Can someone please explain... (trans)

[WednesdayAllTheWay]

So I've been trying to follow this trans situation for a while but now having skin in the game in the form of a child (and also noting through work how more and more people are identifying as the opposite gender) I need to understand it better.
Feel slightly embarrassed asking but:

1. How exactly do the words sex and gender differ in this area?
2. What reasons do trans people give for wanting to change their physical bodies? As in what do people believe they will get from this that they couldn't get in the body they were born with?
3. What are children being taught at school about this?

Thanks!

And when I talk about ‘over half my life’, I mean from age 15 when I started full time work (because as a female I was part of the general social conditioning that females don’t need education) to late 40s. So, like many women on this thread, a veritable lifetime of employment and education discrimination based around the fact we have the ability to gestate another human.

I am amazed by some of the views here the UK is not Utah and this is not the 1650.

Oh I know right - women wanting to be able to define themselves on their own terms rather than by what men tell them a woman is, and wanting to retain their own sex based rights is just like, soooooooo 1650.

We need to get with the modern times, where women are defined by men, as they have always been, and women must at all times be in thrall to the inner feelings of men and what they desire, without ever letting their own feelings of comfort or dignity ever get in the way.

Well of course you think that. I'm a trans woman - the default position on this forum is that I am therefore pretty much every kind of awful - a pervert, a racist, a mentally deluded abuser, gaslighter, rape apologist or indeed actual rapist

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? The utterly false assertion that anyone who has a different opinion or raises the slightest discussion point must think all of the above. It’s patently untrue.

I don’t think you’re any of those things obviously. I don’t think all the natal men who are prevented from entering female single sex toilets are all rapists or perverts either. Single sex facilities are there to reduce risk and to provide dignity and privacy to women - ie people of the female sex.

I don’t think you believe what you say either - that we all think you’re a rapist, etc. You use it as so many do to stifle discussion and to manufacture nastiness when you’ve failed to receive any. Ultimately, it’s an own goal.

You can have any identity you want, but to identify isn’t to be. You can’t identify into an oppressed group or re-define the name and meaning of that group. And I don’t understand why you’d want to.

All this ‘new activism’ has done is drive a wedge between women and trans women where previously there was none. That aspect makes me just as upset as the attempt to redefine my sex class.

But here we have it though. For all that we're told that of course biological sex exists and of course no male person actually says or believes they are actually female and ohh aren't we silly little ladies for getting ourselves all hysterical over wanting to be able to define ourselves, there it is. A complete and utter refusal to accept reality.

(Either that or we're being trolled. I wouldn't like to speculate though what with it being against talk guidelines)

To me, a trans woman would be a woman who is trans. I fit into that category, but I'm not allowed to call myself a trans woman. Why is that? I thought I was allowed to identify however I want.

Of course you can.

You are a woman (noun) and you fall under the umbrella category trans (adjective). You are perfectly entitled to self-describe as a woman who is trans.

After all, it would be dreadfully phobic to deny female women the right to self-definition, and terribly sexist to only allow male trans women to use both these words concurrently and yet insist female trans women choose between adjective and noun.

And thanks also for pointing out exactly one reason why a male identifying as a woman (or as a female as one this thread) will never understand the actualities of being female..

Agreed. Also, as a woman who doesn't have children but who has never ruled out the possibility of having them, I will say that maternity leave has always been a factor (never the main factor but always a factor) as to whether I change jobs or not. I have, for instance decided not to risk taking a sideways step in the hope that it might help my career because I know that if I were to start a family, I would have to start at the beginning in terms of maternity pay and leave. In companies I've worked at maternity pay tends to improve the longer you've worked there. Consequently, that's always been a reason for staying in my current role unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to switching roles that outweighed the maternity pay issue.

I think I can't be the only woman who thinks in these terms, so it would not be surprising to me if women have a tendency to switch jobs less and take fewer risks for a role that may or may not pan out. This might be a factor in the gender pay gap (though I'm just speculating).

Obviously there are women who know for certain they never want children or who know they cannot bear their own children. However, for women who do want children, this affects them in a way that will never, ever affect men who want children or mtf transitioners. It's just not a consideration for them.

Outright discrimination against mtf transitioners who 'pass' is of course a problem, but discrimination is not the only reason (perhaps not even the main reason) why women tend to occupy lower paid positions in the workplace.

I don’t think you believe what you say either - that we all think you’re a rapist, etc. You use it as so many do to stifle discussion and to manufacture nastiness when you’ve failed to receive any. Ultimately, it’s an own goal.

Yup. But not quite as much an own goal as to then assert that showering and undressing teenage girls should not have any right to privacy from certain humans in possession of a Y chromosome.

To be clear Datun.

Datun
Positrans

Judging by what you have asserted on this thread, I'm assuming you believe that male sexed individuals should have the right to use the communal changing rooms and showers as my teenage daughter?

Positrans No, but I think it's OK for trans women to use them.

I think this is so illuminating in where these conversations falter. This poster is arguing from the point of view that 'male sexed individuals' seems not to apply to ALL transwomen. Or to be equally clear in definition, humans with bodies that have been born with functions based solely around producing small gametes (whether they successfully produce small gametes or not). Or have I read the inference of this post incorrectly.

Because there seems to be some misinformation about 'females' and sex being a spectrum to be able to explain one of those born to produce small gametes being able to be described as a female because ....

It did feel that the answer you received was meant to be some kind of 'goal' but as you say, it was definitely an own goal.

Just like the assertion that a sexual partner has no right or need to know the sex the person they are about to engage in sexual intercourse with.

Is there a lack of knowledge safeguarding and consent at play? Or is it something else?

Or to be equally clear in definition, humans with bodies that have been born with functions based solely around producing small gametes (whether they successfully produce small gametes or not). being categorised as 'male sexed' (and that this is never going to change despite medicalisation changing a minuscule portion of noticeable 'male' sex characteristics) .

Just needed to fix that sentence.

I think this is so illuminating in where these conversations falter.

And it's proof that many of us were right when we said 'If we concede woman then female is next.'

In the interests of getting our point across, since "female" is a useless word when conversing with someone who denies its common meaning, refuses to offer analternative, and insists on using it anyway:

Should assigned-male-at-birth people have the right to shower with assigned-female-at-birth people?

Should adults with penises have the right to shower with adolescents with vaginas?

Should people at risk of forced impregnation be permitted space away from those with the capacity to impregnate?

Should people with the physical vulnerabilities resulting from egg-producer bodies be forced to shower alongside people with the capacity to overpower and rape that arises within sperm-producer bodies?

Should people who do not produce eggs be allowed to self-describe as egg-producers?

@TyroTerf

I think this is so illuminating in where these conversations falter.

And it's proof that many of us were right when we said 'If we concede woman then female is next.'

In the interests of getting our point across, since "female" is a useless word when conversing with someone who denies its common meaning, refuses to offer analternative, and insists on using it anyway:

Should assigned-male-at-birth people have the right to shower with assigned-female-at-birth people?

Should adults with penises have the right to shower with adolescents with vaginas?

Should people at risk of forced impregnation be permitted space away from those with the capacity to impregnate?

Should people with the physical vulnerabilities resulting from egg-producer bodies be forced to shower alongside people with the capacity to overpower and rape that arises within sperm-producer bodies?

Should people who do not produce eggs be allowed to self-describe as egg-producers?

It would appear that the answer to that is, under no circumstances, unless they say so.

Catchy.

This poster is arguing from the point of view that 'male sexed individuals' seems not to apply to ALL transwomen.

In response to a poster who said:
I actually have no problem with people like Rose of Dawn or Blaire White. They recognise that they are biologically male who are more comfortable presenting as women.

Positrans replied:
those people have outlier views that don't represent the vast majority of trans people

So Positrans seems to believe in magical sex changes which actually change a man into a woman in a real, physical, biological way, and believes that this is how 'most' transgender people think.

An older transwoman used to post on here occasionally, who said that before having GRS, the doctors had to be convinced that the person understood that this operation wouldn't literally change their sex, and was a cosmetic procedure only. When did that change, and the idea of literal, magical sex changes become the dominant belief?

Should people who do not produce eggs be allowed to self-describe as egg-producers?

No.... this one does not work as it captures other women which is what some of the posters have tried to do to equivalate their interpretation of sex.

Should people who do not have the body designed to produce eggs be allowed to self-describe as egg-producers? maybe???

It is ridiculous isn't it? I am sure that readers of this thread can see how difficult it becomes when the meaning (in science and medicine and conveyed by law) word 'female' is changed into something meaningless.

Some people want their bodies to be discussed by function to be inclusive (ie. Cervix havers). To convey the message to communicate safeguarding and other major impacts, on this thread we are reduced to using long science based definitions*.

This is because some posters cannot call themselves 'male' but cannot understand (or will not? that could be true too) there are very specific and very important reasons that they cannot be described as females. There is no spectrum of sexes.* No person is 'more male' than another male. How cruel would you have to be to believe that someone with a medical issue is 'less than'?

And again for clarity: Sex is described as binary because there are two* - large and small gamete producers (whether our bodies do this or not). It is not argued by developmental biologist and the like that sex is binary using the maths binary interpretation of either / or. Within each sex there is a huge spectrum of body variations. And all people with these variations fit into either male or female. Even those with some cells that are of the other sex which is incredibly rare. This is another reason why the articles positrans has posted are not evidence based.

This is another reason why the articles positrans has posted are not evidence based.

But I look forward to seeing those that are evidence based and argue based on their being a third type of gamete produced which would disprove the centuries of evidential research.

An older transwoman used to post on here occasionally, who said that before having GRS, the doctors had to be convinced that the person understood that this operation wouldn't literally change their sex, and was a cosmetic procedure only. When did that change, and the idea of literal, magical sex changes become the dominant belief?

When did Stonewall change the definition of transsexual to include all sorts of things, including cross dressing?

Maybe I should also reframe my question. Positrans what evidence do you have that those born with prostates and potentially capable all going well of producing sperm but who identify as potential egg havers, ovary owners etc are less dangerous to actual egg havers, ovary owners etc than any other prostate owner, potentially sperm producer etc?

@9toenails

"I refer to you, a transwoman, as a transwoman. I also refer to seahorses as seahorses. Is a seahorse a horse? No."

That's exactly the argument I use when referred to as a "trans-identified male".

"Meaning is a normative notion: that is, there is a getting-it-right and a getting-it-wrong about what a word means."

However, if a word is widely enough used for that thing, then that becomes the name of that thing. See your previous point about words defined by usage. "Villain" for example, used to mean something akin to "villager" but now, through common usage, means something more like "scoundrel". You would contend that the first people to use it to mean scoundrel were using it "wrongly", however, they are now using it correctly.

"Use can determine different meanings, sometimes for the same word. Distinctions may need to be drawn."

Indeed, which is why I am a "trans" woman and not a "forbidden word" woman. I am also an English-speaking woman and various other kinds of woman that distinguish me from, or link me to, many other women.

Also note, that this use of "transwoman" rather than "trans woman" is almost exclusive to transphobes. Almost everyone else uses the latter.

Why is transwoman considered transphobic, but trans woman not?

(Given that those who transition to present externally as if they are women are not the same as people who are adults that were born female)

“Almost everyone else uses the latter.” Can you quantify that please, Positrans? I’ve seen many a person not even know if it means MTF or FTM let alone realise that some people use two words and others, one, never mind understand the connotations.

No.... this one does not work as it captures other women which is what some of the posters have tried to do to equivalate their interpretation of sex

I know; I was wondering if Posi would spot the odd one out.

Perhaps better phrased as: should those who are not of the egg-bearing class be allowed to identify as infertile egg-bearers?

I already know that Posi thinks "infertile people" is a reproductive class. I'd like to know if infertile people who were born with vaginas should be allowed to shower in peace, or whether infertile people born with penises should have the right to have override the privacy, dignity and safety concerns of infertile people born with vaginas.

I'd also like to know how a subgroup of people sharing the trait "infertile" can be said to form a reproductive class - has "infertile" been repurposed to mean "fertile, but not in the way I want to be"?

Because one suggests that trans is not an adjective applied to woman, suggesting that a transwoman may not actually be a type of woman

Some don't mind because it acknowledges them as they are.
Others mind because it acknowledges they are not actually ( except in a few cases legally but never biologically ) women

Just wanted to briefly go back to this assertion

“Well of course you think that. I'm a trans woman - the default position on this forum is that I am therefore pretty much every kind of awful - a pervert, a racist, a mentally deluded abuser, gaslighter, rape apologist or indeed actual rapist”

I haven’t reported it, and I won’t, but this is a sweeping generalistion, which is not allowed under the talk guidelines. Nobody here has said anything of the sort, and given how much time we spend discussing nuance here, it’s at best a very ungenerous framing of the debate.

This is also a sweeping generalistion, and it’s been explained very well upthread the racist way in which it’s often deployed.

“Also note, that this use of "transwoman" rather than "trans woman" is almost exclusive to transphobes. Almost everyone else uses the latter”.

I am not transphobic, and my feminism is trans inclusive in that in includes transmen, as they are of the female sex and so potentially in need of protections in law and society that female people have and need.

[quote Positrans]@9toenails

"I refer to you, a transwoman, as a transwoman. I also refer to seahorses as seahorses. Is a seahorse a horse? No."

That's exactly the argument I use when referred to as a "trans-identified male".

"Meaning is a normative notion: that is, there is a getting-it-right and a getting-it-wrong about what a word means."

However, if a word is widely enough used for that thing, then that becomes the name of that thing. See your previous point about words defined by usage. "Villain" for example, used to mean something akin to "villager" but now, through common usage, means something more like "scoundrel". You would contend that the first people to use it to mean scoundrel were using it "wrongly", however, they are now using it correctly.

"Use can determine different meanings, sometimes for the same word. Distinctions may need to be drawn."

Indeed, which is why I am a "trans" woman and not a "forbidden word" woman. I am also an English-speaking woman and various other kinds of woman that distinguish me from, or link me to, many other women.

Also note, that this use of "transwoman" rather than "trans woman" is almost exclusive to transphobes. Almost everyone else uses the latter.[/quote]
Nice try. But I'm quite certain it hasn't escaped your notice that women are censored if they use the words they want to.

It's not about common usage, it's about wholesale censorship.

TyroTerf

the convolutions for clarity are mind blowing.