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!

A lot of the Reddit moderators particularly in the bigger subs are Trans Rights Activists. If you look carefully you'll see the same names again and again. There's a whole culture on the entire site. You always need to be careful what you say on there if you don't want to be deleted. Sometimes you can see real discussions before they go wrong and get a grasp of what people really think but on this issue it's an echo chamber.

The assigned female/male at birth comes from what used to happen to intersex people with ambiguous genetalia. If it wasn't clear, in the past basically a doctor would pick one and assign that sex to the baby. That's where the expression/idea comes from. Nowadays this is not done because it's recognised that it's important for somebody to know who they are. So if there is an ambiguous appearance tests are run and we can find out what condition the child has and what sex they are.

I don't think it's right for the trans lobby to appropriate this as real harm was done to children when they thought sex didn't matter and it was all socialisation. They argue that the same is being done to trans people but I don't think it is the same. And it certainly shouldn't be used for everyone - you see "cis trans allies" using it and I just wonder what they think it actually means. I can understand it more for a trans person who says "My parents were told I was female at birth but they were wrong, I'm actually male".

It’s a really difficult position to be in at times for many (most?) of us OP at least initially.
We’re mostly left/left leaning, live and let live types here. If you think about feminism as a movement and the things feminists have fought for: domestic violence refuges, maternity rights, child safeguarding, end to FGM, reproductive rights, LGB rights to name a few how likely is it that whole swathes of us have suddenly become ultra right wing fundamentalist bigots?
It doesn’t make sense!

In reality most of us have listened to the arguments from TRAs (educate yourself!) and seen the inherent misogyny and homophobia there and realised we’re into wolves and sheeps clothing territory.

And now when I read that the things I believe are horrible and bigoted and ignorant I don’t care. It means nothing. I know I’m not.

And as for the biology bollocks…I’m a doctor. I’d happily bet my left arm that I understand more biology, genetics and embryology than they do. Isn’t funny how the criticism in the posts you shared has that lovely little ring of misogyny to it? Of course GC women couldn’t possibly be more knowledgeable than they are could they? Silly women thinking they can do science!

Going back to the chromosomes thing (sorry I’m off on a rant now) and to extend PPs excellent posts and analogies with limbs and digits the other thing to bear in mind is that sex chromosomes (X and Y) are not the only ones where you can have more than a pair. Non sex chromosomes (autosomes) can also exist as trisomies (3 chromosomes). The most widely known one being Trisomy 21 aka Down’s Syndrome but there are numerous others too.
So again, when this nonsense about sex isn’t binary because extra chromosomes comes up it’s worth remembering that we rightly say people with Trisomy 21 are not a different sort of human to those without. It would be abhorrent to suggest they were. They are human like the rest of us but with a genetic condition in which an extra chromosome has been inherited.

Totally agree with you. That’s awful that your friend was being so insistent on you giving up your religion, that really is over the top and I can’t think of the word but…so domineering and insisting that their opinions held so much weight that you should bend to them! And you should change your entire belief system just to appease them. Very dictatorial. I can see why you’re not friends anymore.

Yes you’re right about the body parts things, it’s very reductive and not necessary when we already have the words we need.

Thanks so much for this reply, it’s very helpful!

I didn’t know any of this really about chromosomes, it’s fascinating. And you’re right that while these combinations may be a variation, it doesn’t make a person any less human in any way.

I’m starting to see this more and more on there, it’s pretty obvious. You really can’t have these types of conversations on there that we can here, like you say it’s an echo chamber and even asking a question will have you banned for hate speech.

So interesting what you said about the origin of AFAB, I will read through that a few times to fully understand it.

I missed this earlier reply from you! It’s absolutely brilliant and has helped me feel less alone with my thoughts, which probably sounds silly!

That’s what I find weird about TRAs who call GC women right wing bigots, can they not see that a lot of these women are staunch feminists who are extremely left leaning?!

Oh absolutely re your last point - some subtle misogyny there or at the very least just knocking the intelligence of anyone GC. I’ve also noticed a lot of ageism too elsewhere, they assume anyone GC is “over the hill” or “past it” and couldn’t possibly relate to current issues.

So todays thoughts if anyone can shed any light. On that Reddit thread I took pics of, someone also referenced this group of people from the Dominican Republic. I looked it up and this is them:

Guevedoce

And on a separate note, here’s something I find confusing that I’ve seen said by a few GC women. They say that we can always tell when a woman isn’t really a woman and is trans because of their facial features, their height, their “masculine gait”. This in itself to me sounds a bit misogynistic because some biological women will have so called “manly” features, some are extremely tall, some walk in a non traditional way.

To me this seems to weaken the GC movement or argument (not sure what word to use), because surely we should be saying that it doesn’t matter how traditionally masculine a woman appears, she can still be a woman if she’s got large gametes and/or female sex organs.

I think of women reading those kinds of comments who might be tall, or maybe “butch” lesbians and I might be offended by that and think it’s saying I look like a man!

Surely the basis of the GC approach is that women are women despite the way they walk, how tall they are, how athletic they are, what their facial features are, if they’ve got a deep voice? By saying “that woman is obviously a man” it’s undermining this and does seem misogynistic.

Just a few thoughts anyway, I’m always trying to keep an open mind about all this and look at all sides.

Regarding the "guevadoce", the link you put yourself explains their situation pretty clearly. It is a DSD, specifically 46 XY 5-ARD, which is the same one that Caster Semenya has and is found in males. They are usually incorrectly identified as female at birth but on experiencing puberty they develop secondary male sexual characteristics. So I would refer you back to the previous comments about bringing in DSDs as an irrelevant sidetrack meant to confuse and obfuscate.

Regarding your second point:

"And on a separate note, here’s something I find confusing that I’ve seen said by a few GC women. They say that we can always tell when a woman isn’t really a woman and is trans because of their facial features, their height, their “masculine gait”. This in itself to me sounds a bit misogynistic because some biological women will have so called “manly” features, some are extremely tall, some walk in a non traditional way.
To me this seems to weaken the GC movement or argument (not sure what word to use), because surely we should be saying that it doesn’t matter how traditionally masculine a woman appears, she can still be a woman if she’s got large gametes and/or female sex organs.
I think of women reading those kinds of comments who might be tall, or maybe “butch” lesbians and I might be offended by that and think it’s saying I look like a man!
Surely the basis of the GC approach is that women are women despite the way they walk, how tall they are, how athletic they are, what their facial features are, if they’ve got a deep voice? By saying “that woman is obviously a man” it’s undermining this and does seem misogynistic."

Comments about being able to recognise an individual's sex are usually made by feminists in response to claims by TRA that transwomen pass and are unnoticeable in single sex spaces. Women usually point out in response that, often due to social conditioning, women who recognise that an individual is male and is in a single sex space will often hide their reaction and say/do nothing to recognise it. That can be out of a "be kind" viewpoint, out of fear - either simple fear of male bodies in spaces they should not be, or fear of an aggressive reaction.

There is a benefit to TRA to push this idea that men and women are often indistinguishable, and that transwomen are just at the slightly masculine end of female physical norms.

It is well known that humans can recognise the sex of an individual by their gait alone, even when that is reduced to an image made up of motion captured dots and a very short duration of 3 or 4 seconds. It is also well known that humans can determine the sex of someone from their face alone. That's what's being referred to when feminists discuss the idea of recognising someone's sex from their physical characteristics.

So you are right that of course that the appearance of a particular woman is irrelevant to whether they are a woman or not. That's down to being born female. But it is also true to say that in most face to face situations, women can recognise the sex of an individual and therefore identify a male bodied person even if they are presenting in a very feminine way.

A mammalian species that reproduces via sexual dimorphism would be stuffed pretty quickly if it were not fairly straightforward to tell the sexes apart.

Male and female bodies are different. Yes, of course there is overlap; we're all humans and our bodies are different.

But there are very sound practical reasons why we've evolved, for example, for women to have wider pelvises. This has an effect on gait. Better informed MNers can tell you about the exact mechanics involved.

Yes, there are tall women, there are men with less defined jaws than most. And there are some instances where people can pass convincingly as a member of hte opposite sex.

On the whole, though, we are evolved to recognise the sex classes at a glance. There are suggestions women are better at sex differentiation - I can't recall right now the sources used to support that, but I can have a look - which would be logical given that we are more vulnerable than males - both by virtue of being weaker physically (both in musculature, which is strongly affected by male puberty/testosterone, and by average height/weight) and by our position of being able to be impregnated, which in evolutionary terms is a high-cost activity.

These are population level observations/generalisations. There are exceptions, yes.

@RandomlyThrownTogether You CF - I went to change my name to RandomlyThrownTogether and saw someone had already bagsied it! And then (genuinely randomly) had this thread open....

They say that we can always tell when a woman isn’t really a woman and is trans because of their facial features, their height, their “masculine gait”.

I'm one of the ones that doesn't subscribe to this so fully. Plenty of trans men pass, it's harder for a TW for sure, but I agree that many females have 'masculine' traits and it doesn't make them less female. I've witnessed people on here assume (from a photo) that a woman was a natal male, when it was far less clear-cut to me (I think they were wrong in the end). And of course, we'll never be able to confirm /deny every case - if a TW passes we'll not realise.

It shouldn't be about looks, unless you subscribe to the 'old' definition of trans as transsexual - someone who wants to be the opposite sex to the extent they want to have people think they are that sex, so use visual shortcuts etc to prompt that belief. But the 'your gender is your sex' ideology doesn't really incorporate 'looks' into it - or it shouldn't - people get extremely muddled about this. Particularly when it's accounting for genders that aren't male or female.

Ah thank you Roses, I did actually re-read the link I posted and realised that it is in fact a DSD those children are born with, and felt a bit silly for mentioning it, but obviously can’t edit the post. It’s just because a person on that Reddit thread brought them up in “defence” of trans people and so it confused me. I’m realising more that DSDs are being used to throw people off and to act as “proof” that TRAs are completely in the right scientifically.

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread but I’ve read it anyway since, that a representative from a DSD organisation asked Stonewall to leave them out of any trans arguments because they didn’t want to be appropriated in that way. Yet it seems obvious that they (tra) still do continue to do this.

The way you’ve explained the other stuff is brilliant, thank you so much. So it’s more that we can just tell if someone is male or female REGARDLESS of what facial features they have or their height, or strong jaw etc? It’s like a built in instinct? That does make sense.

And @RandomlyThrownTogether thank you too for explaining in detail, I appreciate that a lot. It sounds like it’s very much a built in part of being a human, that we can just tell. My only issue was if it was being used to criticise certain bodily features that some women may have themselves that still mean they’re a woman, but they present in a typically “male” way.

Welcome to Red Pill Land OP.

I haven’t read the whole thread but I do agree with your latest post that “we can always tell” isn’t helpful to the GC cause. As you say it can be used to undermine the central GC view that sex is biological, not appearance based.

I can understand why it’s said - as a PP said, it’s in response to claims that we won’t be able to tell whether someone in the ladies is male or female, when in fact usually we can - but I still think it’s not helpful.

It’s also unhelpful as it’s not true - there are some (not many) very feminine looking transwomen who pass perfectly thanks to a combo of genetics and treatments. So then the debate turns into “what about this person, can you tell” and if we get it wrong we’ve “lost” the argument. When in fact that was never the true debate.

Really we should be saying if they’re male they shouldn’t be in female spaces, whatever they happen to look like.

Totally agree with what you’re saying here! I can’t articulate why, I just don’t feel I have the words, but I do know I agree 😆

Thats really interesting about people not necessarily being able to recognise a natal male or female. I’m not 100% certain I’d be able to either!

Yes! This is exactly it. You’ve summed up perfectly how I feel about the comments GC people use when they say “We can always tell” etc.

It seems like it muddies the waters of the whole argument and leaves the door open for TRA to cry misogyny.

It should be extremely basic: If you’re biologically male use male spaces, if you’re biologically female use female spaces. Follow this rule no matter what you’re wearing, what your hair is like, if you’re wearing makeup, or what your facial features are like.

Thank you so much for the reply.

I have met some transwomen and you cannot always tell. So I feel this idea is flawed. But there are some features that are pretty distinguishable. There are times when you just know but it is not a hard and fast rule and honestly it's not really the point here. If you want to watch an interesting take on YouTube I recommend Ms Blair White she is a gender critical transwoman and I love her. She's very real and down to earth and she's not afraid to call out the flaws of the trans advocacy and ideology madness.

I always say trans advocates because not all the noise are trans people and not all trans people agree with all the noise.

Thank you @DaughterofDawn I will check her out, much appreciated!

I know what you mean about the term “trans advocates”, that is a brilliant one.

Of course if a transwoman is very well aware of the physical differences between men and women, and therefore makes a large effort to change their own presentation then it will make it harder for people to identify their sex. Facial feminisation surgery, laser hair removal, wigs, adam's apple surgery, voice training, practising feminising their gait etc etc. All particularly effective if they happen to be on the shorter side for a male, with smaller hands and feet than most men, slender build, narrow shoulders etc.

But I agree that getting drawn into a discussion about appearance is not helpful, and can be done deliberately to make accusations about misogyny or similar. It's not relevant, as has been said.

As the majority of trans women act, and are as feminine as women themselves there really will be little difference in the care they give and the manner they present. When it comes down to the trans issue I think that most complaints come from a more deep seated case of 'penis-phobia' than of any genuine concerns about rights and safety and so on.

Yes, because of course it's entirely imaginary that the vast majority of all crime committed against women is done by "penis people", let alone unpleasant behaviour that doesn't meet the criminal bar. 🙄

The sex of a person matters in several very specific situations, regardless of how that person presents.

As the majority of trans women act, and are as feminine as women themselves
There is so much wrong with this. Saying TW 'act' ?
Women equals 'feminine' ? It doesn't. It means that you're female, not how you act.

What do you mean by 'penis phobia', do you mean fear of being sexually assaulted?

@Adelishious tell me you're a man without telling me you're a man.

No I don't mean fear of being sexually assaulted, I think most of us would fear that. I mean a fear of men in general and thinking all biological men are out to get you. The fact you think I'm a man would certainly pojnt to that, as it seems you can't understand how women can have opposing views to other women and not all coexist together.