Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

To think that women should not be referred to as menstruators and pregnant people?

380 replies

FRETGNIKCUF · 04/09/2016 07:34

*This is a thread about the impact trans activism is having on women. This is the beginning.

Don't read on if you're going to whine about another trans thread.*

Julian Vigo (@lubelleludotcom on Twitter) wrote the following.

There is a war on women, folks. The transgender lobby has gone down the rabbit hole by refusing to acknowledge that women's lives and bodies not only matter, but that they are real. Instead women's bodies have become the simulacra in an extended theatre of male entitlement (to be women while telling women to STFU) or they are rendered an extension of male subjectivity such that we now see hairy transmen's female bodies breastfeeding, the only form of female body hair that would ever be allowed in Time magazine.

And now for the latest: we are being called "menstruators" by the same right-wing discourse which seeks to remove the mention of woman from women's healthcare across the USA (ie. now many providers have been pressured to remove the term woman and write instead "pregnant person.") It is as if the last 100 years of women's rights had never occured.

The ironies are multiple. Here you have a group which claims its own marginalisation while working steadily to marginalise an already marginalised group, women. Then you have a group of female people who by virtue of the current transgender identity doxa necessitates "gender dysphoria," yet paradoxically adheres to—and even embraces—the real and symbolic thrust of much of what the female body actually is and produces, a complete opposition to gender dysphoria. Therein lies the greatest contradiction which, not surprisingly, once again holds women hostage: woman is symbolic for those who emulate her, woman is only acceptable inasmuch as she recognises males as females, and women are now relegated to "non-males" by political parties, as "pregnant humans" and "menstruators" by females who reject their bodies yet who hold out for the double-bind of gender in this theatre of cruelty where only a [sic] "man" can truly understood pregnancy, breastfeeding, and motherhood.

The only parallel I can think of is if the KKK were to insist that the Black Panthers stop calling themselves "black", demand that their white hoods be viewed as black, assert that only white people know what it is like to experience life as a black person, and then turn around and maintain that black people are just a group of entitled, bio-essentialist racists.

OP posts:
IfTheCapFitsWearIt · 05/09/2016 00:02

NotAnotherHarlot thank you for posting the the government response to the womens and equalities committee.

An interesting read, but I still need to digest it. Lots I need to reread.

Bambambini · 05/09/2016 00:24

Scientific tangible proof, a transwoman's brain wave pattern more matches Cis women, not men before transitioning. That's how! Science. Fact.

Bambambini · 05/09/2016 00:25

what about the thousands of cases where there finding women with a Y chromosomes and men with XX chromosomes?

CoteDAzur · 05/09/2016 00:25

"Biology and how we see the old sex binary has changed, science proves this."

Most mammals including humans are sexually dimorphic. That hasn't changed in a million years and isn't likely to change anytime soon.

That is what "science proves".

CoteDAzur · 05/09/2016 00:30

"a transwoman's brain wave pattern more matches Cis women, not men before transitioning. "

It wouldn't be surprising if there is indeed some marker in a male brain that imagines itself 'female'. Obviously there is a difference to the typical male brain. I don't know what you think that proves.

IfTheCapFitsWearIt · 05/09/2016 00:35

bambino

There has been many more scientific researches done. That discredits the' 'science facts' that you state.

I don't have tbe links myself but someone has posted links quite a few time of the latest papers.

With any luck they may post them again to enlighten you.

Bambambini · 05/09/2016 00:38

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6494820

CoteDAzur · 05/09/2016 00:45

"thousands of cases where there finding women with a Y chromosomes and men with XX chromosomes?"

It is an anomaly, an abnormal development of the organism. Surely you know this.

Among 7 billion people, a couple of thousand whose hormones/genitals have not worked/developed as they should is hardly front page news. And estimated 14 million people are born with an extra finger/toe. An estimated 230,000 people have stumps for hands or missing fingers. An estimated 2.8 million people were born blind.

AND STILL the human race NORMALLY has 10 fingers and 10 toes AND can see.

No doubt you know where I'm going with this.

JudyCoolibar · 05/09/2016 00:45

Gosh, if only there were two words to distinguish between the 50% of the population who can get pregnant and the 50% who can produce sperm

If you need one word specifically to describe those members of the population who can get pregnant, then "woman" doesn't do it. And in practice only around 28% of the population can get pregnant.

CoteDAzur · 05/09/2016 00:49

Well done with your links, Bambini Star

It is not at all surprising that there should be a physiological problem underlying trans* dysphoria. As I said before.

Brains of people with schizophrenia are different. Anorexic people's brains are different. It is not at all surprising that the male brains who believe their to be/should be female are different than typical male brains.

JudyCoolibar · 05/09/2016 00:51

Interestingly, the government response to the Women and Equality Committee report has this to say on the subject of transgender people in sport:

"Guidance makes clear that it is important that a “transsexual person be treated as belonging to the sex in which they present (as opposed to the sex they were born with) unless there is evidence that they have an unfair advantage, or there is a risk to the safety of competitors which might occur in some close contact sports.”

CoteDAzur · 05/09/2016 00:53

Judy - Dictionaries are wonderful things. I invite you to look at any dictionary and find the following definitions:

Woman = Adult human female

Female: OF the sex that CAN bear young or make eggs.

Note that the definition talks of being "OF" the sex that "CAN" make babies.

An infertile or menopausal woman is still OF the female sex which is the sex that CAN make babies.

And a male is always OF the sex that CAN make sperm.

WinchesterWoman · 05/09/2016 01:15

So what is the definition Bambini? My definition is the one Cote gave. What are your definitions of woman and man?

You would need to be able to show that women and trans women all share a common feature that is both necessary to prove womanhood and on its own is enough to prove womanhood. Same with men and transmen.

Do share.

Bambambini · 05/09/2016 01:54

Not my words but This explains it well.

Treating genitals as synonymous with “physical sex” does a disservice to both biology and terminology. Physical sex is a broad concept that encompasses many sex-differentiated features of the body. It’s not as if we have no evidently sexed features until we take our pants off. And this also doesn’t actually reflect the common understanding of what it means to be trans. If physical sex were defined by the genitals, then a trans woman who has genital reconstruction would then have both a gender and a “physical sex” that are considered female. Would that mean she’s not trans anymore?

This sharp separation of “physical sex” and “gender” reflects a flawed belief that our physical sex is constant regardless of our gender. It serves as an excuse to regard us as still being male. We often hear well-meaning people describe trans women with phrases such as “their physical sex is male and their gender is female”. Unfortunately, not-so-well-meaning people tend to hear this as “man who thinks he’s a woman”.

Illustrating our gender as being limited to the mind suggests that it’s all in our heads, as if it’s a mere whim that can’t be seen or felt, and probably isn’t that important anyway. The isolation of our gender from our physical sex gives the impression that the physical changes of transitioning are irrelevant, and that we’re just forever “male” regardless of whether our bodies reflect that.

Scientific facts: the “delusion” delusion

When we question the labeling of trans women as “male”, we’re often told that this is simply a “scientific fact”, and disputing this would mean engaging in a “delusion” or “denying reality”. But none of these things are actually the case. It’s not a scientific fact that our bodies are male. It’s a fact that a penis is a penis, and XY chromosomes are XY chromosomes. But calling these things “male” is a choice of terminology.

A label isn’t even in the same ballpark as an empirical finding – there are no scientific papers with conclusions along the lines of “therefore, we have found strong evidence that people with penises are male”. And there are no aspects of biology that depend on labeling these features as “male”. If we referred to penises and XY chromosomes as female, would that actually require revising or overturning any physical facts or scientific findings? No. Would it mean denying that a trans woman’s penis is a penis and a trans woman’s vagina is a vagina? No.

We’re only “delusional” to those who fail to differentiate between a state of reality and the categories we use to describe this. Revising a map does nothing to change the underlying territory. Trans people know this, but transphobes seem to struggle with it – really, who’s deluding themselves here?

Brushing up on biology

The broad description of trans women’s bodies as “male” ignores many facts about physical sexual characteristics. The presence of XY chromosomes is often cited as a justification to mark our bodies as irrevocably male, but features of physical sex are hardly limited to XX or XY. Some of this may simply be due to a lack of understanding of how the expression of sex characteristics actually works.

The reality is that almost everyone has both testosterone and estrogen in their bodies, and almost everyone’s cells are capable of responding to a deficit or surplus of these hormones. Estrogen activates estrogen receptors, and this leads to the expression of certain genes that ultimately produce secondary sex characteristics such as breast growth, softer skin, reduced body hair, greater fat storage, and less muscle than that produced by testosterone. Again, almost everyone has these genes regardless of gender and regardless of sex chromosomes. This is why hormone therapy works for trans people: changing the balance of sex hormones produces the desired physical changes.

When these concepts are misunderstood, it can lead to some pretty ridiculous arguments. Transphobes often claim that we’ll never have XX chromosomes, not realizing that their presence or absence makes no practical difference when it comes to transitioning. We’re described as having “hormonally-grown breasts” by those who don’t understand that all breast development is due to hormones in trans women and cis women alike. This is like calling a grown man “really a child” who’s only “cosmetically adult” because of “hormonally-induced puberty”. The changes in our bodies are called “superficial”, “cosmetic” and “artificial” by those who don’t realize that we’re making use of the same biological pathways of development as cis people.

Outdated models: chosen to serve transphobia

Picking one feature that lends itself to labeling our bodies as “male” becomes a rather suspect choice when the rest of our bodies indicates otherwise. And if you’re only calling trans women “male” because you’ve chosen only to look at the parts that allow you to call trans women “male”, that’s circular. It isn’t a firmly established scientific argument – it’s a last resort.

Calling trans women “male” is often an intentional choice meant to promote public fear and advance discriminatory laws. Claims that “males” will be able to use women’s restrooms serve to associate us with crimes committed by cis men, treating us as if we’re a threat because of what cis men have done. The term “male” is used here because transphobes know that if they said “trans women,” their argument wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. They’ve grouped us under the same umbrella based on a shared feature that trans women explicitly disavow and actively work to move away from. But transphobes don’t care about that, because “allowing males in women’s restrooms” evokes suspicion and discomfort in every way that “allowing women in women’s restrooms” doesn’t.

Trans women are female

Many people don’t like it when trans women call ourselves female because it undermines the forms of transphobia that rely on thinking of us as men. It takes away that asterisk and removes one of the ways of marking us as less legitimate in our womanhood. It dissolves the arguments that link us to cis men based on this one tenuous, dishonest connection.

For some, calling us “male” is just an innocent mistake and it doesn’t come from a bad place. For others, it’s not so innocent. But no matter the reason, stop and think about what you’re doing. Trans women being “male” is not a fact. It’s just a really thoughtless thing to say.

Bambambini · 05/09/2016 02:06

And Paris Lees explains it better than i can. Our young people and children are more aware and accepting of all this.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/paris-lees-dear-ian-mcewan-your-ideas-about-penises-are-outdated/

user1472515172 · 05/09/2016 02:31

If physical sex were defined by the genitals, then a trans woman who has genital reconstruction would then have both a gender and a “physical sex” that are considered female. Would that mean she’s not trans anymore?

This is bizarre - does the writer understand the difference between a vagina and a neo-vagina? It would appear not and that's really worrying.

A label isn’t even in the same ballpark as an empirical finding – there are no scientific papers with conclusions along the lines of “therefore, we have found strong evidence that people with penises are male”

Again, this is really bizarre. It's like saying that there's no evidence that people with dark skin are dark skinned: "male" is literally the word that means "of the class that has penises." That's literally what it means - no evidence is required, it's simply a descriptor. What's really interesting is that the writer is the one who seems to be attaching a value judgement the word "male" and its association with penises.

The whole thing is quite sad TBH. The desperation and overwhelming self hatred of the writer are horribly clear. I hope they find a resolution.

BeyondASpecialSnowflake · 05/09/2016 02:55

Paris Lees is a shining example of womanhood...

BeyondASpecialSnowflake · 05/09/2016 02:56

/sarcasm

Just in case that wasn't clear.

WinchesterWoman · 05/09/2016 05:33

No just a nice short definition, not an essay. A definition. 'A woman is..'

Thanks.

(Damn insomnia.)

nooka · 05/09/2016 06:09

Bambambini that cut and paste does not 'explain it well' it just illustrates some really delusional thinking. Why on earth would there be scientific papers establishing what is known fact? No one would get funding for a study to prove that male organisms (after all we are not just talking people here) are male. It is established fact. If it wasn't we would struggle to reproduce - all of us were produced by a male and a female. Not by someone who thinks they are a man and someone who thinks they are a woman. That may be a very difficult thing for those with dysphoria to accept, but it is none the less true.

Paris Lee appears to think that being female is purely about passing as a woman. So essentially the line Paris takes is that if you are pretty and effeminate you are female (seems a bit unfair on those transwomen who are too tall or too male looking to pass). I would say that the model used as an example may not be like very many men, but they are also not like any woman that I know, because they have a penis. Also to me the photographs show someone who is androgynous, not someone who is obviously female. Put them in a suit and they would look like a pretty boy. Hormonal treatment and feminising surgery do not make a male into a female.

Again with the references to intersex people there is little to no cross over. Of course there are individuals who have variants on the normal combinations of genes, gonads and genitals, but these are unusual (1-2% of the population) and also have little to no cross over with the trans community. Interestingly there is a movement to change the terminology from intersex to disorders of sex development. I wonder if this was to happen if trans activists would want the association?

WinchesterWoman · 05/09/2016 06:23

Hi there Bambini I'm not sure I explained myself well. What you have posted is an (attempted) justification of a new definition. I was hoping for the definition itself. So the marker that says 'this shows that I am a woman, and I have this in common with all other women'

Without the definition, the justification you took the trouble to write out doesn't have a 'peg' to hang on.

I think if you want to get rid of an old definition you have to be able to articulate the new definition, then justify it to the satisfaction of those you are wanting to redefine. But first you must, must have the new definition ready. Otherwise the justification is pointless.

FreshwaterSelkie · 05/09/2016 06:39

there are no scientific papers with conclusions along the lines of “therefore, we have found strong evidence that people with penises are male”

Are you honestly saying that the most basic fact of humans, that we are a sexually dimorphic species is now to be disregarded? Seriously??

As for "brain sex", it honestly boggles me when women support this kind of stuff. Not because it's been about as thoroughly discredited as can be, but because if it were true, then it just gives support to every sexist piece of shit who wants pink brained people back in the kitchen making sandwiches where they bloody well belong. Women have spent hundreds of years fighting against the notion that our biology and our brains make us lesser, but now, suddenly, the progressive thing to do is to chuck all that under the bus for some dodgy pseudo science? No. No. NO.

Bambambini · 05/09/2016 07:13

The transhopbia is strong in this site. Be an ally , not a wally.