'Because biology' is not a good argument

[spannablue]

A good summary of why the 'I have a PhD in science' gamete argument is redundant:

rosieswayne.blogspot.com/?m=1

'...I don’t know what it’s like to be trans, but I do have the relatable experience of having something integral to my life called into question “because biology”.

My adopted son is my son. I know it, he knows it, it is an unshakable truth to us. Yes, it is possible for a child to have two mothers. No, this is not because I ‘identify’ as being the actual person who gave birth to him and/or believe the sperm was conjured up with pure lesbian enthusiasm. But our children have two mothers and we have two sons - this is a reality, and we expect the same legal protection and respect as any other family.

However, if we apply “because biology” to my family (and there are plenty who are keen to), it isn’t actually a family at all - we’re just a couple of single mothers with bastard only children in an unusually cosy house-share situation.

Luckily for us, we live in a time and place where the law actively protects our family from this wilfully ham-fisted interpretation of how biology relates to actual human people. It is not something we take for granted.'

This is a false equivalency and most people will see it that way.

My husband’s mother died when he was an infant after a short illness. He had a new mother forced on him 3 months later, a semi-organised marriage through the church. He had to call her mum and continue to pretend she was his mother, despite remembering his own. He could not speak too much about his actual mother, or it upset the new mother. If others spoke of his mother, she was always referred to as ‘natural mother’ while the new mother was now ‘Mum’. The biological Mum was now given a different name, in order to prioritise the feelings of the new Mum, over those of the children. Denying reality caused my husband enormous harm, pain and almost complete memory loss of his own mother and their relationship. It denied him his rights, to know where he came from and to know about and connect with a significant part of what made him who he is.

Pretending adopted children don’t have biological parents, would be hugely damaging.

I suppose the equivalent would be if an adopted child was being medically assessed, the doctor asking for the child's genetic history and the adoptive parents saying "OMG it is literal violence to suggest our child doesn't share our genetic history

Yes ^ this is the analogy here.

What a load of nonsense. You still presumably accept that there are two definitions of mother in your case, the biological mother and the adoptive mother.

The same applies to a woman in that there is a biological woman and a trans woman. The two can never be the same thing, no matter how much of you you chop up and how many pills you take.

But your sons will legally be able to access the information about their actual biology at 18 and contact their father's if they wish. Presumably as they get older you will give them the scientifically correct information about their biological heritage in age appropriate ways. Thus the "lies" about their biology/parenting that you are currently telling them are on par with father Christmas or the tooth fairy... They do no harm, add fun, happiness, magic (and in the case of adoption stability and understanding) to their lives, but in reality we all know it's not actually scientifically possible!

It takes a sperm and an ova to make the baby - cos biology

The words 'son' and 'daughter' can be used by biological or adoptive parents - cos society.

People are either male or female - cos biology

People can have what ever identity they choose - cos society

There are immutable and life long differences between the sexes - cos biology. No amount of believing otherwise will change this.

I, for instance, can't identify as Queen Elizabeth's oldest daughter and then expect to become queen.

To be fair, neither can the biological oldest daughter...

It's an argument which feminists reject.

When you're looking at 'parent' as a social role, you're going to talk about the things that parents do for their children, the things they should do for their children, their legal responsibilities to their children. Parent is an actual role that you perform, a job that you carry out. You can't define 'woman in a social sense' in the same way. Not just as a feminist, but generally as a sane person.

On the other hand, if you do try to do this, it has to be anti-feminist, because if you are defining woman in the same way as you are defining a parent, it has to be about what women do for other people, how they relate to children, how they relate to men.

'Womanning' as a job.

spannablue, somebody who adopts a child is not claiming to have given birth to a child, they are taking on the legal role and responsibility of being a parent.

This is not analogous to being female. You can parent, but you can’t ‘woman’.

X post!

This is not analogous to being female. You can parent, but you can’t ‘woman’

This ^

You adopted him? Biologically you're not his birth mother. In legal and practical terms you are though. No amount of wishing or drugs or surgery could make you his birth mother, no matter how fab an adopted mother you are, or how much you love him. It is what it is, it shouldn't impact on your relationship now.

Just as men born men are men, no matter how much they wish otherwise.

Your point has made me think about what seperates "mothers" from "fathers", other than biology and stereotypes, mothers are more caring and nuturing by nature (yet when men act in more feminine ways they get flack from other men and sometimes women, 50+ years ago a man would often have been mortified to be seen pushing a pram etc).

*"You are his mother though"

This whole post is a mess.

If you adopt a child and raise it, you're a parent. Not the biological parent, but equaly as much as a parent. The biological difference is known by the law, the adoptive parents and society no matter the sex of the adoptive parents.

An analogy would be a woman who plans to adopt demanding to be let into to labour training courses, while taking a place another woman would need. And after the adoption, without even trying to lactate, going into breastfeeding groups/courses while the child is breastfed. This is how TRAs look like with their demands.

I believe that the advice with adopted children is to be very open with them about the fact that they are not biologically yours isn't it? Same with children who are born from egg or sperm donors?

Because that is the reality of the situation and the child deserves to know the reality. Because denying reality almost always leads to all sorts of fucks ups further down the line.

And after the adoption, without even trying to lactate, going into breastfeeding groups/courses while the child is bottlefed* This is how TRAs look like with their demands.

I suppose the equivalent would be if an adopted child was being medically assessed, the doctor asking for the child's genetic history and the adoptive parents saying "OMG it is literal violence to suggest our child doesn't share our genetic history

Also this.

From what I recall from the 'transman refusing to fill in the mother box on their kid's birth certificate' debacle - an adoptive mother is not legally a mother but a parent. Only the person who did the actual gestating and birthing is the mother, legally speaking.

Historically men have always been interested in the making and having of children, and less so the raising. Childcare was womens work and responsibility, yet these same women were often at the mercy of their husbands and how much money they would allow them etc. It was much harder for them to work or earn, and near impossible once they'd married or had children. No contraception, marital rape was legal and socially acceptable, if not expected, so family planning out of their control. Women were often basically skivvies/brood mares, while their husbands worked 9-5, and did what they liked the rest of the day and spent their money how they liked. If a woman were to get pregnant out of wedlock, her and her child would be social lepors and likely destitute. Maybe a small fine or payment could be gotten from the man, but often he'd get away scott free. Such shitty, hypocritical, lazy oppression, for 1000's of years. All because of our biology. The same biology that now has nothing to do with being a woman?

That article is a car crash and even the "point" about adoption is just an in to plough out the usual GF bollocks.
Don't people like this get it ... the problem isn't transgender the problem is self ID and how it will be abused. And already is being abused. Oh and nicely brushed over women's refuges too.
Although her talk of "misinformation " was a nice irony.

Why does the trans narrative constantly... constantly!... call on analogies and make these huge false equivalences!

It almost as if it has no substantive logic to its own arguments, eh?

An adoption certificate doesn’t eradicate any hereditary conditions a child may have inherited from their biological parents, nor does it make their organs more compatible for transplants with their legal parents.

Also; you can’t self ID as a parent. You can’t just take a kid and say it’s yours. There’s a long process of gate-keeping.

It amuses me how biology never matters until it’s ‘actually sweety, clownfish change sex mmmkay so my dick is literally female?’

‘actually sweety, clownfish change sex mmmkay so my dick is literally female?’

😂

Nice try OP. But no.