Can we have a general Trans thread?

[Brugmansia]

Sorry for another trans thread and I feel this is a bit of an imposition given I don't post really.

Anyway reading FWR over the past few months has re-radicalised me. I've been reading lots here and wider.

Anyway just now been watching TV and there's been some stuff that's given me the rage but didn't seem to fit in existing threads or it's own thread.

Anyway thing that gave me the rage.
On BBC3 program on transgemder teen's the doctor just said "creating a vagina". Are doctors redefining vagina as pocket rather than a passage? Makes me want to screem.

Also Sarah Ditum being no platformed.

Lass / OneFlew
I do know some livestock farmers. But as a Hindu, I am mortally offended that you are comparing my points to the immoral and disgusting practice of beef farming

I said livestock, not beef. I am a vegetarian.

We have a solution to this whole debate!! All we need is for Flora to decide who is a man and who is a woman and we can have Cote give them a tattoo saying "Guaranteed Woman" just like the ones Lass has on her beef .

Job done.

Mortally mortally offended.

However I am happy to share my recipes for dhal with you

Slow a farmer of livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, farmed deer, lamas(for wool) needs to know which animals are capable of carrying and birthing baby cattle, sheep, goats , deer and lamas and which ones are capable of inseminating the bearers.

He or she will be able to do this very easily by a visual inspection.

He or she might be unlucky and occasionally a bearer animal won't be able to carry a young animal or an inseminator won't make a bearer animal pregnant. That is because those animals have infertility issues, not because the farmer misidentified their sex.

Slow Do you intend to answer the questions I asked you, given that I tried to answer yours? Or are you going to ignore everyone who answers your questions with the answers you don't want then change the subject? Then flounce?

Rude.

Slow 99.9% of people can tell the sex of 99.9% female or male people. If you are having trouble, I'm sure you can find plenty who can help you.

Cote give them a tattoo saying "Guaranteed Woman" just like the ones Lass has on her beef

Here are some definitions of "livestock" from dictionaries.

animals and birds that are kept on a farm, such as cows, sheep, or chickens

Livestock is defined as farm animals who are raised to generate a profit

the horses, cattle, sheep, and other useful animals kept or raised on a farm or ranch.

It's really not my fault you are unaware of what the word means.

In all cases the farmer isn't going to make much profit if he can't tell which are bearers of young or inseminators of bearers of young.

I always use the names and pronouns trans friends and acquaintances want, and I respect the fact that they know the best way to live their own lives including by transitioning. I want it all to be simple and easy and noncontroversial, but I've really struggled recently to accept some of the more overarching trans narratives and explanations that I've heard. Narratives that say trans women are women, period, that trans people have have 'always' belonged to the sex they would like to become, and that redefine 'woman' from a biological label that rightly says nothing about personality, into a label for vague, subjective feelings and 'gendered' personality traits. Narratives that tell me what my own gender identity is ('cis'). They just don't make sense, and I think they are dangerous for women.

ATEOTD, I see biological women as still a class of people who (being, amongst other things, at risk of violent behaviour from biological men) should still have the right to organise and maintain spaces that are entirely free of male bodies (even those of transwomen) if they want to. A transwoman's desire to be seen as a woman in every possible way despite having intact or modified male physiology doesn't somehow automatically trump that.

I've come to the conclusion that the only way I can resolve this in my mind is to accept that I can't. There are some genuine, difficult, conflicts of interest here. Simply discussing this and not automatically accepting the dominant trans narrative is not some kind of violent hatred of trans people. But it's incredibly hard to debate this sort of thing without getting that type of accusation. Unfortunately that does tend to push the debate and discussion into polarised separate camps, and everyone's language gets stronger and sometimes nastier. But then how to get people talking about these things together if even voicing the idea that biology is still important leads to furious shutting down of all discussion straight away?

Flora
99.9% of people can tell the sex of 99.9% of female or male people

When a baby is born, I am sure that probably an even higher proportion of parents (I don't have actual percentages) would want those percentages to be even higher.

Just imagine your own daughter carrying a child for nine months and then enduring hours of painful labour. After the baby is born, what is the very first question friends and wider family are going to ask?

Just imagine for a moment, the pain and anguish those parents would be going through if the best answer they can give (from a visual inspection).. We don't know for sure.

Even if it is 0.1% of times that baby and those parents are still worthy of love and respect.

ChiefClerkDrumknott
Was it question about a religious person or a person who has been raped requesting only to be examined by a biological woman?

I think we did cover that. You have the right to refuse medical examination from anyone without needing to give a reason.

So my answer is yes. If I found the right question.

The next challenge is how do you certify "absolute biological guaranteed womaness" in order for you as a patient to be able to make that choice.

Lass
I was only joking. I do know what livestock is. I was only pretending to be offended for comic effect. I am sorry if my mock outrage outraged you.

But wait! Perhaps you are now only pretending that you that you actually believed I didn't know what livestock is. So my outrage at your mock outrage at my mock outrage is completely outrageous.

For this I apologise. Unreservedly.

Maybe the solution is for women born with vulvae, uterii and ovaries to start crashing trans woman support groups and talk loudly about menstruation, menopause, endometriosis, abortion etc.

After all, they are all women who experience womanhood the same way, so these discussions will no doubt be welcome and helpful to transwomen

Of course this would never happen BC most women aren't total self involved arseholes who can't stand others having their own space

But to talk about menopause, periods, etc, is 'transphobic' because not all 'women' experience these.

Slow

In that 0.1% of cases, a simple blood tests usually sorts things out for sure.

HTH.

Enjoy your faux outrage, you might want to see a medic about that though, not good for your blood pressure.

Well, if all women are women, than any woman's experience is as valid as another's

If TW can crash feminist meetings to dominate with trans issues, surely it is valid to crash trans groups and talk about menopause

I think we've just about got the full house now

• gender is just like race, really
• are infertile women not women?
• what about intersex people?
• really, what is sex anyway?
• it's all fluid anyway, it's not binary, it's nuanced

I like collecting these propositions . I would like to see some more creative deployment of logical fallacies, though, as there's generally an over reliance on the good old Red Herring and the trusty Straw (trans)Man. Can we try a bit harder to get some in some No True Scotsmen, and maybe even a post hoc, ergo propter hoc? (tongue firmly in cheek).

Slow are you suggesting we should pretend to such parents that their situation is normal and sexual dimorphism is not the norm for human beings?

crappy - I agree! It's shit. And this is part of the problem - it seems that transactivists would have us all agree that the only issues that genuinely effect ALL women, are those that can also effect them. Any talk of issues that they are excluded from, by virtue of that pesky thing called biology (which they are trying so hard to negate as a system of classification), is therefore transphobic. At most, these issues are allowed to effect a sub-group of women, I.E. (excuse me while I vomit into the nearest receptacle) ciswomen.

It is odd, isn't it.

When you consider that the average number of legs human beings have is less than 2, and yet we still know, without being told, that humans are bipedal organisms. Using intersex people to "prove" that trans* is "real" is distasteful for a number of reasons. The main one being that intersex people tend to be really quite firm that they have their own problems and don't want a bunch of people who don't have the condition using them for their own political ends.

If you are incapable of respecting women's voices, then you should at least have the common decency to respect the voices of the people you're using as sticks to beat women with, no?

FreshwaterSelkie, I don't think many biological women are going to accept the transgender activists attempts to coerce people into accepting people who were born with wee-wees as women. And it is coercion when many of these activists demands essentially boil down to "do as we say or we will hurt you/persecute you as a "TERF "bigot""

Slow you are playing silly games now.

Slow
No, you haven't directly answered my question. You've grasped the fact that a patient can refuse anyone but not whether religious/assault grounds would be a good enough excuse to then request a female. Because if you refused a trans woman, the NHS may then refuse you treatment (is what I understood from the poster who explained that). In addition, I asked you several questions before that which were ignored. I also asked if you were going to berate those who threaten 'TERFS' with rape and death in the same way you've berated us for being aggressive and counter productive.

The next challenge is how do you certify "absolute biological guaranteed womaness" in order for you as a patient to be able to make that choice

Not sure what you mean by certify. Do you mean how you classify a biological women or how that biological woman would prove said biology to a patient?

Whatever the reason I would be in favour of people being able to state their preference about which HCP treats them. I also agree that they shouldn't have to give a reason.

Re TERFS etc, absolutely. I think the debate on both sides could be more considerate. I hope I have not been "berating" - just suggesting.

I may be completely wrong. Perhaps the answer is to up the ante even more in terms of anger, aggression and conflict. Who knows? I personally believe there is hardly ever a remedy in condemnation.

RE certify - yes how would you prove biology to a patient. The trained professional has rights as an employee and a person too.

The trained professional does have rights, but those rights are trumped imo by the rights of the person who is having someone else's hand out inside their vagina. The patient has a right to know the sex of the person who is examining them. If the hcp is concealing their real sex from patients, then in this situation it is an assault, as the patient is not able to give informed consent.

Put inside not out inside