What's the deal guys?

[shadesOfTeal]

I don't think this post is going to last long but what's the deal with hating trans women so much? I've been a women for 13 years of my life since 18 and it's never been a problem. Suddenly I'm not only talk of the town but also an evil man stealing everyone's rights away from them? I wasn't much of a boy as a kid anyway but. I just wanted to ask like what's the deal? Why do you hate the idea of me existing so much? What have I personally done to you that's been so bad? I feel like I need to be careful with my words because it'll be easy to accuse me of all sorts but I've done no harm to anyone. If you want to ask a trans woman some honest questions then please do, I don't usually talk about it in my day to day life and that, I'm pretty down to earth and will help you understand as much as possible. But I'd like to ask the people that hate me so much, can we ever get along? Please don't assume I'm what the internet and the media says I am though, I'm not like that at all! I just want us all to get on and I'm sick of having my life debated every 5 minutes.

Gynecomastia represents development of different underlying fat distribution and glandular structures than normal breasts.

My breasts are quite normal, healthy and female typical in composition, shape and size.

Even ones which have medical conditions that produce secretions.

But apparently, if a group of male people claim that their breasts are female, we must listen to them and accept that is materially real.

Thanks. That's my aim in posting more than anything - that, and, quite seriously, right now, catharsis! I know I'm indulging in a few screeds, and it's because (besides personal circumstances lending themselves to indulgent typing at the mo!... and procrastination), I'm really feeling it a bit right now. There's also the faint surviving shadow of my early sense that Victoria Smith (I think?) describes of feeling that if I can only find the right words, they'll listen... but don't worry, I'm coming to my senses! You know that meme of smiling, rosy-cheeked TERF newbies on a rollercoaster? I've more than a foot now in the carriage of battle-hardened warriors... 😁

Honestly, the screeds are in place of what I want to say, and maybe should, which is, simply, how bloody stupid most (note, not all) of the posts in defence of trans ideology that we get here are - how superficial, puerile, hypocritical and reactive. I try hard not to use ad homs, so that these posts' apparent inability to address - to acknowledge - even lengthy paint-by-number explanations is clear to any lurkers or fence-sitters (and also in case of any genuine vulnerability, as Marie said earlier)... but it's getting harder and harder to resist.

I mean, it's evident straight off in the contributions right after my last. I've not read beyond it yet, but on that page at least... I'd say that One Poster's replies are a remarkable concession - except that we all already knew this was the case. I'd also add in response to their replies - I'm finding the Princess Bride curiously relevant right now! - that "I do not think that that word nuance means what you think it means." It simply doesn't make sense in the context in which it's being used there. And then there's yet another, by Transgender, which promptly chooses to ignore my own and maybe a hundred or so other clear answers to instead, yet again, misrepresent the opening post and focus on the more (understandably!) irritable of our responses.

It speaks volumes to me. Time and again we see that, after having explained our concerns politely, thoroughly, directly, curtly, infuriatedly, and, sometimes, (and, frankly, entirely understandably 😁) rather swearily rudely... the replies simply choose to shoot down any perceived rudeness or avoid the point entirely by blithely volleying into clouds. It's proper tilting at windmills.

I think it's telling that we have such a range of voices which, between them, cover every possible approach to defending our views in this energetic, varied chorus. We reply to questions, quote phrases, paste links and share stats; address anomalies and highlight contradictions and acknowledge issues. Across our posts as a whole, we address every little nuance (actual meaning!) again and again and again. You only have to read honestly to find it. It could lead to the best debates... That it doesn't, here or elsewhere, feels, again, telling.

I'm going to (try to!) head off soon - am feeling I'm online and distracted by this a bit too much right now (and am increasingly conscious of interrupting the to and fro with more soap boxes than usual!) but will try to read the new replies first at least.

No. They are not typical in composition. They share some aspects but not others.

Fancy telling female people that they don’t know their bodies and how they work…. The misogyny keeps on coming.

A breast does not require the presence of an infant to be a breast. There aren't many studies done on trans youth physical development, but I would be willing to bet that they exist and would verify normal female breast development.

My breasts are quite normal, healthy and female typical in composition, shape and size.

I think this comes under the heading of TMI from a TIM - too much information from a trans-identifying male!

Am I too late to mention that I have a Miss Selfridge dress from around 40 years ago. It still fits over my actually female breasts.

I dunno if you consider this to be some kind of burn

for the avoidance of doubt, it isn’t

Violence

Its a permission for violent acts.

Look what you made me do.

If you just
● let me do
• what I want to do
• when I want to do it
• how I want to do it
I would not be
□ forced by you
□ to hurt you

The breaking of the social contract up to acts of violence are allowed

Moobs are common, in all males

<shudder>

as a pp noted, we’ve reached the ‘perv’ stage

Gynecomastia is caused by a hormone imbalance in man. There is no difference.

Yep 👍 I remember seeing all those ‘trans’ women showing theirs off….🤣

I agree Catiette.

I also encourage you to keep on posting your fab posts. I genuinely hope that seeing the same points written from a slightly different perspective will convince. Sadly, it is more that you will get appreciation from us than you will get results from the person you wrote the posts for.

We certainly need a range of voices and we all learn from a swapping of factual information and accurate description of experiences. It is what Mumsnet is all about.

I fully understand the need to do it too though. I share that need for just speaking the facts and seeking clarity. That is why many of us are here.

I like your ‘I do not think that word means what you think it means!’

But the point of breasts is to feed infants.

Women with small breasts breast feed and many women have mastectomies because of cancer.

As has been established, many men develop breasts for various reasons.

None of this changes anyone's sex.

🙄
🤣🤣🤣🤣

Most TRA have moved off from trying to run the clownfish/fungi/worm play.

Most TRA are public (on the street &...) sex realist too.💅

Sex realist is so much more accurate than gender critical. I'm surprised more don't use it.

I think they are complementary: sex realism is the basis for understanding the difference between the reality of biological sex, and the socially-constructed stereotypes that different societies around the world, and throughout history, have attached to being biologically male or being female.

Gender Critical people are critical of those gender stereotypes because they limit the full personal development of boys and girls, women and men.

I'm both a sex realist and a gender-critical radical lesbian feminist - I couldn't be one without the other.

No, no, no, as per Debbie Heyton (man who role plays as a woman), breasts are there to establish social hierarchy in women. The bigger your breasts, the higher your standing

they’re not for feeding infants,silly!

FFS!

You actually think I wrote that a female person requires an infant to have a ‘female’ breast? You are really so deeply entrenched in misinformation you cannot see outside your narrow deflections to actually seek to understand the information people give you.

No! A breast doesn’t require the presence of an infant to be a ‘breast’. But a male breast isn’t ever a female breast. That is the point.

I can explain it yet again for you, if you need it explained for the xth time. You are again applying the ‘near enough is good enough’ approach to justify saying you have ‘female’ breasts. You don’t. There is a huge amount of functionality a male person will never have because that ‘breast’ is not ‘female’ in composition.

Despite your uninformed statements that they are

The bigger your breasts, the higher your standing

Of course! why didn't I realise that decades ago, I'd have saved myself a lot of unnecessary education and training😂

That's Kate Moss told!

Indeed.

We remember

Nope he is just following the usual path. Ill informed crap eg female blood tests which would be a clinical error if a medic actually applied the female benchmarks. He now move on and gets to talk to women about his new "sexy" bits.

Short bloke but full Jessica Rabbit mode.

Sometimes these men accidentally say something honest about how they really view women, as Captain ‘Penetration’ did on this thread and Hayton did with that ridiculous comment.

it always seems (ironically) to come down to sex for these men