Page 2 | TW and IVF

CatandSpoon · 2023-07-30T07:51:46+00:00

I'm pondering... Would this be a surefire test of how indoctrinated a person is. Say for example my DH John has decided he is now a woman. As TWAW (or so they would have us believe) he has decided he wants to carry a baby. So he is going to contact the IVF clinics and undergo the hormones, the egg harvesting etc. If, upon hearing this story a person replies "but no, John can't undergo IVF!"... Can I then say "ah but that reply makes you a T*RF in the eyes of the TWAW movement" Is this a potentially peaking example? I'm trying to think of a way to .. not even challenge friends, but to highlight the ludicrous nature of the TWAW brigade.

Weflewinstyle · 30/07/2023 10:44

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.

PlanetJanette · 30/07/2023 11:16

CatandSpoon · 30/07/2023 09:13

Ah ok I see what you mean.

But I'm thinking more of my friend Susan saying TWAW and me saying "yes indeed they are. In fact John is now a woman and he's going for IVF next week. We always wanted a third baby so it's his turn to carry"
Then I'm imagining the look of shock on Susan's face as she stutters "but that won't work, it's a waste of money, John can't carry a baby "
And I innocently say "oh really? Why not? He's a woman now"

Cue the cognitive dissonance

Show quote history

That would indeed be a slam dunk if you believe that someone being unable to carry a child to term is definitive proof that they’re not a woman.

But I doubt you think that.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 30/07/2023 11:30

FatAgainItsLettuceTime · 30/07/2023 10:31

My DH is part of the TWAW group (yes it's frustrating and leads to some incredibly annoying conversations) what I find incredibly difficult is that he is a really clever man, articulate, generally good common sense but 'kind' to the extent that he will twist logic to avoid the possibility of being hurtful to anyone so he has a real blind spot here.

We have had many conversations where he maintains the TWAW stance as I work through a variety of scenarios, eventually he does come to the conclusion that TWA not W in some scenarios but always then defaults back to 'but that's an edge case, for everyday living TWAW' at which point I start banging my head against the wall (metaphorically).

His turning points which he then dismisses as edge cases are:

rapists/violent male criminals who are placed in women's prisons in the general population. He's ok with them being in some kind of segregated area of a women's prison
male presenting TW in rape crisis refuges/therapy groups
him ever having sex with a TW who retains a penis

He's ok with them being in some kind of segregated area of a women's prison

He might need to listen to season 2 episode 1 to find out more about how that works in practice http://paddyspodcast.ie/episodes-2/ (spoiler - not well).

And who does he think should staff these separate sections - should women prison officers have to perform intimate searches on TW prisoners, restrain them if they become violent, observe them on suicide watch (which involves watching them all the time, including on the toilet)?

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 30/07/2023 11:31

Sorry - that like doesn't work. Try this and scroll back to the right episode: http://paddyspodcast.ie/episodes-3/

Listen – Paddy's Podcast

http://paddyspodcast.ie/episodes-3

huuskymam · 30/07/2023 11:35

Send his a diagram of the male reproductive system, which transwomen have, and tell him to point out where a fetus would gestate for 9 months.

54isanopendoor · 30/07/2023 11:36

Rightsraptor · 30/07/2023 10:35

@CatandSpoon - it's not gaps in your logic, it's that there is no logic in their argument.

A woman is an adult human female. A female is someone whose reproductive system is intended to produce large, immotile gametes. It doesn't matter one jot if the individual concerned doesn't actually do this (she's too young, too old, her system doesn't work as expected) - she still belongs to that reproductive class. The other reproductive class that makes small, motile gametes is male (same rules apply). There are only these two types of reproductive systems in humans and we all belong to one or the other.

And we all know which group John belongs to the moment we see him. It makes no difference if he's wearing a sequined mini skirt and 6" heels. However, some seem to think the mini skirt and heels are what makes a woman. They're wrong.

Brilliant post @Rightsraptor

MadamPickles · 30/07/2023 12:08

The argument that's thrown back here is that some women have hysterectomies and they're allowed to call themselves women and therefore men are allowed to call themselves women too if they want to.

I know it's ridiculous. I know it's offensive. But that's the level these people are operating at. Teenage levels of logic.

I ask if Usain Bolt should be allowed to run in the women's 100m if he decides he's female.

Should Wayne Cousens be moved to the female estate if he decides he's female

Etc etc.

Florissante · 30/07/2023 12:41

huuskymam · 30/07/2023 11:35

Send his a diagram of the male reproductive system, which transwomen have, and tell him to point out where a fetus would gestate for 9 months.

I love that.

GiraffeDoor · 30/07/2023 12:52

The well-versed TRA knows that the next line of the argument is "what about a woman who's had cancer, or a hysterectomy? They can't harvest eggs/carry a baby. Does that mean that you think they are men? Ugh, you're obsessed with genitals, you fetishist."

Don't forget, these are the same people who will insist that you can't possibly know your own chromosomes unless you've been genetically tested. But that also, chromosomes are irrelevant anyway. Except when it suits them. 🐦♟️

ApocalipstickNow · 30/07/2023 13:41

The better question is to show your mate (and Lettuce’s husband) the pictures on the Anne Coomes thread and ask at which point has the man become a woman.

Then ask why they are no longer a man.

I mean, you still won’t get a proper answer but you’ll get clues in on what someone actually thinks woman means.

You won’t like it though.

Truthlikeness · 30/07/2023 14:03

Transactivism seeks to redefine 'women' to only include things that can be bought. Clothes, make-up, breasts, a hole for sex. It seeks to divorce the definition from those things that can't be acquired by men - an xx chromosome body developed around the production of large gametes.

Some people - even some seeming intelligent people - are happy to go along with that because they think someone's internal desire to be something they are not is the most important thing for society to facilitate.

The constituent parts of femaleness are then dealt with in isolation, which is how we get to bleeders, gestational carriers, cervix-havers, uterus-owners.

Original poster

CatandSpoon · 30/07/2023 14:30

Muckysmucky · 30/07/2023 10:27

Sorry but that’s such a childish argument. It would also get very easily closed down in that John has no functioning uterus and ovaries the same as lots of other women who require fertility treatment and so they are all seeking help from the clinic.

I’ve seen lots of arguments about how having the female body parts doesn’t define womanhood else women post hysterectomy would cease to be women.

You can’t argue like that with Trans ideology

I thought my argument was genius not childish 😂

It is true that women without functioning parts of/reproductive system are still women. And as another poster mentioned, I know that women who undergo IVF are indeed women.

The trans ideology is tricky, isn't it.

My "aha" moment is sadly not as water tight as I thought

OP posts:

Original poster

CatandSpoon · 30/07/2023 14:52

Truthlikeness · 30/07/2023 14:03

Transactivism seeks to redefine 'women' to only include things that can be bought. Clothes, make-up, breasts, a hole for sex. It seeks to divorce the definition from those things that can't be acquired by men - an xx chromosome body developed around the production of large gametes.

Some people - even some seeming intelligent people - are happy to go along with that because they think someone's internal desire to be something they are not is the most important thing for society to facilitate.

The constituent parts of femaleness are then dealt with in isolation, which is how we get to bleeders, gestational carriers, cervix-havers, uterus-owners.

That's an interesting view, I hadn't thought of the "consumer goods" aspect

OP posts:

Usedtolikefood · 30/07/2023 14:52

If you wanted to use it as a thought experiment, it would be this: John is now a woman. Me and John are trying for a baby, but nothing is happening, John is still not pregnant. The Dr refuses to investigate why John is not getting pregnant, but has offered to investigate me!!! This is blatant transphobic discrimination, isn’t it friend?!

If friend starts to argue about John’s body still being male, you have an ‘in’ to talk about men in women’s sports ( amateur too) as that is based on bodies, women survivors being triggered by male bodies in support groups, the importance of sex and sexed language in health care and communications, including sex Ed and contraception for young people, and so on.

YukoandHiro · 30/07/2023 14:57

"It's not an analogy. If TW are actually women, then why should they not attend IVF clinics? Biological women do. So it's the next "logical" step. Men are now "chest feeding" babies. Why can they not become pregnant? If TW are women then..."

But the phrase isn't "trans women are biological women" is it? It's about stretching the definition of "women" to include bio women and trans women. You can find that upsetting or call it progress, but it doesn't mean that TWAW is an illogical statement. "TWABW" would be illogical

JellySaurus · 30/07/2023 15:58

MrsFButton · 30/07/2023 09:20

I was thinking the other day that a simple response to TWAW might be "Oh okay, am I a trans woman then? No? Why not?"

What makes you a tw?
I identify as one.
Well, that means you are a cisw.
Why?
Because you are female.
No, you misunderstand me. I identify as a tw.
You can't.
Why?

Etc

Weflewinstyle · 30/07/2023 16:12

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.

Usedtolikefood · 30/07/2023 16:19

YukoandHiro · 30/07/2023 14:57

"It's not an analogy. If TW are actually women, then why should they not attend IVF clinics? Biological women do. So it's the next "logical" step. Men are now "chest feeding" babies. Why can they not become pregnant? If TW are women then..."

But the phrase isn't "trans women are biological women" is it? It's about stretching the definition of "women" to include bio women and trans women. You can find that upsetting or call it progress, but it doesn't mean that TWAW is an illogical statement. "TWABW" would be illogical

Yes it’s illogical. Unless you can come up with a definition of woman which includes characteristics shared by all women and all TW but which are never all shared with men.

And as we know, despite being asked many, many times, no gender ideologue can do this.

Which is why TWAW is an illogical position.

Rightsraptor · 30/07/2023 17:13

Thank you, @54isanopendoor.

JellySaurus · 30/07/2023 17:22

'Biological woman' is virtually a tautology - you cannot be a woman in any way other than biologically.

Male woman is an oxymoron. The two parts of that phrase are mutually exclusive.

TWAW is entirely illogical.

FiddleLeaf · 30/07/2023 17:24

CatandSpoon · 30/07/2023 09:08

It's not an analogy. If TW are actually women, then why should they not attend IVF clinics? Biological women do. So it's the next "logical" step. Men are now "chest feeding" babies. Why can they not become pregnant? If TW are women then...

Show quote history

Biological women without uteruses don’t have IVF.

pastatriangles · 30/07/2023 19:18

As others have said they would just say not all women have functioning/intact reproductive systems.

I think absence of a Y chromosome is the only way to argue. It's black and white. And immune to the pathetic DSD argument.

ZairWazAnOldLady · 30/07/2023 19:33

I’d really rather you didn’t drag sub-fertile women into this shit show. Just as those born intersex aren’t interested in being trans-poster girls, those of us whose reproductive lives are already highly medicalised don’t really need to be used as human “gotchyas”.

popebishop · 30/07/2023 19:58

I don't mean this rudely but more in a frustrated way - how, in 2023, are people still thinking that TRAs are arguing that "woman" means "female-bodied"?

I guess they've mangled language and meaning so much, that their essential claim "woman is an indefinable feeling that anyone can have, if they are women" still gets lost.

Plus the TW now saying they are female.

And yeah, fertility has nothing to do with whether you are your sex or not.

Truthlikeness · 30/07/2023 20:22

CatandSpoon · 30/07/2023 14:52

That's an interesting view, I hadn't thought of the "consumer goods" aspect

Show quote history

I can't claim to have invented it - I saw it as a discussion on Twitter and thought it was an interesting observation.