"women who were born trans"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I'm posting this not because I'm suggesting that we need to make counter-arguments in this place but because sometimes it's very hard to understand TRA positioning. This (sort-of) makes an interesting read. Anyway. It's from comments on you-know-where:

Women should not be made to use men's toilets just because they were born with a trans body.

People pretending that women who were born trans are somehow an invasion of privacy of women born cis are just dressing up their bigotry as something else.

So instead of male and female bodies, we need to get to grips with the ideas of cis bodies and trans bodies. And instead of women, and men who want to be women, we have women who were born cis and women who were born trans.

Just FYI.

This isn’t particularly new, they used to refer to it as “woman with a trans history”.

Gobbledegook.

Yep. Gaslighting.

8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

Just more deliberate obfuscation of language.

Lack of clarity of the words used in society has been a major factor of the ability of TRAs to embed GI in so many institutions.

We need to continue to resist all forms of denying us our sex based language and rights.

Funny that the men who accuse us of being segregationists ( for wanting single sex spaces) never seem to acknowledge that they are also segregationists for wanting gender based spaces. Utter self obsessed pricks that they are.

Peter Dunne, legal academic, notoriously wrote a paper cited by the Scottish government that objecting to women with “different bodies” (ie men) in female spaces was the same as objecting to a woman who had had a mastectomy due to cancer treatment. Several of our comments about this “argument” were printed in the Scottish Sun, IIRC.

Delusion and gaslighting, and weaponising/utilising the language of the disabled and injured as a human shield, much like 'it's just like being gay'. Shameless.

Their perceptions are their own and have nothing to do with other people's objective realities.

This boils down to an absolute refusal to hear no from women or accept women's boundaries.

If trans is an identity, then, by definition, a body cannot be trans.

This is where the leopard eats its own face IMO.

You gave the folks who believe in the “burn in the wrong body” guff and folks who genuinely suffer from poor mental health and then in the other end you have the self-ID and AGPs.

Anyone remember the Twitter melt down when there was talk of scientific evidence of being trans and the ability to ‘test’ for it? I saw a thread where one poster was so excited by the prospect of proving TERFs were wrong ….the AGPs were furious.

Yes, I think it was “Translucent” who announced this breakthrough and then had to rescind it.

Well that can fuck right off.

I had the impression that the 'born in the wrong body' trope had been abandoned, possibly because the optics of telling a young person that their body is 'wrong' clashed with body positivity..
and there has been quite a bit of 'Of course you can't change sex, we're still the same sex but we've changed gender'.

None of it makes sense, they're just moving the same words around on the fridge door and coming up with different combinations...🙄

That’s just total garbage.

Its saying that woman and man isnt tied to sex.

But single sex services are allowed on the bases of sex.

What TRA want is to piggyback off all of the work that goes into providing single sex spaces, and then say because they call themselves men or women, they should use the opposite sex space.

Its basically because they cannot justify why services should be provided by their definitions of man and woman.

Remember “ the gender bollocks destroys all it touches”

feel free to ignore this bollocks.

To be clear, as many counter arguments as anyone thinks are necessary are welcome, I just wasn’t intending to be goady. I’m truly fascinated by the division of physical bodies into trans and not-trans. That in some quarters there is such a thing as a “trans body”.

I would have thought that "women who were born trans" would be trans men. Trans women are men who were born trans. (That's assuming that trans people are born trans to begin with, which we don't know if that's the case, at all.)

TRAs will really do anything they can to erase the connection between trans women and men, won't they?

Every euphemism they use seems to confuse.

Trans history, transitioning, transition, born trans, tw, tw, nonbinary.

If they just said we want to be treated as the opposite sex, it would be better for them in the long run, because now people dont know what they are asking, and once they do have to say no.

Theres no way on earth we can determine need based on sex, and then do a switcheroo and let anyone identify as the opposite sex. Which is basically what they want. They need to be told so, and its up to them to come up with an alternative.

They also claim that a man can be a biological woman.

IW calls himself a 'Biological Female' in his X bio.

If a male baby can be born in a female baby body how did the male baby actually get into the female baby body in the first place?

How do they explain where the person that lives in the (percived) wrong body came from?

In some quarters there is such a thing as fairies at the bottom of the garden.

In other quarters you will find, for example, Cat A prisoners who genuinely believe they are absolutely innocent of their crimes, never did the thing, and have long and complicated stories of what happened instead, despite all of the very clear and convicting evidence.

And in other quarters you will very easily find many men who will tell you in great detail how they were innocent, lovely people who were atrociously treated by their lives and wives until they were so battered that an affair just happened to them, and their wife then not only didn't understand them but hideously cruelly divorced them. For no reason at all.

And in yet more quarters you will easily find very small people who will tearfully insist that they absolutely did not cause the bite marks on another small person despite the fact that the toothmarks fit exactly and no one else was in the room at the time, and they did, yes, absolutely brush their teeth.

Looking at behaviour, personality types and psychology is probably a lot more use here than physical bodies.

Logically it would have to involve some aspect of a person that is not the physical body and exists independently of it - a soul.

And the soul being sent to the wrong body rather than the one intended. Which would imply that it exists prior to entering human form and so presumably also continues to exist after leaving it, since body and this soul are not the same thing.

Which logically implies some form of superpower supervising and sending these souls. Who is something of a bungler.

Once unpacked it is a religious belief system.

If a male baby can be born in a female baby body how did the male baby actually get into the female baby body in the first place?

The stork. The stork put it there. Obvs.

Or, perhaps Temu.

I remember Big Colin getting very tetchy about someone posting a link to an article.

The two different types of toilet facilities are assigned for, designed for, and intended for, the two different types of sexed human bodies. Whether the person with the male body has transgender feelings, cisgender feelings, or no gender feelings at all is not an issue because it is about the bodies.