Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

For those who believe in Gender Identity over sex: why do you still need to believe in Men and Women at all?

350 replies

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/08/2023 13:35

One thing I do not get about Genderism is that they reject the belief that it's the physical body that makes a human a man or a woman, yet still believe some humans are men and some humans are women.

But if we hadn't had the example of two physical sexes, why would we have come up with the idea of Man-people and Woman-people in the first place?

I find it very weird that they can't or won't tell us what definition they use for Man, Woman etc ("it's a gotcha" , "blah blah blah" etc) yet demand such very specific provisions for Men and Women. How can they be so certain "trans women must use women's spaces/compete in women's sports" when without a definition of woman it's impossible to even explain why women need women only spaces or women only sports?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
ancuruadh · 01/09/2023 23:40

GarlicGrace · 01/09/2023 23:37

Oh, @ancuruadh ...

Did nobody tell you the cells of your body haven't changed sex?
Have you grown gonads & reproductive organs that you weren't born with?

Biological sex affects everything: neurotransmitters & receptors; muscle, bone & blood composition; organ size; brain configuration; even skull thickness and more!

If your doctors told you you've changed sex - sue them 😞

Cells don't have a sex you numpty. Every cell has a complete human genome including all the bits for the opposite gender.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 01/09/2023 23:41

That's really interesting.

(In the post below, I'll tend to refer to trans women because as woman myself I feel I have more insight into "being" a woman than "being" a man. I won't keeping writing "and vice versa for a trans man" but please take it as read that my statements usually apply to trans men as well).

So to paraphrase, the trans person is naturally one sex in the brain and one sex in the body. Neither is more their "real" sex than the other, and if medical science allowed we could "correct" that either way, but given the current state of science, the only way to "correct" the mismatch is to adjust the body to be closer to what the mind expects. Is that right?

I should probably note here that you seem to be saying, "yes, it is the body that makes you a woman, but some people feel like a woman and so they need to aquire that body to settle a discomfort in their mind". That isn't actually quite the same as the Genderist "a woman is anyone who says they are a woman, the body/genitals aren't part of that" argument that I was asking about originally, and it seems maybe you would also disagree with them?

Your explanation does still raise some questions/challenges - the obvious one being that a sex "change" really isn't possible either - it's a cosmetic approximation of the outside of the opposite sex. It's not really the same underneath. So is that body "inventory" only concerned with the outside of the body? And if the driver here is to relieve the discomfort of the "wrong" body, why do so many trans women keep their male genitals? And (I'm sorry to be so indelicate here) if a trans woman's brain doesn't expect her to have a penis, how come she's able to do stuff like control her pee? I know that sounds like a joke but if you think about the brain is obviously aware there's something there and knows how to control it!

And why does this body inventory only go wrong when it comes to sex? Why don't we hear about people whose brain tells them they should have been a foot taller? (There's anorexia obviously but clearly that is treated by changing the brain so it must be different.)

It's interesting you mentioned phantom limbs in relation to trans body inventory, as I've had similar thoughts.

Obviously someone whose brain/body image has developed in a body with (for example) two arms and then loses one will experience a mismatch between the mind's expected body and the actual body (and of course in this case there are severed nerves with a physical effect). But that's not really equivalent to a trans person who you say was born with the wrong inventory, so the comparator is really people missing a limb from birth. Do they also suffer phantom limbs?

Well I did actually look into it. Apparently it's not usual but does sometimes happen. But what is really interesting is that phantom limb syndrome can actually be induced by exposing people to doctored images/film of themselves with extra limbs! So the body's mental inventory/self image isn't fixed but is actually being adjusted based on what the mind is being exposed to. (Brains IMO are absolutely amazing).

Sorry, I appreciate that's a whole barrage of questions...like I said I find brains and how the imaginery self is constructed inside them amazing.

OP posts:
RufustheFactualReindeer · 01/09/2023 23:43

I should probably note here that you seem to be saying, "yes, it is the body that makes you a woman, but some people feel like a woman and so they need to aquire that body to settle a discomfort in their mind

this is what i think is sometimes the case

a trans poster on here very kindly answered a pm from me asking if the surgery had made them feel better in themselves, apparently it did

LulooLemon · 01/09/2023 23:51

" ...without a definition of woman it's impossible to even explain why women need women only spaces or women only sports? "

Agreed OP.

GarlicGrace · 01/09/2023 23:52

ancuruadh · 01/09/2023 23:40

Cells don't have a sex you numpty. Every cell has a complete human genome including all the bits for the opposite gender.

You mean sex?
My cells don't contain a Y chromosome.
They don't, therefore, contain the genes specific to being a male.

If you mean that DNA is all made of the same chemicals, then yeah. Sadly, they can't (yet) be rearranged wholesale to rewrite your sex, height, skin colour, genetic diseases, or species.

MavisMcMinty · 02/09/2023 00:03

They seem to have sent out the work experience kid to defend the faith this weekend.

Very poor effort indeed.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/09/2023 00:03

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/09/2023 23:23

"One thing I do not get about Genderism is that they reject the belief that it's the physical body that makes a human a man or a woman, yet still believe some humans are men and some humans are women"

Because a person's identity is not as clear cut as that. One thing I don't get is the rejection that a person's psychological self makes them male or female regardless of the body they were born into. The insistence on conformity to one or the other is astounding.

But what does having a "psychological self" that is male or female actually mean? Not @ancuruadh 's meaning where the mind has a blueprint for a body it doesn't have, but this idea you have that Man and Woman are meaingfully different, meaningful enough to be recognised for sport, and safety, and privacy, and sexuality, but all that is entirely down to mental differences.

You see, my model is simple. A woman is anyone, with any personality, who has a female body. It doesn't say anything about who she is or how her mind works. Similarly for a man. What it does mean is that when the body matters, like sport or reproduction or physical safety, she may need different support and provisions to men. And when society creates unfair outcomes for her becuase of the cultural expectations around her body, again she may need different support and provisions to men. Not because of who she is, but simply because of the body she has.

That to me is far more accepting and open minded than believing manhood and womanhood is dependent on what sort of "psychological self" a person has. Demanding someone has a certain type of personality to be a man or a woman seems a far greater and more astounding insistence on conformity than simply recognising the fact of the body, understanding that the sex of the body has physical and social consequences, and supporting both men and women to live their fullest lives without being constrained by their sex.

OP posts:
Faffertea · 02/09/2023 00:05

Could you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed publication that you’ve read that supports your assertions regarding humans being able to change sex and a biological basis for being transgender please @ancuruadh? Presumably you’re some kind of academic within the fields of medicine, neuroscience etc to be able to confidently make such claims? As a fellow academic I’d like to read the papers but my literature review just doesn’t seem to find them.

What search system are you using? Pubmed? Cochrane library? Something else?

Unless of course you came here thinking we’re all a load of baby brained mums with no intellectual capacity? Because that really would be misogynistic.

And yes. I know high school biology really doesn’t cover the vastness of humans as biological organisms and we’ve barely scratched the surface of our extradinary minds. My undergraduate degrees in medicine, postgraduate diplomas and membership exams, membership of professional academic bodies, 15 years practicing as a doctor including teaching undergrads and postgrads shows how much we still don’t know. I assume your background is similar?

MavisMcMinty · 02/09/2023 00:08

I assume your background is similar?

<snort laughs in a very unladylike manner>

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/09/2023 00:10

oh dammit!!!

@ancuruadh I lost your original post in my reply, but my post above from 23:41 starting "That's really interesting" was a reply to you.

I tagged you in my reply to Mumtobabyhavoc as well but it was to differentiate between your explanation and hers, the points I make in that post don't apply to your explanation.

(I'm not entirely sure I'm making that any clearer TBH!)

OP posts:
ancuruadh · 02/09/2023 00:25

FlirtsWithRhinos · 01/09/2023 23:41

That's really interesting.

(In the post below, I'll tend to refer to trans women because as woman myself I feel I have more insight into "being" a woman than "being" a man. I won't keeping writing "and vice versa for a trans man" but please take it as read that my statements usually apply to trans men as well).

So to paraphrase, the trans person is naturally one sex in the brain and one sex in the body. Neither is more their "real" sex than the other, and if medical science allowed we could "correct" that either way, but given the current state of science, the only way to "correct" the mismatch is to adjust the body to be closer to what the mind expects. Is that right?

I should probably note here that you seem to be saying, "yes, it is the body that makes you a woman, but some people feel like a woman and so they need to aquire that body to settle a discomfort in their mind". That isn't actually quite the same as the Genderist "a woman is anyone who says they are a woman, the body/genitals aren't part of that" argument that I was asking about originally, and it seems maybe you would also disagree with them?

Your explanation does still raise some questions/challenges - the obvious one being that a sex "change" really isn't possible either - it's a cosmetic approximation of the outside of the opposite sex. It's not really the same underneath. So is that body "inventory" only concerned with the outside of the body? And if the driver here is to relieve the discomfort of the "wrong" body, why do so many trans women keep their male genitals? And (I'm sorry to be so indelicate here) if a trans woman's brain doesn't expect her to have a penis, how come she's able to do stuff like control her pee? I know that sounds like a joke but if you think about the brain is obviously aware there's something there and knows how to control it!

And why does this body inventory only go wrong when it comes to sex? Why don't we hear about people whose brain tells them they should have been a foot taller? (There's anorexia obviously but clearly that is treated by changing the brain so it must be different.)

It's interesting you mentioned phantom limbs in relation to trans body inventory, as I've had similar thoughts.

Obviously someone whose brain/body image has developed in a body with (for example) two arms and then loses one will experience a mismatch between the mind's expected body and the actual body (and of course in this case there are severed nerves with a physical effect). But that's not really equivalent to a trans person who you say was born with the wrong inventory, so the comparator is really people missing a limb from birth. Do they also suffer phantom limbs?

Well I did actually look into it. Apparently it's not usual but does sometimes happen. But what is really interesting is that phantom limb syndrome can actually be induced by exposing people to doctored images/film of themselves with extra limbs! So the body's mental inventory/self image isn't fixed but is actually being adjusted based on what the mind is being exposed to. (Brains IMO are absolutely amazing).

Sorry, I appreciate that's a whole barrage of questions...like I said I find brains and how the imaginery self is constructed inside them amazing.

"So to paraphrase, the trans person is naturally one sex in the brain and one sex in the body. Neither is more their "real" sex than the other, and if medical science allowed we could "correct" that either way, but given the current state of science, the only way to "correct" the mismatch is to adjust the body to be closer to what the mind expects. Is that right?"

This is getting into philosophical territory now, but I think most people would prefer to regard their psychological self as their "real" self, for various reasons... In general, though, yes, that is correct... :)

"I should probably note here that you seem to be saying, "yes, it is the body that makes you a woman, but some people feel like a woman and so they need to aquire that body to settle a discomfort in their mind". That isn't actually quite the same as the Genderist "a woman is anyone who says they are a woman, the body/genitals aren't part of that" argument that I was asking about originally, and it seems maybe you would also disagree with them?"

The whole concept of "genderists" and everything associated with it is a fiction made up by GC people as a strawman to argue against. You won't find anyone in the trans community who is anything like that in reality.

On the topic of who is a woman specifically I think I can very easily answer that by asking you a question; If you were forceably transitioned to male against your will, would you no longer consider yourself a woman?

"Your explanation does still raise some questions/challenges - the obvious one being that a sex "change" really isn't possible either - it's a cosmetic approximation of the outside of the opposite sex. It's not really the same underneath. So is that body "inventory" only concerned with the outside of the body? And if the driver here is to relieve the discomfort of the "wrong" body, why do so many trans women keep their male genitals? And (I'm sorry to be so indelicate here) if a trans woman's brain doesn't expect her to have a penis, how come she's able to do stuff like control her pee? I know that sounds like a joke but if you think about the brain is obviously aware there's something there and knows how to control it!"

Well this is a lot... So, first of all, a sex change is not cosmetic, it changes everything right down to the DNA, that's how powerful hormones are... The body inventory is concerned with the whole body and hormones change the whole body so that works out fine.

As far as trans women keeping the bits, there's two things going on... Firstly, it's possible to have differing levels of dysphoria about different parts of your body. It's entirely possible for a trans woman to be extremely distressed about not having breasts, but not really bothered about having a penis. Since we are, after all, talking about a major surgery it's not surprising that someone who feels ambivilent about their bits might skip it. Secondly, nonbinary people do exist. That's a very big topic on it's own and I'm not quite as knowlegable about it cos I'm very binary myself, but for now, suffice to say there are some people who's body inventory tells them they ought to have physical features from both genders.

Finally, what you said about penises... Ummm... No offense but I don't think you really know how penises work? They don't actually move or anything, they just sort of hang there? There isn't really anything that you can "do" with them... Peeing is controlled by the bladder and that's the same regardless of gender so it works the same way, it just has a longer "straw" attached for lack of a better word...

"And why does this body inventory only go wrong when it comes to sex? Why don't we hear about people whose brain tells them they should have been a foot taller? (There's anorexia obviously but clearly that is treated by changing the brain so it must be different.)"

The prevailing theory is as follows: An embryo in the womb recieves two doses of what's called "anti-mullerian hormone" that are produced by the SRY gene (the infamous "male gene" that is associated with the Y chromosome.) The anti-mullerian hormone changes the development of the mullerian ducts (the embryonic sex organs) hence the name. If the embryo gets a dose of anti-mullerian hormone the mullerian ducts develop into the relatively simple anatomy of a male. If they don't the considerably more complex womb develops. The interesting part is the second dose. Why two doses when one will change the mullerian ducts just fine? The answer is, the first dose is produced at two months, and at two months the embryo doesn't have a brain yet. It simply hasn't grown. The second dose is produced at four months, when the brain has grown. The theory is that the second dose causes the brain to adjust to match the physical biology. The consequences of this are obvious. Two doses of the special hormone and you're a cis man. None and you're a cis woman. But if you get the first but not the second you're a trans woman, and if you get the second but not the first you're a trans man.

That's the theory, anyway. Obviously it's impossible to prove, cos the only way to prove it would be to experiment on an embryo with the intent of making the resultant child trans, which would obviously be wildly unethical, but given the peculiarities of the anti-mullerian hormone it seems pretty convincing to me... :)

"Obviously someone whose brain/body image has developed in a body with (for example) two arms and then loses one will experience a mismatch between the mind's expected body and the actual body (and of course in this case there are severed nerves with a physical effect). But that's not really equivalent to a trans person who you say was born with the wrong inventory, so the comparator is really people missing a limb from birth. Do they also suffer phantom limbs?

Well I did actually look into it. Apparently it's not usual but does sometimes happen. But what is really interesting is that phantom limb syndrome can actually be induced by exposing people to doctored images/film of themselves with extra limbs! So the body's mental inventory/self image isn't fixed but is actually being adjusted based on what the mind is being exposed to. (Brains IMO are absolutely amazing)."

The phrase used in the diagnostic criteria for gender incongruence (the proper term for what we're talking about) is "persistent, insistent, consistent." If your mind is persistently, consistently, insistently telling you your body is wrong then you're trans. That's what separates being trans from more ephemeral shenanigans like the one you described.

" Sorry, I appreciate that's a whole barrage of questions...like I said I find brains and how the imaginery self is constructed inside them amazing."

Totally fine! You're much more interesting to talk to than the more snobby and disrespectful types! :)

Screamingabdabz · 02/09/2023 00:30

“Well this is a lot... So, first of all, a sex change is not cosmetic, it changes everything right down to the DNA, that's how powerful hormones are... The body inventory is concerned with the whole body and hormones change the whole body so that works out fine.”

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Cattenberg · 02/09/2023 00:53

Totally fine! You're much more interesting to talk to than the more snobby and disrespectful types! :)

Do you think the regular posters might have been more “respectful”, if you hadn’t insulted them in your first post by comparing them to Flat Earthers?

Or, if you hadn’t reacted badly when a few women took you up on your offer to ask you questions?

Or, if you hadn’t called a woman a “misogynist” for disagreeing with you?

Or, if you hadn’t assumed that no woman here will have studied Biology beyond high school?

I don’t think any number of sideways smileys will make up for those insults.

ancuruadh · 02/09/2023 00:54

Screamingabdabz · 02/09/2023 00:30

“Well this is a lot... So, first of all, a sex change is not cosmetic, it changes everything right down to the DNA, that's how powerful hormones are... The body inventory is concerned with the whole body and hormones change the whole body so that works out fine.”

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Tell me, oh wise troll, what are hormones and what do they do?

Oh, you don't know? I suppose that's why you stick to trolling is it?

midgemadgemodge · 02/09/2023 00:55

Xx people have never become xy

And xy have never become xx

No matter what fancy science is done to your body

So no surgery and hormones are not that amazing

Transparent2 · 02/09/2023 00:57

ancuruadh:
"Totally fine! You're much more interesting to talk to than the more snobby and disrespectful types! :)"

Also ancuruadh:
"Cells don't have a sex you numpty."

I apologise for pointing out the slight inconsistency. But please do as you would be done by, @ancuruadh. And perhaps you could explain to me what changes to a cell's DNA are effected by hormones? For example, if a man takes oestrogen as a prostate cancer treatment, does it change the DNA in all his cells so that he becomes a woman at the cellular level?

ancuruadh · 02/09/2023 00:59

Cattenberg · 02/09/2023 00:53

Totally fine! You're much more interesting to talk to than the more snobby and disrespectful types! :)

Do you think the regular posters might have been more “respectful”, if you hadn’t insulted them in your first post by comparing them to Flat Earthers?

Or, if you hadn’t reacted badly when a few women took you up on your offer to ask you questions?

Or, if you hadn’t called a woman a “misogynist” for disagreeing with you?

Or, if you hadn’t assumed that no woman here will have studied Biology beyond high school?

I don’t think any number of sideways smileys will make up for those insults.

"Do you think the regular posters might have been more “respectful”, if you hadn’t insulted them in your first post by comparing them to Flat Earthers?"

Oh no, I didn't pander to your delusions! How terrible!! 😆

"Or, if you hadn’t reacted badly when a few women took you up on your offer to ask you questions?"

And yet somehow I didn't "react badly" to the one woman in this thread who actually behaved respectfully... Funny that... 🤔

"Or, if you hadn’t called a woman a “misogynist” for disagreeing with you?"

Misogyny is an ideology, anyone can be a misogynist. Now put your ego away and stop making a fool of yourself. 😆

"Or, if you hadn’t assumed that no woman here will have studied Biology beyond high school?"

Do tell me, oh wise one, what are hormones and what do they do? I'm waiting... :)

"I don’t think any number of sideways smileys will make up for those insults."

If you think reality is insulting... 🙄

ancuruadh · 02/09/2023 01:04

Transparent2 · 02/09/2023 00:57

ancuruadh:
"Totally fine! You're much more interesting to talk to than the more snobby and disrespectful types! :)"

Also ancuruadh:
"Cells don't have a sex you numpty."

I apologise for pointing out the slight inconsistency. But please do as you would be done by, @ancuruadh. And perhaps you could explain to me what changes to a cell's DNA are effected by hormones? For example, if a man takes oestrogen as a prostate cancer treatment, does it change the DNA in all his cells so that he becomes a woman at the cellular level?

Hormones control the function of genes. Estrogen activates the genes that do things like make you grow breasts and have a period, without estrogen those genes are not active. Similarly, testosterone activates the genes that make you grow a beard, get erections and so on. Without testosterone those genes won't be active.

So yes, a man who takes estrogen to treat prostate cancer will have his "male" genes deactivated and his "female" genes activated. That's why stuff like growing breasts is listed as a side effect.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 02/09/2023 01:06

@ancuruadh

Really interesting reply, thank you. I'll probably come back to it in the morning but there's two points I do want to reply to now:

The whole concept of "genderists" and everything associated with it is a fiction made up by GC people as a strawman to argue against. You won't find anyone in the trans community who is anything like that in reality.

But the thing is we do have people saying it, a lot! There's someone saying exactly that on this thread! And this exact "if she says she's a woman she's a woman and that's that, the body isn't relevant to anything" idea is used by some very big hitters (Stonewall etc) as the justification for male bodies in women's sport and safe/private spaces.

And perhaps that's part of the problem. You aren't exposed to people making this sort of argument in the name of the trans community, but we are. So when we talk about it and the problems it raises you think it's GC strawmanning. And undoubtably the other way as well, the really nasty transphobic attitudes that I see in some other places may not get a look in on FWR but the trans community does experience them, and so we in FWR get tarred with attitudes we don't have as well.

On the topic of who is a woman specifically I think I can very easily answer that by asking you a question; If you were forceably transitioned to male against your will, would you no longer consider yourself a woman?

Again not the first time I've thought about that!

I would consider myself a man who used to be a woman. (I'd also be bloody furious and possibly psychotic, but that's a different problem!)

I think I'd fuck up a lot as a man at first, but assuming it's a one way street, I'd accept my new reality and get on with it. I'd likely find it fascinating to learn first hand how the world really works for men. I hope my experience as a woman made me a better friend and ally to women than many men.

I'd DEFINITELY write my name in the snow!

What I wouldn't do is assume for myself the authority to speak "as a man" without qualifying that my life experience was very different to other men. I;d never been a boy. I'd not experienced the way teenage boys interact nor how the world looks at them. My puberty involved periods not embarrassing wet dreams. All of this matters - man who used to be a woman is still a man, but a man who used to be a woman is different to a man who was never a woman.

That's important when we flip the scenario and consider a woman who used to be a man. Some of women's protections/rights are due to purely physical differences but many are to protect us from the entitlement of men - they perve at us, they speak over us, they encrouch on us, and they dismiss and belittle us. A woman who used to be a man has grown up as the encroucher not the encrouchee - and for that reason even in the fantasy where the body can truly be flipped to the opposite sex, I would put limitations on treating her exactly the same as women who were always women. Not because of the body as it is today, but because of the journey taken to get there and what that means for the person in the body.

(I'd say the same for myself as the Man who used to be a Woman BTW, except those single sex protections don't exist for men in the same way so the question wouldn't arise).

OP posts:
ancuruadh · 02/09/2023 01:06

midgemadgemodge · 02/09/2023 00:55

Xx people have never become xy

And xy have never become xx

No matter what fancy science is done to your body

So no surgery and hormones are not that amazing

Good grief. So many people are so eager to boast about their ignorance... 🙄

I would ask what "xy people" are, exactly, but I'm quite sure the answer will be the usual drivel... 🙄

GailBlancheViola · 02/09/2023 01:15

Good grief. So many people are so eager to boast about their ignorance...

An apt description of yourself.

Transparent2 · 02/09/2023 01:21

ancuruadh · 02/09/2023 01:04

Hormones control the function of genes. Estrogen activates the genes that do things like make you grow breasts and have a period, without estrogen those genes are not active. Similarly, testosterone activates the genes that make you grow a beard, get erections and so on. Without testosterone those genes won't be active.

So yes, a man who takes estrogen to treat prostate cancer will have his "male" genes deactivated and his "female" genes activated. That's why stuff like growing breasts is listed as a side effect.

Edited

How often has oestrogen caused a man to have a period? How often has testosterone caused a woman to have an erection and be able to ejaculate semen? You can only activate with hormones what is already there and in working order.

EBearhug · 02/09/2023 01:23

I don't think you really know how penises work? They don't actually move or anything, they just sort of hang there? There isn't really anything that you can "do" with them...

Somehow, I need to work this into my OLD profile...

GarlicGrace · 02/09/2023 01:54

@EBearhug, £10 says you'll get lots of videos of men "writing their names in the snow" or helicoptering, and baroque offers to show you exactly what they can do with theirs 😆

PorcelinaV · 02/09/2023 01:57

So, first of all, a sex change is not cosmetic, it changes everything right down to the DNA, that's how powerful hormones are... The body inventory is concerned with the whole body and hormones change the whole body so that works out fine.

It's "cosmetic" in the sense that you can't really change sex. The difference caused by hormones is a million miles away from an actual sex change.