TT Exulansic Youtube

[Fleek]

I've been watching TT Exulansic's videos on YouTube having seen a link to them on here. I have learnt so much - what she is sharing is so necessary in terms of this debate. I'm also finding them really upsetting. I'm so shocked by what I've seen and just wanted to talk about them here. If you haven't watched any yet, please do.

I have a condition which has meant having plastic surgery to make my body look more 'normal'. I've had multiple, very painful surgeries which have left me in a degree of chronic pain but ultimately, I have achieved my goal in that I now have a much more normal looking body which it is easier to go through life with. These surgeries have had a clear medical benefit beyond my appearance being changed, just to be clear. I have a medical condition which has objective markers. There is evidence having gone through these surgeries, I will now have better physical health in my old age and will be less likely to experience certain complications which the condition can end up causing so the benefits definitely aren't just cosmetic - it's just the cosmetic benefits meant a lot to me as a patient. My body was 'wrong' and that was badly affecting my mental health and so I've put myself through a lot to make it look 'right.'

So there I am with having gone through this journey and so I think watching these videos on YT feels that little bit more personal in some ways, even though I don't have gender dysphoria and my surgeries were completely different. I knew already that things like constructing a 'penis' out of someone's arm was utterly barbaric and had a high failure rate and I knew there could be complications with attempting to construct a vagina. I just had no idea how frequently there were complications and how dangerous this journey is. I suddenly have the view that it must be almost impossible to go through them safely - at the very least you are risking fissures and strictures and those can lead to serious complications. Just taking testosterone is likely to lead to heart damage, too. There are going to be so many people who go through these operations and who die prematurely because they end up with sepsis or other infections.

I just watched the latest video on Jazz. I felt sick to my stomach at that one in particular. How has this poor kid got any kind of future? Jazz is severely depressed, 150 pounds overweight, has no sexual functioning at all, has already experienced multiple surgeries and complications and is likely to experience more. It's a crime to be doing this to vulnerable young people. If Jazz hadn't had these surgeries, we'd be looking at a young man embarking on a degree at Harvard, perhaps at the beginning of a journey where he felt comfortable with his sex and his sexuality. He'd be out having fun. My surgeries were so incredibly tough but on balance, they were worth it and while I'm in pain here and there, I don't have any additional complications which will actually threaten my life. That isn't the case with trans surgeries. Surgeons are literally butchering healthy bodies. They must know they are. How have things been allowed to go in this direction? (I know the answer to that really)

No, people with DSDs do not have to pick a side in a debate which they've been pulled into against their will. They have nothing to do with trans issues.

I don't know what has made you so angry and unpleasant, Goblin, but don't think that you speak for all of us. And we'll discuss what we like on this board.

[quote ClareCAIS]@NotMyGenderGoblin from what I’ve seen, the majority of GC voices are equally as appalled at the comments from Exulansic - this is not a GC versus TRA discussion. This is about someone who has made the most horrible & targeted comments about people with CAIS & now even MRKH[/quote]
Yes.

@ClareCAIS - yes, She was TT Exculansic originally, she seems to change her name a bit.

I think she does have a curious mind, she's done a lot of reading - mostly, I think by jumping into pub med. I think a bit more reflection would be appropriate, but that would be true of most of us. I agree, she is black and white, I assumed she's not neurotypical.

I don't agree that she's without compassion. She had a trans man on who challenged her about the way she spoke about phalloplasty.

Your point about the surgery done without consent to people with DSDs is an important one. I see the parallels with trans "care".

Do you want us labelled at birth & XY tattooed on our heads? Do you want us stripped of the sex marker we were given at birth, following diagnosis? Do you want 14-year-old girls with CAIS to be told they are disabled men & segregate then from spaces for both men and women? How would any of this work in practice - and do you think any sensible policy maker or health professional would support this?

One person on YouTube said this. In no way would this ever happen and no sensible policy maker or health professional would allow it. I understand this is personal to you, but everyone else sees this suggestion of TT’s to be a bit batshit, and I can say with 100% confidence that her ideas on this particular topic will never take hold.

I wonder whether the reason the TRAs are so keen to co opt people with DSDs is because of "passing"?

I think it’s because they use sport and athletes with DSDs to further their cause to blur the perception of what it is to be a woman and even what it is to be female. All the rampant TRAs are also right behind Caster Semenya, Mboma etc and it’s no coincidence. It’s because they can say “Look! Semenya is a woman, has been raised as a woman, the public perception of Semenya is that she’s a woman, so what if her biology says otherwise! A woman is anyone who is perceived as one! The only difference between Semenya and a transwoman is timing of initiation of ‘living as a woman.’ Semenya did it at birth and I’m doing it now.”

It helps their cause because self-determination and identification is the same whether you’re an athlete with a 46XY DSD or a transwoman. Even the latest IOC guidelines put the two together.

[quote ClareCAIS]@NotBadConsidering this is no longer one person on YouTube, this is multiple accounts & videos that are now even attacking a charity that is offering advice to young people with DSD

I agree it is batshit & will never take hold, but also horrible that young people searching for information about their medical history, will now find this[/quote]
The misperceptions around DSDs is not exclusive to TT and other accounts. Even the BBC can’t report on them accurately when it comes to sport for example. There is a perception that DSD = hermaphroditism which long predates TT, and even predates the Internet. Major news organisations do absolutely zero to dispel myths when reporting directly on these issues. Yes, it’s terrible that young people might Google and find horrible things like that, but there is also a paucity of good information in frontline reporting. And now we have supposedly reputable people repeating myths about “sex is a spectrum”, misusing the Scientific American article repeatedly, claiming conditions like Turner Syndrome prove sex is a spectrum etc.

The horrible things written on those YouTube accounts is just one facet. That’s not to excuse them, but to point out that there are people who should know better with far greater reach that spread equally harmful myths even if it isn’t as pejorative as those comments you’ve seen.

Thankyou, @NotBadConsidering, yes, that is what it looks like to me too. Exactly like that.

With a dusting of people who think that "she's got testicles, I've got testicles, so if my body looks like hers then I'm a woman" I can think of a few TW who have surgery and then believe themselves to be a "real woman" and even to be able to grow a cervix. So, perhaps TW with those beliefs think they are even more womanly than women with DSDs.

I am sympathetic to people with DSDs who are collateral damage in this. Just as I am sympathetic to women who need an all female rape crisis centre. The problem does not lie with either of those groups needs.

I wonder whether the reason the TRAs are so keen to co opt people with DSDs is because of "passing"?

This is what a TRA pretending not to be a TRA said:

"The fact that DSDs exist could potentially be seen to undermine the notion that a defined and distinct sex binary exists. If such a thing does not exist, then trans people could not be accused of not being ‘real’ women or men, as there would be no viable biological criteria for ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’ for them to fail to fulfill"

On this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4477423-What-is-the-biological-definition-of-a-woman-and-man?msgid=115025979#115025979

[quote ScreamingMeMe]I wonder whether the reason the TRAs are so keen to co opt people with DSDs is because of "passing"?

This is what a TRA pretending not to be a TRA said:

"The fact that DSDs exist could potentially be seen to undermine the notion that a defined and distinct sex binary exists. If such a thing does not exist, then trans people could not be accused of not being ‘real’ women or men, as there would be no viable biological criteria for ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’ for them to fail to fulfill"

On this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4477423-What-is-the-biological-definition-of-a-woman-and-man?msgid=115025979#115025979[/quote]
"The fact that DSDs exist could potentially be seen to undermine the notion that a defined and distinct sex binary exists. If such a thing does not exist, then trans people could not be accused of not being ‘real’ women or men, as there would be no viable biological criteria for ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’ for them to fail to fulfill"

What the TRA pretending not to be a TRA conveniently forgets to mention is that Variations in Sexual Development can be entered into the equation, and accounted for, as biologically-based, objectively verifiable exceptions to the general rule that XX = female woman and XY = male man.

The exceptions do NOT need to verified case-by-case with genetic testing because the TRA is talking about definitions.

Definitions that have served us well for millennia do not include, and do not need to include, the unverifiable, hypothetical construct of "gender identity", invented in the 1950s by whacko psychologist John Money.

TRA pretending not to be a TRA can put that in his/her/their pipe and smoke it.

""What the TRA pretending not to be a TRA conveniently forgets to mention is that Variations in Sexual Development can be entered into the equation, and accounted for, as biologically-based, objectively verifiable exceptions to the general rule that XX = female woman and XY = male man.""

Agreed.
I still can't believe we are actually arguing about 0.018% of the population.
This is not going to affect anyone in daily life. It's a red herring, and a great one it seems, as it's tied a lot of people up in knots and lets the real issues slip under the radar.
Meanwhile, in other news, big ass blokes still put on a dress and walk into female spaces............

The fact is that many many people think trans people are trans because they have a dsd. Here in Canada, which is behind the UK on this issue, that is one of the most common things you see with the general public. People find it belivable and it compels them to believe that it is just and appropriate to treat such individuals as they sex they identify as.

Those of us who want to maintain the definition of women in law and social convention etc are in a position of having to define who that includes in a way that is not about how people feel or self-identify.

That could be done taking people with real dsds into account, or not doing so. But if those people want their situation to be taken into account, they need to contribute something in terms of what they think taht should look like. And not some soft language about being compassionate - that is what caused this issue in the first place - rather scientific and specific definitions.

Because that's where we are. We are having to try to give objective, scientific, specific definitions of who can count as a woman. Like it or not.

[quote ClareCAIS]@NotMyGenderGoblin

You keep asking this You have repeatedly ignored quite a lot of questions (such as "how would you define woman to ensure that men can be excluded but people like you can be treated with all the compassion and respect that you want?") If you can;t answer that then I have a lot of sympathy with the "XX, get lost everyone else" approach

• and I can only state again that we are observed & recorded as female at birth, we are legally female & have bodies that are unable to masculinise & we are indistinguishable from any other women and anyone with eyes & ears will view us as women - what other choice do we have?

Do you want us labelled at birth & XY tattooed on our heads? Do you want us stripped of the sex marker we were given at birth, following diagnosis? Do you want 14-year-old girls with CAIS to be told they are disabled men & segregate then from spaces for both men and women? How would any of this work in practice - and do you think any sensible policy maker or health professional would support this?[/quote]
No, all I want is you to give me a definition of woman that works for you. "XX / adult human female" works for me. That is the definition I will fight for unless / until a better one is provided.

I can see why it doesn't work for you. Can we have your definition of woman for the purposes of protecting women's rights and spaces?

"XX plus anyone with CAIS" might work? (obviously someone with CAIS who doesn't know they have CAIS will be in women's spaces anyway so testing is not needed for this definition to work for people with CAIS).

"XX plus anyone recorded as female at birth"? (which, I suspect, would risk some males with male behaviours being unable to be kept out of women's spaces)

Or are you saying that women's aren't allowed to have a definition of "woman" to keep out men because it's not possible to have one that works the the tiny tiny number of people with DSDs?

@ScreamingMeMe

No, people with DSDs do not have to pick a side in a debate which they've been pulled into against their will. They have nothing to do with trans issues.

I don't know what has made you so angry and unpleasant, Goblin, but don't think that you speak for all of us. And we'll discuss what we like on this board.

OK so, people with DSDs don;t have to take a side.

Which means any person with DSDs who doesn't take a side -

Is not willing to stand for women's rights.
Is not willing to protect women's spaces that they themselves wish to use.

Surely if people with CAIS want continued access to women's spaces they should be on the side of people protecting women's spaces? Surely if you want GC people on your side you should support the cause of GC people?

[quote ClareCAIS]@NotMyGenderGoblin from what I’ve seen, the majority of GC voices are equally as appalled at the comments from Exulansic - this is not a GC versus TRA discussion. This is about someone who has made the most horrible & targeted comments about people with CAIS & now even MRKH[/quote]
The way I see it this is about you attacking someone whose main crime is to be blunt and insensitive, even though you will undoubtedly lose if their side of the debate loses, because you won't have women's spaces to access if GC loses.

@ MangyInseam "Because that's where we are. We are having to try to give objective, scientific, specific definitions of who can count as a woman. Like it or not."

Yep. Obviously women should be compassionate to people with DSDs, but let's be honest. Woman equals adult human female equals XX. Simple. The average woman knows nothing about DSDs, and the numbers are so tiny as to be a complete and utter irrelevance worthy of zero consideration ever.

So, back to you ClareCAIS. IMHO if you want women to treat you the way that you want to be treated tell us how to define women so that you can be included?

I saw the early threads on Ex's now deleted channel and I was horrified by her comments. This was back in early-mid january, before she made the video about Dalea. I haven't watched anything she's done since and I can't believe this is still rumbling on and escalating.

Here are a couple of her many comments from those threads, I would say these are representative.

I want nothing to do with anybody who thinks these are OK.

I think it would be pretty straightforward to include something like CAIS in legislation specifically with regard to women's spaces and maybe certain other things.

I think for scientific purposes it might often be better to use a more strict definition.

But I don't think there is any way around it, now that there is a need to be very specific about this, because it has been challenged, it has to be talked about. That's not inherently cruel or anything like that. Annoying possibility, but it's what happens normally whenver there is a challenge to inclusion like this.

@LangClegsInSpace

I saw the early threads on Ex's now deleted channel and I was horrified by her comments. This was back in early-mid january, before she made the video about Dalea. I haven't watched anything she's done since and I can't believe this is still rumbling on and escalating.

Here are a couple of her many comments from those threads, I would say these are representative.

I want nothing to do with anybody who thinks these are OK.

1st image - surely you advocate testing of people with issues? This doesn't mean testing people with CAIS at birth as they won't be noted to have issues?

2nd image - I interpret that as "woman equals adult human female equals XX". I personally think that is a 100% reasonable position. There may be a better position which includes some people who are male at a chromosomal level - I would love to hear suggestions from people who know more about DSDs than me to propose one!

3rd image confuses me. What does "mostly CAIS male" mean? I think it is entirely reasonable for women to demand that no-one capable of impregnating a woman is in a woman's prison".

Exulansic needs to up her compassion quotient. Definitely. But she is basically right, her points are good, and her straight talking is essential and good.

I am sorry that anyone with CAIS is being hurt, but do think the blame for any hurt lies primarily with the trans activists deliberately using DSDs to muddy the concept of sex.

I can’t see in practice how anyone with CAIS would ever actually be excluded from women’s spaces, as nobody would ever challenge your right to be in them.

In practical terms, I think the criteria for access to women’s spaces should be the sex on your birth certificate. Anyone with a medically diagnosed DSD, who feel that sex recorded at birth was not appropriate, should be able to get their birth certificate amended. The GRA should be repealed.

For women’s sports, chromosome testing is probably necessary, and decisions on XY women based on their specific DSD. I would certainly include CAIS women, and exclude those with 5-ARD.

@MangyInseam

I think it would be pretty straightforward to include something like CAIS in legislation specifically with regard to women's spaces and maybe certain other things.

I think for scientific purposes it might often be better to use a more strict definition.

But I don't think there is any way around it, now that there is a need to be very specific about this, because it has been challenged, it has to be talked about. That's not inherently cruel or anything like that. Annoying possibility, but it's what happens normally whenver there is a challenge to inclusion like this.

100%. And given the insanely high levels of ignorance around these issues, the gender critical message has to be "a woman is an adult human female as defined by XX" and "no-one in history has ever changed sex".

People who have undiagosed CAIS - if ClareCAIS is correct - have nothing to worry about because they and everyone else will assume that they are women. People with diagnosed CAIS become more of an issue, but surely it isn't beyond the capability of DSD advocates to define under which circumstances someone with a DSD should be in female spaces.