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)

There's loads of other details but I'm loosing the will.

It's starting to sound like it's really boiling down to trutrans v hard line GC and dsds are actually the sticking point in these hard line "GC" people's eyes. Genspect have been open about speaking to and involving trans people who do seem to be happy with transition plus have spoken to and perhaps at one point worked with people like Blanchard due to their work on agp.

Which we all talk about and Helen Joyce does at length in her book and interviewed him.

I don't know a huge amount else about them if I'm honest. I've found the podcasts excellent and wide ranging but not listened to them all. I remember seeing something blow up on twitter a while ago after one of the episodes.

Blanchard et al are sexologists so seem to have somehow got involved with a bizarre website for P. Which I can completely see is concerning.

But it's also become a nasty scrap and online witch hunt due to Ex being flung off YouTube and it does seem like that was a different reason.

I don't know enough about DSDs to give a definitive opinion on what should happen

This is the problem. You don't. And yet you are expressing extreme hatred in a few posts up.

Extreme hatred! Such a use of that term is really hyperbolic. On that note, it could be viewed as extremely hateful to baselessly accuse someone else of extreme hatred, when you actually disagree with them or think they are wrong.

The post has been deleted but a phrase described violence.

I've never read such a phrase that extreme here on fwr, certainly by someone claiming to be on the feminist side.

I must also say, an organisation which deals with children and includes people who are associated with something called 'virtuous p**phile' is beyond concerning. That is an understatement. Concerning is the accounts not being filed. When it comes to an organisation which deals with children, such a thing would be shocking. If the allegations are true. It would call into question the judgement of those running it. You'd imagine there should be an investigation.

Any organisation that thinks it's above reproach or critical analysis is a red flag.

I'm out of this thread, that post by goblin was gross and described dreaming of doing what we've had threads here describing what incels have actually done.

If that's what fans of Ex think, I'm not interested.

I'm also wondering if bunbury needs a call.

They have

I was responding to the continued complaint on this thread that people should stop discussing the topic.

We would all like it if we could stop having to have public discussions about why men should not be able to self-identify into being women. Women have said what they think, and guess what, they don't like having to discuss the nitty gritty of who counts as a woman when they send their daughters to Gide camp.

But we still do, because it's part of a much wider discourse right now in the public. We have to keep talking about it, and saying the same things again and again, to leaders legislatures, our schools, etc. There are still many many people who haven't really heard what is going on or understood the issues.

Why would anyone think that it wouldn't be the same for people with dsds? DO you really think it's a matter of saying something once and then no one will talk about it any more? There are still TRAs making the arguments that the laws should be changed because they are "really" the sex they identify with.

And yes, sometimes that means there are rather moe frank and technical discussions that most of us would not be having on a day to day basis. Some of us might feel quite tired of saying that, yes, we are women even though we no longer menstruate, but that does not mean a man who has never menstruated is also a woman. We might find that is a rather invasive conversation that feels rather personal and reductive.

That doesn't mean we get to skip out on it somehow.

It's also ok that sometimes, there will be differences of opinion on the best way to deal with certain problems. On where to draw the lines. We might really disagree with someone. That does not mean the discussion isn't necessary - it's the only reliable way to come to a generally accepted conclusion that most people feel is well founded and workable. The discussion itself is what brings people to something like a workable consensus.

Anybody who wants to preserve or strengthen single sex spaces and services needs to understand the law that permits them and how it works.

Having a 'legitimate position' is neither here nor there. There needs to be a legitimate aim.

The EA does not require an organisation to provide single sex services or spaces. It permits an org to provide them where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Single sex spaces/services are not a right in themselves, they're simply the most obvious means of ensuring women's actual human rights are upheld in certain circumstances. Right to privacy, right to dignity, right to fully particiate in society, right to safety, right to health care, right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment etc.

That's the legitimate aim - upholding our human rights.

What is the legitimate aim for removing the rights of someone with CAIS to privacy, dignity and safety? How are your human rights affected by sharing services and spaces with them?

If you manage to come up with a legitimate aim, can you next explain how Ex's proposals (mandatory testing, changing of birth certs, exclusion from female spaces) would be proportionate, given how rare this condition is and given the huge impact on the same human rights of someone with CAIS?

If this ever came to court the person with CAIS would quite rightly win. We might also end up with things in the judgment that further curtail our right to exclude men.

I've lost count of the number of times over the years that feminists have said to the TRA, 'DSD have repeatedly asked to be kept out of this debate, please respect their request.'

What has changed?

It's legally stupid for people who call themselves feminist or 'GC' to be dragging DSD in now. This is pointless cruelty and it needs to stop.

Wow, loads of deletions since I started writing that. I didn't see the goblins later posts. Hope mine still makes sense.

@LangClegsInSpace

Anybody who wants to preserve or strengthen single sex spaces and services needs to understand the law that permits them and how it works.

Having a 'legitimate position' is neither here nor there. There needs to be a legitimate aim.

The EA does not require an organisation to provide single sex services or spaces. It permits an org to provide them where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Single sex spaces/services are not a right in themselves, they're simply the most obvious means of ensuring women's actual human rights are upheld in certain circumstances. Right to privacy, right to dignity, right to fully particiate in society, right to safety, right to health care, right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment etc.

That's the legitimate aim - upholding our human rights.

What is the legitimate aim for removing the rights of someone with CAIS to privacy, dignity and safety? How are your human rights affected by sharing services and spaces with them?

If you manage to come up with a legitimate aim, can you next explain how Ex's proposals (mandatory testing, changing of birth certs, exclusion from female spaces) would be proportionate, given how rare this condition is and given the huge impact on the same human rights of someone with CAIS?

If this ever came to court the person with CAIS would quite rightly win. We might also end up with things in the judgment that further curtail our right to exclude men.

I've lost count of the number of times over the years that feminists have said to the TRA, 'DSD have repeatedly asked to be kept out of this debate, please respect their request.'

What has changed?

It's legally stupid for people who call themselves feminist or 'GC' to be dragging DSD in now. This is pointless cruelty and it needs to stop.

👏👏👏👏

I'm just not sure that it matters in a sense if she's wrong.

I don't think, as a policy, that it would make any sense to do what she suggests. Maybe people could make an argument for early testing, that seems to be something being done more and more for many things. the response Exulansic says doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it.

On the other hand, I can quite easily see how quite a few women might at this point just want to say, you know, this is all bs, and we need to draw a hard and simple line and that is genetics.

I don't think that's where the discussion should end, but I think in a huge social upheaval like this, that kind of perspective is an expected part of the discussion and has to be worked through in a calm and rational way.

LangClegsInSpace

Copying and pasting for future reference in case this thread gets zapped for any reason!

It's very easy to draw a hard, simple line between 'trans' and 'intersex'.

It's difficult to understand why so many formerly sensible people apparently have a problem with this.

"I've lost count of the number of times over the years that feminists have said to the TRA, 'DSD have repeatedly asked to be kept out of this debate, please respect their request.'

What has changed?

It's legally stupid for people who call themselves feminist or 'GC' to be dragging DSD in now. This is pointless cruelty and it needs to stop."

Absolutely this.
It's playing right into the hands of the TRA who already see us as exclusionary and aggressive when it comes to policing woman's spaces. We are doing their jobs for them if we let this issue complicate things.
We all know the VAST majority of the problem comes from normal men gaining access to our rights and spaces because of no more than a feeling in their head (sometimes on any given day). The VAST majority of these are men who have had a normal male upbringing and puberty. The VAST majority are those who still have male anatomy and bodies. The VAST majority do it even though they know woman are uncomfortable with it. The VAST majority do not have a DSD. The VAST majority do it later on in life after already being socialised and having lived as a male. Some of these men even have other reasons for doing it which I'm not allowed to discuss even though we all know what they are.

NONE of this is comparable to someone with CAIS who has had no male socialisation, upbringing, no male body, no male puberty, has been raised as a girl since birth and can never be seen as anything other than female.

As a PP said, I don't know why the "definition" that some people are so keen for can't just be "XX females and those with certain DSDs including CAIS". The second part of that definition is SO tiny as to be almost inconsequential for most people living their daily lives. Clinicians are unlikely to see it in their careers. It's hardly going to affect the average woman using a public bathroom.

I agree with you that it's pointless and cruel to belabour this issue. How many people with CAIS are even documented in the UK? Why has this become such a sticking point when the real issues are so obvious and easy to agree on?
Exulansic (since this thread is about her) has had some decent content, but the more I watch some of it, the more I see that on some issues she is well and truly out of her depth. Some of it became almost cringey in the last videos, extrapolating things that just were not true or likely (certainly in the case of her later Jazz Jennings content). She has overplayed her medical hand a little I feel, being a speech pathologist and doing a little reading on PubMed does not a geneticist or endocrinologist make. It's really made me (and I think a lot of others) take a second look at her other content. Yes she has been a good voice in the GC movement but her opinion is not untouchable.

Again - a tiny tiny number. With a legitimate, documented medical condition. Not men in dresses trying to access our spaces.
Perspective.

@LangClegsInSpace

It's very easy to draw a hard, simple line between 'trans' and 'intersex'.

It's difficult to understand why so many formerly sensible people apparently have a problem with this.

I agree and have been catching up with this thread in utter bafflement and dismay at some of the posts.

A person is legally female if their birth certificate says so but there is a difference between those of us who were registered female at birth and those who changed their birth certificate via a GRC.

If you changed your legal sex via a GRC then terms and conditions apply. There are a bunch of exceptions in the GRA itself and a bunch more in the EA, and potentially any other law or set of regulations, now or in the future.

People with DSD/VSD/CCSD/intersex who were registered at birth as male or female are legally that sex in the ordinary way, without T&C, without exceptions.

There's a need for case-by-case rules in sport because that's to do with competitive advantage, not human rights. Aside from that, I see no reason to treat anyone with a CCSD as other than their registered sex.

I'm aware that there are provisions for people with a DSD to amend their birth certs in the case of error, entirely separately from the GRA provisions. T & C also don't apply in this case.

@LangClegsInSpace

Anybody who wants to preserve or strengthen single sex spaces and services needs to understand the law that permits them and how it works.

Having a 'legitimate position' is neither here nor there. There needs to be a legitimate aim.

The EA does not require an organisation to provide single sex services or spaces. It permits an org to provide them where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Single sex spaces/services are not a right in themselves, they're simply the most obvious means of ensuring women's actual human rights are upheld in certain circumstances. Right to privacy, right to dignity, right to fully particiate in society, right to safety, right to health care, right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment etc.

That's the legitimate aim - upholding our human rights.

What is the legitimate aim for removing the rights of someone with CAIS to privacy, dignity and safety? How are your human rights affected by sharing services and spaces with them?

If you manage to come up with a legitimate aim, can you next explain how Ex's proposals (mandatory testing, changing of birth certs, exclusion from female spaces) would be proportionate, given how rare this condition is and given the huge impact on the same human rights of someone with CAIS?

If this ever came to court the person with CAIS would quite rightly win. We might also end up with things in the judgment that further curtail our right to exclude men.

I've lost count of the number of times over the years that feminists have said to the TRA, 'DSD have repeatedly asked to be kept out of this debate, please respect their request.'

What has changed?

It's legally stupid for people who call themselves feminist or 'GC' to be dragging DSD in now. This is pointless cruelty and it needs to stop.

This was so useful that I made it into a PDF using Print Friendly and then exported the PDF as an image file

@LangClegsInSpace

It's very easy to draw a hard, simple line between 'trans' and 'intersex'.

It's difficult to understand why so many formerly sensible people apparently have a problem with this.

It's an issue of creating a working definition. And that has to in some way encompass intersex people, and there isn't one rule that works, there are all kinds of different dsds. That requires a positive description, not just, intersex and trans are different.

I think there should be zero surprise that, given the nature of TRA activism, there are people who want to say phenotype is irrelevant, how people look is irrelevant. Because they see that admitting that as a possibility makes them vulnerable to the argument that some transwomen (or transmen) pass, that they have had surgery, so are genetically male but now appear authentically female. So - if they allow a one genetically male person with an apparently female phenotype to live as women, why not others where the cause is different?

That's not people being offensive, it's a real concern because those are the kinds of arguments being made.Some of the arguments around sports have taken exactly that approach and been accepted by legal bodies, even though it's clearly quite idiotic in the context of sport.

It doesn't mean that we have to accept the genetic approach, but the argument as to why it is different needs to be made simply because we see the argument that it isn't different. That's how liberal democracy works, and that's also how you bring people along to some kind of workable consensus. Saying that it's an unacceptable discussion because it's mean is just "be kind".

I think the clear difference with CAIS is that they are registered as female from day 1 of life, they are socialised and brought up as female, they know nothing else than being female. They have female bodies to all intents and purposes.
There is never any masculinisation that needs to be reversed or changed so that they "pass".
It's not comparable to a trans woman in any way. Actually I think most people can see that.
Not to mention the sheer numbers. Trans women accessing female services and spaces outweigh CAIS/DSD people more times than I can imagine.

@LilithOfEden there are so many lies in your post about Genspect that I think you might be a TRA. Genspect only formed last summer, they have never had any association with Bailey or Blanchard, they do not work with children, and Genspect has never ever advocated for bottom surgery for children. If you go on the Genspect website you will see all this, so why are you lying? Genspect is clearly working to stop the medicalization of gender questioning children by raising the concerns of their parents genspect.org/what-genspect-has-done-our-50-achievements-so-far/

We already have a working definition- it's legal sex. It has always encompassed people with DSD, they are all registered male or female.

It's incomprehensible to me that some people want to upend these rights that have been in place since records began but if they do, they will need to persuade their MPs to make new primary legislation.

Of course sports is different because that's to do with competitive advantage, not basic human rights.