Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Watch in real time as Trans Reddit turns on one of it's own for suggesting that maybe they are biological men and arguing they are not makes them look unstable.

233 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 01/05/2026 14:56

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1t0t604/trans_girl_says_were_all_biological_males/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
DrBlackbird · Yesterday 19:58

Dominoodles · Yesterday 17:47

I'm so confused. So sex doesn't exist in the way most people think, and a man is a woman by claiming that he is, but he doesn't become a biological woman until he undergoes treatment? So a male who identifies as a woman but is poor/can't access treatment is a woman but not a female? Or is he always a bio female, by virtue of saying so? If that's the case then why change your body at all? If you believe you're already a female in every way and that sex has zero to do with it, then why are you having surgery or taking hormones to look like the opposite sex?!

Their logic eats itself.

I’m trying to get my head around the gender thinking and it hurts, but my really very kind DC tell me that they know sex doesn’t change but that gender is as important if not more important than sex.

Gender is a feeling and sex is real and immutable so the hormones are to align their gendered feelings with their physical appearance. Probably more than growing breasts or facial hair, hormones serve as validation for the gendered feelings. This is the slightly less illogical subset of genderism vs those who say or believe or pretend to believe that a person can actually change sex.

All I know is that many many many young people are being confused and damaged by gender ideology and it’s not stopping anytime soon.

GarlicMind · Yesterday 19:59

Taztoy · Yesterday 19:24

What do you mean by this?

I’ve been told before on here - in relation to my rape - that it’s not the act that matters it’s the inclination of my rapist.

is this similar?

What?? Have I misunderstood, or were people telling you to think about your rapist's feelings?

BruachAbhann · Yesterday 20:00

Arrgggh! I started reading that reddit thread and feel I may have given myself a lobotomy! Facts are totally irrelevant to them eh, and who needs logic? Surely declaring something makes it so?! No point in even trying to dissect their 'arguments'.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 20:40

Taztoy · Yesterday 19:24

What do you mean by this?

I’ve been told before on here - in relation to my rape - that it’s not the act that matters it’s the inclination of my rapist.

is this similar?

What utterly horrifies me is that you've had posts deleted for talking about your own rape on a forum made by women (Justine) for parents.

There's an ongoing thread in Relationships where MNHQ have added a trigger warning to the thread title, and that makes sense. But deletions? WTF?!?!

TakeTheCuntingQuichePatricia · Yesterday 20:45

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 20:40

What utterly horrifies me is that you've had posts deleted for talking about your own rape on a forum made by women (Justine) for parents.

There's an ongoing thread in Relationships where MNHQ have added a trigger warning to the thread title, and that makes sense. But deletions? WTF?!?!

I've been told on here that I need to reframe my trauma, and to stop weaponising my rape.

GenderlessVoid · Yesterday 21:24

TakeTheCuntingQuichePatricia · Yesterday 20:45

I've been told on here that I need to reframe my trauma, and to stop weaponising my rape.

I have as well. And that I was playing trauma trumps. And that I was choosing to have CPTSD.

LetsHaveAPartyParty · Yesterday 21:39

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 19:00

I think I've figured out why you think that "woman" is how one is treated socially by others.

Safeguarding precautions involve treating people differently based on reproductive role. So I get treated differently from Bob in law and some social contexts (e.g. changing rooms) because I can probably get pregnant and Bob could probably make me pregnant, whereas I can't make anyone pregnant and Bob can never become pregnant. The risks Bob and I face are different, justifying and causing the different legal and social treatment.

One would, if one didn't understand the underlying reproductive safeguarding reasons behind the different legal and social treatment, mistake the different treatment itself as being what makes someone a woman.

A trans-identified man who uses the women's loos and a female name and gets other people to say "she" instead of "he" mistakes this superficial treatment like a woman for actually being a woman. It's not the same.

So I get treated differently from Bob in law and some social contexts (e.g. changing rooms) because I can probably get pregnant and Bob could probably make me pregnant

I don't think that's a good peg on which to hang separating the sexes in the relevant circumstances. There are many women who 100% can't get pregnant, and many men who 100% cannot make a woman pregnant, and we still expect and demand those men and women to use the correct changing rooms for their sex.

TWETMIRF · Yesterday 22:14

Let me guess, it's been TRAs that have been awful about your rapes? I seem to remember one, can't remember her name now, began with a T?

Flowers for you both (and anyone else here)

GenderlessVoid · Yesterday 22:26

TWETMIRF · Yesterday 22:14

Let me guess, it's been TRAs that have been awful about your rapes? I seem to remember one, can't remember her name now, began with a T?

Flowers for you both (and anyone else here)

Most of mine were. Reframe my trauma and telling me that I was choosing to have CPTSD were from a frequent (male) poster on FWR.

Thank you for your support.
Support for others who've been assaulted and especially for those who've had negative experiences posting about it. (My flowers icon disappeared. Not sure why.)

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 22:41

LetsHaveAPartyParty · Yesterday 21:39

So I get treated differently from Bob in law and some social contexts (e.g. changing rooms) because I can probably get pregnant and Bob could probably make me pregnant

I don't think that's a good peg on which to hang separating the sexes in the relevant circumstances. There are many women who 100% can't get pregnant, and many men who 100% cannot make a woman pregnant, and we still expect and demand those men and women to use the correct changing rooms for their sex.

It's a perfectly good peg to hang sex-based safeguarding decisions on because:

  • The class of women consists of those people who can never impregnate someone, who we would not expect to be able to impregnate someone, and about whom we would be surprised if they could not become pregnant themselves.
  • The class of men consists of those people who can never become pregnant, who we would not expect to become pregnant, and about whom we would be surprised if they could not impregnate someone.

It's not just about what the person certainly cannot do, but what we reasonably think that they will be able to do, aka what we'd be surprised if they couldn't do. So if I walk into a changing room and there's a man in there, I reasonably believe that he poses a pregnancy risk to me and I'm not going to ask whether he's had the snip. Likewise, women don't premptively get their fertility assessed before decided whether a man poses a forced pregnancy risk to us, we just assume that we are fertile until we have reason to believe otherwise.

Someone being trans doesn't alter that. No one is going to be surprised that a trans-identifying male cannot get pregnant, bar possibly David Lammy. We'd be reasonable in believing that he could make someone else pregnant.

LetsHaveAPartyParty · Today 00:10

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 22:41

It's a perfectly good peg to hang sex-based safeguarding decisions on because:

  • The class of women consists of those people who can never impregnate someone, who we would not expect to be able to impregnate someone, and about whom we would be surprised if they could not become pregnant themselves.
  • The class of men consists of those people who can never become pregnant, who we would not expect to become pregnant, and about whom we would be surprised if they could not impregnate someone.

It's not just about what the person certainly cannot do, but what we reasonably think that they will be able to do, aka what we'd be surprised if they couldn't do. So if I walk into a changing room and there's a man in there, I reasonably believe that he poses a pregnancy risk to me and I'm not going to ask whether he's had the snip. Likewise, women don't premptively get their fertility assessed before decided whether a man poses a forced pregnancy risk to us, we just assume that we are fertile until we have reason to believe otherwise.

Someone being trans doesn't alter that. No one is going to be surprised that a trans-identifying male cannot get pregnant, bar possibly David Lammy. We'd be reasonable in believing that he could make someone else pregnant.

What I mean is that there are women who have had hysterectomies, are too young, or are post menopausal, and men who have had vasectomies or are infertile for other reasons, who cannot become or make women pregnant respectively.

If sex segregation was strictly about ability to become or make people pregnant their place in this analysis would be uncertain.

Reasonably thinking what someone can or can't do doesn't cut it, either. Who is doing the reasonable thinking? That is a subjective criterion and open to interpretation.

A class based set up is what we have and is acceptable and accepted. It should be obeyed regardless of fecundity, perceived or actual.

I know we don't disagree on who should use which sex-segregated service. The justification for sex segregation is because society (most women, and many men) demand it, and it's reasonable to have it for reasons of propriety and dignity as well as safety. Even if there were no risk of rape and pregnancy - it would still be correct and proper for women to demand not to be made to undress in the presence of men.

Taztoy · Today 07:13

GenderlessVoid · Yesterday 21:24

I have as well. And that I was playing trauma trumps. And that I was choosing to have CPTSD.

Me three.

the comment about not the act being important, nor my consent or lack thereof, but his inclination stuck in my head. It was deleted but I will never forget it. They even italicised the inclination just so I didn’t miss the point. I remember who it was but I’m not sure if I’m allowed to say.

Taztoy · Today 07:15

GarlicMind · Yesterday 19:59

What?? Have I misunderstood, or were people telling you to think about your rapist's feelings?

What the person said was.

it wasn’t about the act or how I perceived it.

it was about the inclination (their italics) of my rapist.

and they laughed at me too. In the same thread.

BruachAbhann · Today 07:41

Taztoy · Today 07:15

What the person said was.

it wasn’t about the act or how I perceived it.

it was about the inclination (their italics) of my rapist.

and they laughed at me too. In the same thread.

I'm so sorry for you. That is absolutely awful, both the assault and that reaction.

Taztoy · Today 07:53

Thank you. It’s not just me. There’s lots of women who have had the same happen and we are collateral damage in terms of access to single sex spaces. It’s the internal cognition of the trans person that matters (another gem)

BruachAbhann · Today 08:18

The mind boggles, what the hell do they even mean about 'internal cognition', that they didn't mean to do it? That brings gaslighting to a new level.

Taztoy · Today 08:29

BruachAbhann · Today 08:18

The mind boggles, what the hell do they even mean about 'internal cognition', that they didn't mean to do it? That brings gaslighting to a new level.

Those threads were quite eye opening

ScrollingLeaves · Today 08:49

Thank you OP.
I did not realise before just reading those comments how so many people are extraordinarily ignorant, and living with delusions. They have not got the slightest clue about anatomy. You would have thought it is not possible to be so backward in their knowledge as they evidently are.

RedToothBrush · Today 09:33

LetsHaveAPartyParty · Today 00:10

What I mean is that there are women who have had hysterectomies, are too young, or are post menopausal, and men who have had vasectomies or are infertile for other reasons, who cannot become or make women pregnant respectively.

If sex segregation was strictly about ability to become or make people pregnant their place in this analysis would be uncertain.

Reasonably thinking what someone can or can't do doesn't cut it, either. Who is doing the reasonable thinking? That is a subjective criterion and open to interpretation.

A class based set up is what we have and is acceptable and accepted. It should be obeyed regardless of fecundity, perceived or actual.

I know we don't disagree on who should use which sex-segregated service. The justification for sex segregation is because society (most women, and many men) demand it, and it's reasonable to have it for reasons of propriety and dignity as well as safety. Even if there were no risk of rape and pregnancy - it would still be correct and proper for women to demand not to be made to undress in the presence of men.

Edited

There is a reasonable expectation from other people that a female can get pregnant and a man can't.

We can tell the difference between men and women even if someone decides to transition. Women seem to be able to do this even if men sometimes struggle - it's believed to be a survival type instinct.

English law has this principle through it about what an average person will reasonably believe. If an average woman can identify most males regardless of whether they have a certificate to the contrary and an average man can identify which sex they wish to rape then the reasonableness test about whether they think they may or may not have the capacity to get pregnant remains. Individual health conditions are effectively outliers which are irrelevant to the concept.

A male going into a female toilet has a reasonable belief that all other people they will encounter will be female rather than male and that all of those under 50 will have the capacity to get pregnant - even if they actually are infertile. All women over 50 in that toilet potentially have the capacity to have been pregnant and have female reproduction systems (and all the experiences that go with that).

This is why socially women in their thirties are asked repeatedly "do you have children?" Or "do you want kids?" Which can cause distress or annoyance to women who are either infertile or do not wish to have children because the social currency of their value and position in society is often judged upon their child bearing status. Men are rarely asked the same question in the same manner or with the same frequency. Because we recognise the reproductive ability and value of females and don't give much of a shit about the reproduction ability and value of males.

By the same token, males who transition never understand this social status and system of value. They are recognised as males by polite society and therefore despite 'being treated as women', they are treated as males with the same social reproductive value and status as any other male. This applies to the polite society question of 'do you want kids?' as people recognise this is probably a touchy / difficult subject (women are not afforded this courtesy).

As someone who has to navigate the polite society question of "Do you have and brothers or sisters?" and well understands that "Do you have kids?" I understand the two questions fall into this category of 'Safe and uncontroversial questions you can ask the person sat next to you at a wedding'. They are regarded as icebreakers and investigative questions to help one individual relate and identify with another individual. They are about safe ways to find common life experiences and shared experiences.

If you were sat next to a transwoman at a wedding, you would not ask them about their reproductive status. It would be overstepping and impolite. You would avoid the question. You would know it would be problematic and go into that ground of topic to largely avoid with people you didn't know extremely well first.

This is where transwomen really really don't get that women have shared identity and life experiences that they will never ever touch because of the polite society filter. There are many subjects and topics which will be avoided deliberately in their presence for various reasons. And these reasons are precisely why women want single sex spaces so they can speak about them freely without fear (which includes fear of upsetting others as much as fear of men or fear of embarrassment). These are topics which are irrelevant to males because they don't have a female reproductive system OR the same social pressure of the expectation that they have a functional female reproductive system.

It is about the status, expectation and value of females to our society as the sex that has the ability to reproduce, not so much about the ability of individual females to carry out that role. A man who transitions has no place within this paradigm. Which they know and everyone else knows. And ultimately is the thing that drives them insane and is what they seek to erase and destroy for women.

Validation as women requires the erasure of the visibility of women as the reproductive humans which have reproductive experiences and expectations (which also covers female infertility, complications with childbirth, health conditions related to the reproductive system and the potential consequences of rape).

This is also why we don't see the removal of the word 'man' from NHS literature. It always comes back to the reminder and the concept of 'polite society' and reproduction. Note here too that 'Be Kind' stems from the polite society class. And that women of a certain age tend to get pissed off with the tedium and constraint of polite society (usually because they recognise by this age that the concept of polite society doesn't tend to always work for women's interests by the time they hit their mid 40s so decide to abandon it because it doesn't serve a useful purpose to them and only serves to treat them as service humans to the desires of male interests).

Men don't understand how constrained female reproductive ability puts them within a social context as well as a biological one.

(That was a rather longer explanation than I'd intended).

For erasure of this ongoing conversation about reproductive ability also see discussion of transwomen going through 'female puberty' and 'never having had a male experience' and whom don't like it when it's pointed out that they were once little boys who had willies and pissed standing up and that it's very male to have ever possessed a willy (and again it's an acknowledgement of a lack of a female reproductive system). You also have fetishisation of periods / menopause which we've seen numerous manifestations of. These are not merely odd. They serve an intrinsic purpose for the males doing it, which always comes at actual cost to women who have potential reproductive capacity (which includes infertility).

DuchessofStaffordshire · Today 09:35

BruachAbhann · Today 08:18

The mind boggles, what the hell do they even mean about 'internal cognition', that they didn't mean to do it? That brings gaslighting to a new level.

Is 'internal cognition' the same as 'mental thinking'?

RedToothBrush · Today 09:37

Taztoy · Today 07:15

What the person said was.

it wasn’t about the act or how I perceived it.

it was about the inclination (their italics) of my rapist.

and they laughed at me too. In the same thread.

There have been some jaw dropping posts at the dismissal of the lived traumatic experiences of women whilst demanding we don't point out that males can't share these experiences and their interference is both deeply insensitive and harmful.

Let's remember, they could turn to others in similar situations to themselves who have shared problems. They do not want this. They want to trespass and colonise women and use women as serve humans for their validation at the expense of women's lives.

RedToothBrush · Today 09:41

DuchessofStaffordshire · Today 09:35

Is 'internal cognition' the same as 'mental thinking'?

What's in our heads as opposed to the bodily experiences of humans.

It's fantasy versus reality.

Reality always wins.

It's the same as all the men who abdicate responsibility in life. Someone else picks up the pieces of their trail of irresponsibility. It doesn't merely disappear even if that man doesn't deal with it himself.

I see it as male pattern behaviour to put fantasy of what's in your head above reality of bodily experiences. It's the ultimate privilege.

One not afforded by much of the population.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · Today 09:54

Talking about denying reality now they are up in arms because someone says they don’t like the antisemitism in the Green Party… https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1t1n6j1/im_getting_fed_up_of_the_lack_of_unbigoted/

OP posts:
SecretSquid · Today 10:08

It's the total lack of self awareness that never fails to amaze me. Congratulating themselves for being so accepting and nonjudgmental of everyone, while tearing each other to shreds for not thinking the exact same thing as themselves. About anything.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · Today 10:22

RedToothBrush · Today 09:37

There have been some jaw dropping posts at the dismissal of the lived traumatic experiences of women whilst demanding we don't point out that males can't share these experiences and their interference is both deeply insensitive and harmful.

Let's remember, they could turn to others in similar situations to themselves who have shared problems. They do not want this. They want to trespass and colonise women and use women as serve humans for their validation at the expense of women's lives.

Quite. The language juggling is nothing more than tapdancing to try and get past other people's boundaries.

This is a political movement that has difficulty understanding the need for shared meaning in any accurate communication, so uses a lot of terms and wangling and distorted language, and cannot deal with the idea that healthier thinking relies upon objective facts and perceptions. Shared meaning and equal replication of experience of facts and information, that mean all agree that's the logical way to name it/organise it/act on it. This movement wishes to take the internal life and subjective perceptions of a small group and then force everyone else to pretend that this is the truth and reality they live by. Which involves that small group being very special and more important than everyone else, and everyone else becoming unpaid service providers. If they consent to enable and participate.

Hence the shouting and anger and absolute cruelty towards those who resist, or point out their own needs and equality, or who have lives or experiences that do not permit this enablement.

To those who have been so horribly treated, I am so sorry. The cruelty and the selfishness of some in this movement has to be seen to be believed.