I have been following the various trans threads recently with avid fascination (initially out of the Dr Pepper issue). I can't remember the last time I saw such interesting and well-argued (by some) threads on MN - fascinating stuff!
So my understanding of the argument is that dittany, Sakura etc have been putting the case that XY MTF trans-women, whilst deserving the same human rights etc as anybody else, cannot or should not be able to claim to be equivalent or the same as XX women becasue they have been born and brought up, initially at least, as men, and therefore have had access to all the patriachal advantages that we, as XX women, have not. Their experience is that of trans-women, not women. Shouldn't they be trying to make society broaden it's definition/acceptance of
being a man/maleness rather than trying to become stereotypical women? (or more acceptance of a third gender for intersex people?) I agree with this, I think.
I have been thinking a lot about this over the past few days and one thing that occurred to me is that possibly we are missing some of the science on this issue. We are saying that in the vast majority of cases, presence of a Y chromosome is male-determining and that this means that most XY trans-women, no matter how "feminine" they feel/want to live, are still males and should not be able to call themeselves women as they have not had the same experience of being repressed (for being women) that XX women have had. What about the cases of people born with full CAIS though (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome)? In these cases, they are XY babies who genetically would have been male but due to other mutations they do not respond to the testosterone generated from having an SRY gene on a y chromosome so the male secondary characteristics do not develop and the baby continues to develop along the default female pathway. These babies are often born looking exactly like girls, are tretaed as such, grow up as women and only discover that they are XY individuals, i.e male sex when they have investigations for infertility problems as adults. I know this must be incredibly rare but is this a case for allowing an XY individual to legitimately call themeselves women/female whatever when they have been bought up as women with the same shit to deal with re: body image, discrimination, pregnancy, rape, abortion etc as XX women?
Not sure about this, just playing devils advocate to an extent and wondering what other people think? Also, isn't it possible that at least some MTF trans-women might have sone of the myriad of other rare chromososmal disorders that give rise to genotypes other than the 2 usual ones of XY male and XX female? Might this give more legitimacy to claims of being female? (I am amazed more people with gender issues or intersex conditions don't get themeselves tested to see - I know genes don't explain everything but I think it would help me in those circumstances to understand why I was having such a different experience??)
Anyway, have really enjoyed these discussions, largely. As a dormant feminist latterly bogged down with trying to have a career, be respected at work and also have and raise children I think you have awakened the slumbering beast within! I have found posters such as Dittany and Sakura and others to be inspirational in the way they have argued their points logically and respectfully even in the face of apalling and unecessary abuse from poster like earwicga whose behaviour, imo, has done much to damage the causes of MTF trans-women. I had no idea that such a dischord even existed, though I do know a pre-op MTF trans quite well so am aware of the issues, but now I feel quite angry that, in some circles, I am no longer considered a woman with all the crap that has entailed but merely a bog-standard cis-woman!
I also think SalaciousCrumb and Nancy66, in contrast, did much to positively represent intersex individuals and chidren with gender identity disorders. I think you are both very brave.