General Trans Thread Part 3

[mamamea]

www.adn.com/sports/2016/05/27/at-alaska-state-track-meet-a-transgender-athlete-makes-her-mark/

"Wangyot posted the third-fastest time in the 200 preliminaries and the fifth-fastest time in the 100 preliminaries. The top eight runners advanced to Saturday's finals."

So Wangyot knocked out two girls from their place in the finals.

You wonder if children start transitioning earlier it will actually be fairer for women in the long run? If transgirls are given hormone blockers before puberty maybe the amount of unfairness won't be so bad? Not that I'm advocating hormone blockers but it looks like that's the way things are going these days.

I think in the end we will probably have a situation where the first place is given to a late-transitioner, and second and third to early-transitioners, and actual women come behind that.

There'll always be late-transitioners. (If they have to transition at all, that is - what are the requirements? Do they have to have the testicles removed, or just hormone blockers? Because I could totally see men use the last to get a place in women's competitions.)

I suspect you're right. Late transitioners will likely always exist and I suppose they will also beat early transitioners.

Does anyone know where the medical community stand on this issue? If we aren't allowed to use the terms male and female to refer to two separate biologies where does that leave them? They need accurate terms to be able to treat people properly. Are they going to just ignore the change in meaning in every day life and retain the correct meaning for work purposes or will they be forced to rename the categories? Does anyone know if they have said anything on this issue so far?

I know midwives are changing their terminology (they can't say "mothers" anymore, so it's "people giving birth" or somesuch nonsense), so I'm pretty sure that's what'll happen.

Who can they invite to breast cancer screenings? "People with breasts"? That'd include fat men, who aren't especially at risk.

But what are they going to call the male and female reproductive systems? Type A and Type B?!

And are midwives actually doing this or just being asked to do this and if so is it just in some countries?

And will they just have to change patient information or will every medical text and database have to be rewritten? Will doctors actually accept the erasing of the meanings of male and female? It could cause confusion which might be dangerous. But there again if this is already happening in some places maybe they're all already fine with it?

*consistent declaration of gender identity, their actions, attitudes, dress and mannerisms."

I really wish the school board, required under title ix to prevent any form of discrimination on the basis of sex, would expand on what, in their rulebook, constitutes the actions, attitudes and mannerisms consistent with "girl." If they had to actually define how they're saying girls are supposed to act, think and carry themselves, maybe there would be a better chance of this ideology being recognised for the regressive misogyny that it is.

I would like to see much more use of the question "what does that actually mean?" when phrases like "living as a woman" and "girl's brain" get trotted out. Those ideas can't be expanded on without relying on sexist stereotypes, and I think the best way to draw attention to the inherent sexism of this trend is to continually insist that that kind of terminology is clearly defined.

If the school board said that students will be considered female if they are more interested in fashion than politics, take a submissive social role, and pay careful attention to their personal appearance, they'd find it harder to pretend this is progressive. But what else can "attitudes and mannerisms" mean?

That's awful noodle - where is it from? I can't quite believe that we've got to the stage that we're actually defining the two sexes purely by stereotype.

It's from OP's link. It's the basis on which the subject of the article - a male student - is allowed by the school board to compete against girls.

There's some interesting stuff going on in Massachusetts right now regarding their "Bathroom Bill". It's still going through the legislative process, so it's not clear how it will turn out, but a couple of things have jumped out at me:

• the Attorney General will issue guidance about when an individual can be challenged in a place such as a bathroom without breaching the law

• an amendment proposing to exempt schools, churches and refuges from the legislation was defeated, on the grounds that it would undermine the purpose of the bill

• an amendment designed to require sex offenders to always use the bathroom of their sex at birth was also defeated

Thought I'd read the link article before so just skimmed it but clearly I hadn't. Thanks for pointing that out!

I know midwives are changing their terminology (they can't say "mothers" anymore, so it's "people giving birth" or somesuch nonsense), so I'm pretty sure that's what'll happen.

Belaboring the Point

The Snopes analysis actually confirms that US midwives have changed their terminology, despite claiming that the rumour is untrue.

Thanks for that link Bumbledumb - what's your opinion?

I would tend to be in favour of inclusive language in customer/patient focused communications but wonder if the erasure of the meanings of "male" and "female" could ever really work in the medical field in general. I know some countries are partially down this path already and am keen to find out how they're handling these issues. That article is interesting in highlighting how no evidence was given before making claims that trans people demanded the change. But now that the issue has arisen trans people are behind calls to make language more inclusive.

I think that a professional body for midwives in the US has started talking about "people" giving birth rather than "women". That's not happening at all in UK AFAIK.

I think that a professional body for midwives in the US has started talking about "people" giving birth rather than "women". That's not happening at all in UK

... yet.

It is being done, and unless there are some significant changes in people's readiness to cater to trans rather than respect women, it will spread.

And another man steals victory from a woman, this time in cycling.

gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mountain-bike-groundhog-day-as-male-rider-sylvia-castaneda-sweeps-womens-division-of-vittoria-eastern-states-cup/

Women participants are going to have to start boycotting ever single event where an "I feels I am a woman" male takes part. Then he/she can be the only one taking part. That is the only thing that will force organisations, sponsors etc. to realise what a stupid silly position they are putting themselves in. Oh and perhaps links like these should be forwarded to Maria Miller.

Yes, I agree VestalVirgin. Not saying it won't happen, just saying it's not currently the case. I know organisations working in the realm of reproductive rights have been coming under increasing pressure here to use the language of "people with wombs", "pregnant people" etc. AFAIK, most organisations are managing to resist the pressure to erase women but I'm sure some will cave in at some point.

I agree. Women have GOT to start standing up to this.

This is encouraging - women standing up to a pro choice organisation falling over themselves to be trans inclusive

m.facebook.com/notes/nikki-craft/naral-pro-choice-oregon-censoring-critics-and-selling-out-women/233814927001960/

All the women need to boycott the event. It's not fair.

Stardustlady. Let's take one of the comments on that page as an example:

"Apparently women aren't important enough for even The National Abortion Rights Action League to focus on anymore.: Transwomen do not have pregnancies or abortions. And their rights are not under attack."

Trans women do not see themselves as men. When NARAL say that even men must have access to abortions, how are they accommodating trans women?

Trans men have female biology. They may get pregnant and may need access to abortion. Do you deny that? Do you think that a person who identifies as a man, but has female sexual organs can't get pregnant because men don't get pregnant?

Is the link to the original article on the page stardustlady linked to?

There is a link to NARAL's facebook page, where they shared an article about using gender-inclusive language in abortion services. The article in question is here.