men to give birth

[Overthinkingotter]

Talked to friend today and got on subject of trans men having babies. I said that, imo, being pregnant/giving birth is the last thing I’d want to do as a trans man as surely the process of pregnancy would be incredibly triggering for someone with gender dysphoriac? I the said that, if I were a trans man who wanted a baby, I’d most likely find an alternative way rather than carrying the baby myself.

I thought this was quite a mild comment, but fried reacted as if I had said something quite offensive/bigoted.
Is my view really so unreasonable/extreme?

Oh noooo… how absolutely awful of me. How dare I? I mean, I could have used the snakes analogy I suppose. So no answer to the actual question?

No because at best, chocolate will make me fat. It will be about 2 seconds of pleasure. I don't need chocolate.

What i do need it to be around for my kids. If there was some potentially life saving benefit to eating the chocolate, like say it could almost definitely highlight any bowel cancer, but one of the 400 might be poisonous (let's state clearly here that the number of transwomen performing mammograms or smears is far less than 1/400), then I may take the risk, have a chocolate to potentially save my life.

But let's be absolutely clear, the number of trans women as HCPs is way less than 1/400. So yes you are more likely to be harmed in your analogy because of those odds, but they aren't realistic odds.

Indeed. There was some batshit article about how questioning the use of testosterone while pregnant was ablesist as it was offensive to want to do your best in trying to ensure the most healthy outcome for your pregnancy.
There's also the fact that women are discouraged from taking the most basic of meds while breastfeeding but it's somehow fine and progressive for men to take a cocktail of drugs to produce some sort of liquid from their nipples to feed an infant.

Er…. Did you not read the word poisonous? Bless you, you tried.

Oh and to be doubly completely clear, the poison is definitely likely to harm you. A trans woman may have an increased risk of harming you because they are male and males harm, but being male doesnt mean you are definitely harmful like a poison is. So again, the analogy isnt a very good one.

Unless you are arguing that every single trans woman is a predator like every single poison is harmful?

I read it all. Read it again and you might understand. There is some tricky parts where you have to understsnd maths though.

Show us this article so we can read it.

You know of a non harmful poison? Really? So what makes it a poison then? And anyone who insists on lying to people about something as important as their sex is not really a very trustworthy person are they? I mean, if they’re lying about their sex, maybe they’re lying about their qualifications? Who knows?

What maths? I mean, you think theres such a Thing as a non harmful poison. It’s ok if you didn’t get the anology. Honest. No judgement here.

Please read properly if you want to be taken seriously by me. I am saying all poisons are harmful. Unless you are arguing that trans women (or men) are all harmful like poisons, so they are all predatory, then you can't describe them as poisons (which you admitted are all dangerous).

If you think all men (or perhaps only men who transition) are definitely dangerous predators, then just say all trans women are predatory sex offenders who will assault and rape women so that is clear.

Poison - all dangerous and harmful that's why they are called poisons. They will harm anyone who ingests them.

Is this what you are saying about trans woman? That they inherently harm anyone they interact with?

No i think there are non harmful trans women and so that's why I dont view all trans women as poison because all poisons are inherently harmful. I dont view all trans women as predators. Do you?

But isn’t the train of thought of the TRA’s that men can give birth? 🙄

So it’s not seen as an activity specific to women…. So therefore it wouldn’t be classed as a female act and therefore not triggering to a trans-man…. 🙄

They are simply doing something that both ‘men’ and women can do? 🙄

(I completely agree with you OP)

When you are presented with a bowl of 400 chocolates containing 1 poisoned chocolate can you tell which one is poisonous just by looking at them?

I have said why I think that is a bad analogy and even shifted it to one that makes more sense.

I dont need to eat a chocolate. I do need a smear test. If the chocolate could highlight bowel cancer, but there was a 1/400 risk that it might harm me, I may well take those risks because my life is precious to me.

I also highlighted that there is a much lower chance than 1/400 of me getting a trans woman for my smear test. There is a much, much lower risk that if I did get a trans woman, they'd be out to assault me. So this analogy you've made up yourself isn't actually reflective of the situation. I have ran with it anyway and tried to bring some sense of rationality to it.

It's not relevant how low or high the probability is. If a woman specifies she wants female only care for an intimate procedure, that should be respected, yes?

That's the same point made upthread about how lies beget lies.

But we all know that men can't give birth. We all know that by entertaining that idea, we're getting embroiled in utter nonsense.

Yes ive never said it shouldn't. That isn't the conversation.

I'm just pointing out that avoiding a smear test at your local GP because you are worried that there may suddenly be a trans woman employed to give smear tests is extreme. The chances of a trans woman being in that specific role is very small because there are so few trans women.

Ive also pointed out that comparing trans woman to a sweet that is definitely poisonous is misleading. Trans women arent definitely dangerous like a poisonous sweet is, and nor are there 1 trans women for every 400 women. Especially working as HCPs. So the idea that you may get the one nurse out of 400 that is a trans woman, and that trans woman definitely harming you is just not apt.

It's more like 1% of people are trans
0.5% of thos people are trans women.
0.05% of those trans women are nurses
0.005% of those trans women who are nurses give smears as part of their role

That puts a totally different spin on avoiding a smear test in case the HCP is a trans woman. Especially given most are done at a GP.surgery by a staff member who is a long term employee in my experience. So I know for a fact my GP has 3 nurses, all female and that's who will do my smear if I book. Not just some random person who has been assigned there for the day.

Well if the percentages are so small, insisting on female care is unlikely to make any difference to how early someone is seen.

However if the poster is alluding to the fact that she couldn't trust her medical providers to adhere to her request, then that's a huge problem.

share.google/aimode/pBwLFSPm1lLsZah9H

Yes.

The point you're missing is regardless of how unlikely or not it would be to have a trans identifying male present himself for a female patient's intimate examination, there are women who are self excluding from necessary healthcare because the NHS cannot guarantee that the patient will be seen by a female HCP, and in fact male HCP with trans identities have and would present themselves to do the exam.

A PP said that a woman in that scenario could say no (ignoring all the issues with that I covered in my last post), and then rebook. Sometimes that is not possible. In one woman's case she refused the trans identifying male for her intimate exam was then refused health care solely for that reason, refusing a male bodied person's presence and touch during an intimate examination.

You also missed the point of the chocolate analogy. All the chocolates in that analogy are trans identifying men, but only some of them are poisoned chocolates. The point was you know some are poisoned, but they are indistinguishable from the totally non-harmful other chocolates until it is too late.

I assume you are missing those easy to understand points on purpose.

A PP asked why trans identifying men are seen as more of a danger than other men and asked for stats, the attached image is for rates of sexual offending by sex from HMS data 2023 which clearly shows that of the male prison population, trans identifying males are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated for sexual offences than other males.

My issue is not about insisting on female care. I know you keep wanting to bring it back around to that, but that isnt what I am talking about.

I am focusing on these analogies that you make up and then believe in, like the sweet. It makes no sense unless you think that trans women are all like poisonous sweets: inherently harmful to those who consume them. In this case, it would be women who interact with the trans woman so inherently harmful to women.

You could argue that there is a bowlful of sweets, most are absolutely fine, but one MIGHT be poisonous. It isn't definitely poisonous, it just might be, because sweets that are poisonous are typically this type of sweet. But the majority of that type of sweet are not poisonous. But a few of them are deadly.

Would you take a sweet knowing that out of the many, one MIGHT be poisonous?

Would you take a sweet if it might have benefits to you (like highlighting bowel cancer), but one of the many MIGHT be poisonous?

This to me is a more accurate.analogy. It acknowledges the higher risk of harm that comes JUST because a male is involved while being realistic about the odds of encountering a male who has transitioned in the first place and the risk of that male being harmful (hence the might).

Are you getting me mixed up with another poster? I didn't come up with the analogy or reference it in any way.

But now that you mention it, I'm not particularly convinced by your analogy. There is not going to be a situation where a trans identifying man is the only healthcare provider available. Especially as you point out the numbers are so small.

But there arent enough trans women who are HCPs for them to be compared to a bowlful of chocolates. The only thing that could be compared to a bowlful of chocolates are HCPs who use a female label. They can be the masses. The trans women have to be the minority potentially compromised sweet for that analogy to make sense.

If I wanted a trans woman to perform my smear test on me, I'd have to search pretty hard to find one. I could find a nurse who can do my smear and uses the label "woman" in a few mins. Therefore, the bowl has to be full of people who identify as women whether they are trans or not. It makes no sense for it to be full of trans women who I have to pick between to do my smear. It isnt reflective of the real world

I never said there would be this situation. I said the chances of there even being.one trans woman you could pick is very slim so the people avoiding smears in case a trans woman is the nurse seem even more irrational.