Please can someone explain like I’m 5

[Justdontgetit000]

I’ve name changed for this.

I feel very weird about the trans issues lately, something feels “off” but I can’t put it into words. I’m pretty left wing, very pro-choice, I consider myself a feminist.

I “hang around” online with others who have similar beliefs to me mostly, they are the ones I find myself agreeing with and wanting to defend. So I feel like I know where I am with most topics. Then on a forum I lurk on, someone got banned for saying they don’t want to be referred to as body parts. The person who started the thread (who is also a mod) said that when discussing Roe v Wade we can’t just say “women” we also need to say AFAB or “womb/uterus owners”. If we don’t our posts will be removed. I don’t post on there anyway so doesn’t affect me, but it rubbed me the wrong way.

I can’t articulate why, I feel like I’m in a place mentally where I SHOULD be fine with this because of all my other beliefs. Does that make sense? Yet I felt angry reading this. I don’t want to be offending people simply for using the word “women”. Then I feel guilty and like I’m transphobic?

I want to say I have no issues with any trans people, in that I’d have nothing but love and support for a friend for example who was trans, and would never ever be rude to or abusive towards trans people. Yet I get the feeling my mixed emotions towards all this would get me called a TERF. I know what that stands for but don’t really understand the term, I know a little of JK Rowling and her situation and I read that she got some awful messages after her controversial tweets, and that scares me. So I’d only talk about this anonymously.

Can anyone help me figure out, in a very basic way, what is happening in my mind and perhaps point me in a direction where I can learn more? I’ve tried to look for threads like FAQs about this issue but can’t find any.

Thanks for reading!

That sounds depressingly accurate.

There's absolutely no way to go through life without getting called a TERF/transphobe these days. You can't even say "women" or you're one. I used "women" in a WANG (Women Against Non-Essential Grooming) group- it’s in the title! Why are these people even in the group if they can’t tolerate the word?

They get off on getting attention for being "victims", and others get off on patting themselves on the backs for performative allyship. Always keyboard warriors who never do anything real for anyone. So of course they need to be a part of this abortion thing.

If they took puberty blockers/are taking hormones, how exactly are transmen going to get pregnant? They can't unless they go off... In order to get pregnant, bc apparently, getting pregnant is totally a man thing and their gender dysphoria can be put on hold to do it.

It really only effects women and nonbinary people, but A. it's unreasonable to expect everyone to remember such a tiny subset of the population, B. write long lists of everyone who feels they should be included. C. If they want to be included, then they can include themselves and stop dictating to everyone else.

Instead, what’s acceptable is that we should objectify ourselves by referring to ourselves as a collection of body parts. Bc that's not misogynist. Or something.

Like you, 99% of the time I support transgender people and have no problems. But this issue, going “stealth” (rape by deception), and outcompeting in women’s sports are no brainers about being unfair supremacy behavior.

This is so brilliantly said 👏

Can I ask what reaction you got when you said “women” in that group you’re in?

I just googled Women Against Non-Essential Grooming after reading your post, @MeMe36 and the top result is from Facebook and is now called We're Against... instead of Women Against... Argh.

So bodily autonomy for all – yay – and no more analysis of why it is women who are subjected to the policing of their bodies in the first place – not so yay.

Sorry to derail the thread but what do they class as non-essential grooming?

If it's group dedicated to being your most natural self without intervention, how do they square that with transitioning? Wouldn't the efforts most of male transitioners fall into the class of using non-essential grooming?

It was basically a bunch of really snarky responses about me being terrible and needing to be inclusive to everyone, and why the hell didn’t I thank trans women too.

My post was just “I just want to thank the women in the group for giving me courage to break this social demand on us.” Big regret posting that.

Yeah, that’s stupid. Last I checked, there’s no social demands on men to remove all their hair anywhere but on their scalp and eyebrows. Hell, they can even have bushy eyebrows without any problem.

They don’t have to square that, they make very little sense when it comes to trans. Misogyny, apparently defying biology, rape by deception isn’t wrong, etc.

Oh! That sort of grooming!

The thing about autogynephilia is that there may be some flaws with the typology basically, it might be a bit more complicated than "all trans women are either the classic transsexual type (gay men with gender dysphoria) or the AGP type (straight men with a sexual fetish)" and since the psychiatric community has been forbidden from studying the topic any further, TRAs tout these flaws as "proof" that AGP categorically does not exist.

However, this is not how scientific theories are supposed to work. Studies are peer-reviewed, and if there are any perceived flaws or inconsistencies, then further studies are done to hone and refine the theory. For example, Blanchard's study didn't take bisexual trans women into account. Where do they fit in with the theory? More research is necessary, but it isn't being done because TRAs threw a fit and demanded that no further research be done.

If they really believe that AGP doesn't exist, then they would welcome the scientific community to do more research. That way they could prove that it definitively doesn't exist. Instead they've demanded a blanket ban on the study of AGP, which is a curious thing to do if you actually believe that a theory is total bunk that can be definitively disproven. You would only do this if you suspect that the theory is correct and DESPERATELY don't want it to be proven correct.

Anyone telling you that AGP has been "thoroughly debunked" is either lying or misinformed. It has not been debunked or disproven outright. Rather, some flaws and inconsistencies have been identified that make further research necessary.

I would add Debra Soh's "The End of Gender" to your reading list. She is a neuroscientist who specializes in sex, gender, and sexual orientation. The great thing about her is that she is very much NOT Gender Critical (she argues that gender is not a social construct, and she's very much opposed to "kink shaming" or pathologizing "atypical sexual interests") so you know you're getting an unbiased account that is 100% based on science and not ideology.

I don't mean to say that GC scientists or writers are untrustworthy in any way, but it helps to bolster your argument if you can quote someone who is wholly impartial. Of course TRAs call her biased anyway because facts and reality mean nothing to them, but they aren't the people you're trying to convince. Their beliefs are entrenched and literally nothing will change them. God could literally come down from the sky and tell them they're wrong, and they'd just claim that God is an ignorant transphobe. It's ordinary people sitting on the sidelines of this debate who are going to be your "target audience."

Another reason TRAs claim that "AGP has been debunked" is that there have been surveys done that supposedly "prove" that natal women can also be classified as AGP, and that therefore the concept of AGP "pathologizes in trans women what is seen as normal in cis women." But (and Debra Soh gets into this in her book) they asked the TW questions like, "Do you get aroused putting on women's clothes?" while the natal women were asked things like, "Do you get aroused putting on sexy lingerie for your lover?" They asked different questions in order to get the same answers.

As Soh says in her book, "Autogynephilic individuals often self-report difficulties getting dressed in women's clothing without having an erection or ejaculating. I don't know of any nontransgender women who get turned on or have an orgasm as the result of getting dressed in the morning."

I don't know why those lines in the first paragraph have a strikethrough running through them. I didn't do that.

It happens in the app if you use dashes - like this - between sentences. It must convert them automatically to long dashes which the system sees as two dashes and that is the same as the code used to make strikeout.

You can use semicolons instead to avoid it

Unbelievable. So because of that sentence you were classed as not being inclusive enough? I totally believe it because I’ve seen so much evidence since starting this thread and researching, to know that just using the word “women” on its own is enough to get you banned from forums, or at least challenged.

I’m really sorry to read they treated you that way 😕

That was my reaction too! I completely misunderstood the group somehow!!

The bizarre thing is… changing the word “women” to “people” is a result of the request to be inclusive to transmen. And yet I never actually see transmen making this point. Are there swathes of transmen out there offended by seeing the word “woman” when we talk about periods and pregnancy and menopause? Some stats I saw (no idea if it’s right and appreciate it may be an under representation) suggest 0.75% of the population are trans, and that there are three times as many TW as TM. So we really are talking about a very very very small number of people.

There will be significantly more women out there who don’t have periods (young, old, pregnant, breastfeeding, medical issues) and I’m not hearing any of them complaining about the use of the word “woman” on period products. As an example.

Wow thank you so much for this incredibly informative and well written post! That’s really helped me to understand more about AGP and why it’s so easily waved away as a woo-type theory.

Helen Joyce has covered it a bit so far in her book I’m reading, but I have to admit to struggling to understand everything as it’s a lot to take in, so may have to do another read quite soon after finishing.

Thank you for that book recommendation, totally agree with you that it can only strengthen someone’s arguments if they’ve studied people coming from different angles to them. That’s quite telling isn’t it about how they asked questions about arousal while getting dressed and managed to twist them to make it seem like women also have the same feelings?

Your paragraph about God coming down and talking to TRA made me smile because you’re absolutely right, they’d find a way to still make him the ignorant bigot!

That’s a very good point. It seems like TW are the most vocal group of people when it comes to trying to erase or ban the word “women”.

However…I feel I shouldn’t say too much but the person I was originally talking about in my OP (the mod) is actually a trans man. He was the one who said people posting in the group can only use AFAB or uterus/womb owners or havers. So I think maybe some trans men also do take exception to our language.

I’ve downloaded an audio book, The Abolition of Sex by Kara Dansky, has anyone read it (or listened to it!) and knows if it’s any good?

I've not read that one but can recommend invisible women for data and statistics and material girls from the terrific Prof Stock. Which are both excellent.

They look good, thanks very much for the recommendation!

Hi all, I thought it would be better to bump this thread rather than start a new one. I’ve done lots more reading and watching since I started this one, and in some ways am even more conflicted and feel out of my depth.

I even started a thread about one of the dictionaries adding a definition of “female” but I don’t feel qualified to comment about it!

And now I keep reading things which are making me question myself. It may sound silly to fret so much over this, but it’s just my personality type, I’m an extreme over thinker.

Please could anyone reading have a look at the screenshots attached? They’re from a subreddit I lurk on. It was a discussion about trans issues and most people were saying how transphobic it is to state that only women can give birth.

One person did comment that they didn’t understand why that was transphobic and that it was just a biological fact. Their comments were deleted and their profile banned within about 10 minutes. So I can’t comment on there attempting to discuss my confusion and struggle to understand all this because it will be seen as hateful and harmful to the trans people on there. Fair enough, I don’t want to trigger or upset anyone so that’s why I’m asking here.

I saw something else yesterday too showing that there are in fact 5 chromosome combinations, I wish I’d saved it! Will try to find it again. Things like XXXY XYY and other mix of the letters.
The person seemed credible too and said that just like with a lot of medical issues, we know so much more now and can treat people according to this newer knowledge. It made me feel like I’m an outdated, bigoted, ignorant idiot!

Anyway if anyone can shed any light on the info in these screenshots I’d be grateful. I’ve censored out some names.

Here is the pic I was looking for. I’ve left the name of the guy who tweeted it just because it doesn’t seem the same as showing random people’s user names on Reddit if that makes sense. Will repost with his name redacted if anyone thinks I should.

Not very helpful but I totally read that first exchange in the voices of Beavis and Butthead.

Lolll…I just did too and that’s hilarious 🤣

It’s given me a new perspective anyway!

These "points" being made in the screenshots you've posted are either a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, or a case of people being disingenuous with their arguments.

Regarding the 6 different combinations of XY business.... yes, there are rare situations where people do not have just an XX or an XY set of sex chromosomes. These are called Disorders of Sexual Development or Variations of Sexual Development, what used to be called "intersex". People with these disorders/variances are not a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, sex. They are all either male or female.

This deliberate obfuscation by involving discussion of DSD is actually all irrelevant. People like Lia Thomas are unequivocally male and have been through male puberty and are adult male human beings. They don't have a DSD.

No female black athlete has been banned from competing due to "naturally high testosterone". This is a misunderstanding or deliberate lie based around cases like Caster Semenya. Semenya has a DSD that only occurs in males.

Lia Thomas has an advantage because they went through male puberty and is an adult male human. That matters for sports that are categorised by sex, like swimming. Just lowering testosterone (to a level that is still higher than would ever be normal for a female athlete) doesn't erase the effects of male puberty.

The Reddit post goes on to deny there is a biological definition of male or female. They are (deliberately or ignorantly) confusing complexity with the inability to create a definition. Yes the definition of male or female can be complex in edge cases, but that doesn't mean it isn't real or that it is impossible to define. Or that people can therefore choose their sex at will.

XY/XX is sufficient to define sex in humans. Very occasionally there are DSDs, which can all be investigated and defined.

You do seem confused but look at it this way.

Some humans are born without some limbs, for example a missing finger. It doesn't mean that we are now humans with a spectrum of digits on our fingers. It's a defect not an additional human type.

People born with DSDs, are not new types of humans. There are two types of gamete. Some people are born without the ability to produce gametes, it doesn't make them unhuman, or new types of humans.

Two basic types of humans exist. This is fixed at conception by the sperm that fertilises the egg.

That some people don't develop everything they could have developed, doesn't make new sexes. It doesn't make them unhumans.

Those that develop some but not all female characteristics, for example they get period and potentially could get pregnant, but don't, are still subject to all the discrimination that all females get. If they find out they are infertile, it doesn't make them a man.

Some men's sperm is not able to produce active gametes that can fertilise an egg. It doesn't make them women.

None of this explains why married dads in their 50s suddently decide they are women.