Are We Really 'Women' On The Inside?

[HazelLemur]

Dear friends,

As anyone paying attention to current trans affairs knows, the anti-trans brigade like to throw around what they think is the “killer question”.

"What is a woman, then?"

These people will often engage in triumphal sneering as they further insist "Your chromosomes are what you are; XX are women and XY are men. It's science, innit?"

And as a confident trans-woman I say to these people "Absolutely! What is a woman? Great question! Let's examine that".

To begin, let's consult three definitive sources:

First, the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language.
Then, modern genetics and neurophysiology.
And finally, up to date research on brain structure in cisgender and transgender women.

First, the dictionary.
For this, let's go with the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language:

Woman (noun)

1. an adult female human being
2. an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth

As we can see from #2, despite the recent social backlash and disproportionately loud screeching from certain murky corners of the internet, Western culture as a whole is moving toward accepting the validity of trans peoples' inner gender identity. No person with a working moral compass would consider this a bad thing.

Next, let’s summarize genetics and neurophysiology.

Modern society routinely treats all the following “XY” humans as WOMEN, however...
-You can be a woman because you have X & Y chromosomes but your body is insensitive to androgens and you have female anatomy & gender identity.
Ah, so much for the childishly simplistic “But women = XX and men = XY".
-You can be a woman with X & Y chromosomes but your Y is missing the SRY gene, so you have a female body and gender identity (yes, this is a real thing despite your denials).

People who have X & Y chromosomes, but their Y is missing the SRY gene, develop a female body.
Should we treat such people as men, in society, when they have the body of a woman, simply because simpletons insist that XY = Male?
Only an inveterate bigot with some weird religious and/or psychosexual axe to grind would say yes.

You can be a woman with XXY or XXXY chromosomes, giving you a male body but female brain/body map and gender identity.
-You can be a woman with XY chromosomes but a mutation called CBX2 that blocks the influence of the SRY gene.
-You can be a woman because you have 46,XY in some cells but 46,XX in other cells, or 47, XXY.

These are all valid, scientifically obervable genetic variations that highlight the "But XX = women and XY = men" mantra for the simplistic, unscientific nonsense that it is.

And lastly, there are studies of brain structure.
These show that in the section of the brain that determines one’s sense of gender identity.

The brains of transgender women are almost identical to those of cisgender women.
The brains of trans men also align more with cisgender men than they do with women.

And so, to summarize

Modern science, which is how rational people resolve differences of opinion.
It is not about referring to holy books, written in pre-scientific ages past.
It is not about regurgitating simplistic, binary statements that you learnt in the 4th grade.

This shows us that, genetically and biologically speaking, there are many types of women; including transgender women like me.

P.S. In this essay we have a summary of the cutting edge science which validates transgender womens' biologically determined, inner sense of gender identity.

As I’ve said, a rational society follows rational explanations, and doesn’t define its people via outdated religious or cultural ideas.
But beyond that, there is simply human courtesy and kindness.

It’s cruel, hateful and rude for the transphobic bigots to demand that people be forced to conform to their anti-scientific notions.

No one's life is affected negatively by honoring a transwoman as a woman, as the historical record of many trans accepting societies have shown.

Good people will see the very challenging dilemma that transwomen are in, and their natural empathy, coupled with scientific insight, will make them want to support their fellow human beings in being who they know they are.

And so, I ask all of you:

Should we as a society treat trans-women as the women their brain and neurobiology tells us they are? And, if not, why on earth wouldn’t we?

P.P.S. The image in this post is of women who have XY chromosomes, but an androgen insensitivity syndrome which causes their bodies to develop as female.
Would anyone in their right mind insist we treat them as males, simply because of their chromosomal makeup?
The bigots might, but you know you're better than that, right?

No one’s reading all that, OP.

The last ‘reasonable’ plopper on here spent ages explaining why we should all be compassionate & campaign for safe third spaces for transpeople instead of expecting them to use the spaces for their own sex.

They kept either ignoring or misunderstanding us when we said we’d be fine with them having safe third spaces, but try putting that suggestion to the TRAs.

Why did Iggy Pop wear plastic trousers? Weren’t they sweaty?

So you'll attack anyone, anyone at all, who doesn't nod along with your GC ideology. Gotcha.

Why bother to engage? You don't understand the most basic biology. There's no talking to you.

Humans are a sex binary species. It's not simplistic, but it is simple. All humans who have ever lived have been one sex or the other sex.

All of your points are about gender, not sex.

Asking posters to back up their unevidenced claims with sources is not an attack.

Stop trying to provoke me. I'm too hacked off with this whole debate to rise to your infantile comments.

Don't worry, we see the man. Even if he thinks he's a woman.

My dog thinks he's people you know. But he's still a dog.

Yes, but you’ve sparked my curiosity now about the plastic trousers. Doesn’t sound especially comfortable.

Haha. At last a question I can be bothered with answering :-)

I was struggling to find a username. And I'm a big fan of Iggy Pop who a) is a f*cking legend, and b) used to perform with clear plastic trousers so you could see his dick.

So, well, that, I guess.

This is a long argument against a position sex realists do not hold.

Sex is not defined by chromosomes
Sex is not defined by brain scans.
Sex is not defined by identity.

Sex is the biological division between organisms whose bodies are organised to produce sperm and organisms whose bodies are organised to produce eggs.

Male means the sex class organised around producing small gametes: sperm.

Female means the sex class organised around producing large gametes: ova.

That is the binary. There is no third gamete. There is no spectrum of gamete sizes in humans. Disorders of sex development do not create new sexes; they are developmental variations within a species that reproduces by two, and only two, reproductive roles.

People with XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity are male people with a disorder of sex development. Their bodies may develop externally in a typically female direction because their cells cannot respond to androgens, but they are not female in the biological sense. They do not produce ova and are not members of the female sex class. Their condition also has nothing to do with transgender identity.

Using rare DSDs as rhetorical cover for male people who developed normally through male puberty is not sophisticated biology. It is category error.

Nor do claims about “female brains” rescue the argument. There is no validated diagnostic brain marker that turns a male human into a female one. At most, some studies report group-level differences, often small, contested, and confounded by sexuality, hormones, age and sample size. They do not redefine sex.

So the answer to “what is a woman?” remains perfectly clear:

An adult human female.

Not an identity. Not a feeling. Not a dictionary fashion update. Not a brain-map hypothesis. A member of the sex class organised around producing ova.

The post mistakes exceptions, syndromes and social politeness for a collapse of the underlying biological categories. That is not cutting-edge science. It is bad classification.

(I appreciate I am late to the party and you have all already ripped this guy a new one, but thought I'd chip in anyway)

More dangerous for whom?

For men. You think it's dangerous for the men who want to be women to have to use mens spaces. Why? What's your basis and evidence for thinking that?

What of the fact it is more dangerous for women and girls to have to use mixed sex spaces?

Both because that certain class of men you think should be admitted continue to offend at the same or greater rates than all other types of men, and because there is no way to distinguish between the class of men you think should have access and all other men (and therefore women and girls' spaces are now de facto open to any and all men who wish to use them)?

Come on, now.

So which DSD do you have, @HazelLemur ?

The mind boggles.

Thanks for explaining & I’m glad I didn’t google it!

I think it's more dangerous for a lone transwoman to go into a male bathroom than it is for her to go into the female bathroom.

Happy to have cleared that up for you.

If you thought that your posts were educational, I think you really need to work on your delivery.

Your first post was patronising and condescending and misogynistic. Your second just showed you were so prejudiced about the people who post on these threads that you had no intention of engaging.

@HazelLemur
Can you please provide your sources that "trans women's brains are identical to cis women's brains"?

Well there's you

and me

Difference is I'm not a cock.

That makes it even less understandable that you’ve labelled the whole of MN as “a bit terfy”. Goady?

And you'll seemingly nod along with anyone who will say TWAW, despite them telling you that you're actually only a woman when they say so, in the toilets but not in sports. In changing rooms but not in prisons. So no more thinking of you as a real woman than the people on here who come out straight and say they think you're a man.

Why is it more dangerous in the uk?

What happens to them specifically in the male toilets? And where is the evidence that in the UK they are more at risk in the male toilets? There are male people with transgender identities using male toilets around the UK without issue. They post on line about it.

Yes, as I said, you have considered the well-being of one man (based on a general hunch as opposed to any evidence?) and not even turned your mind to the consequential well-being of women and girls.

Also, do give it a rest with shouting "bigot" every two minutes. Three times in your OP I counted.

I think it's reasonable and practical to establish women-only rape crisis centres and prisons.

But you said

I do believe that trans women are women

So they, by definition, would be included in your 'women-only' spaces.

But why do you care only about the trans woman and not the women in the female bathroom?

Your point is that women are at risk from males, so the trans woman is unsafe in the men's bathroom. Your answer is the send the transwoman, a MALE person, into the women's bathroom.

How can you not see how illogical and unfair that is?

Yeah I'd lay odds this is a PP with a name change. The condescending style is soooo familiar