Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from this thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532352-the-liminality-of-sex-perception-sex-based-spaces-and-bodily-autonomy?page=39

For argument sake, I understand Blaire White to be a woman. This is independent of the knowledge she chose to only undergo cosmetic facial surgeries and breast augmentation, while retaining everything else.
I think I remember reading that she politically aligns 'right' and is politically vocal about being a male, living as a trans woman. I'm not 100% sure, though. It's not a way that I could understand living, but it is financially lucrative in her case.

There is a person who declares themselves to be male.

That person chooses to live presenting as a female.

In spite of their self declaration as a male, complete with male genitals, you understand that they are a woman.

And you ascribe their understanding of themselves being male, at least partly, to financial motives.

This is either monumentally arrogant or monumentally stupid thinking, or possibly both. Or perhaps you just like playing with a largely female forum and seeing how many feathers you can ruffle.

One thing is for sure, and that is that I don't think anything you write on this subject from now on is going to be of any value to read.

It was, so yes then.

Mate, you can continue to make these claims but they are both irrelevant to whether you should be accessing ANY female single sex provision and they are never going to be verifiable. So, by all means, keep repeating the claims like:

"I wear size 6 clothes that fit my body much better than 'unisex' xs clothing ever has. My voice never dropped, I've never had a beard or hairy body, I don't have an adams apple, and for those women who keep asking about them, my hands and feet are normally sized for women."

It is really irrelevant. You are not female and you have been through male puberty, if only partially. You can deny that you have any male physical advantage all you like, but the likelihood is that you will have some physical advantages due to genetics as is being discovered with review of sports evidence now. And due to that partial male puberty.

Yes, I understand that you keep telling us that you never went through any male puberty and all that testosterone converted into estrogen. But you will have experienced partial puberty before you took estrogen despite your claims to have never experience it.

As far as feet and hands are concerned, I have hands that don't fit into women's size fitted gloves. And I have a Mother in law who wears Men's shoes because her feet require bespoke shoes to be made. What the fuck of it?

Many male people are slight, short and still have more power and strength than female people. Your claims seem to all be based on your subjective beliefs in any case, and rarely based on materially proven fact, so I don't take your claims about medical changes as having veracity. Why should I? Any male person who makes the claim that they are now female is not someone who is presenting scientifically proven information.

My initial assumption, based on the many times I've read the assertion before was they were looking at a skeleton. My skeleton is unremarkably female. My DNA, not.

Your beliefs don't change the reality of my body or the circumstances of my life. I'm going to stop responding, because it is senseless.

Why on earth would you assume that they wouldn't?

After so many women (in the everyday actual simple biological meaning of the word not the meaning of more recent Genderist neo-sexist belief) have been found to be misidentified as men by sexist archaeologists, accurately sexing remains not just relying on social cues has become something archaeologists take a lot more seriously.

No you are not going to convince me at all with bare faced lies about scientific impossibilities where a person can magically, literally change sex and go through opposite sex puberty. That's patently ridiculous.

It's laughable that you tried to tell me that not only were you this miracle of science and medicine who, through cross sex hormones, experienced literal opposite sex puberty, but that there are many thousands of others have also experienced this.

Complete and utter mince! 😂😂😂

I adore Alice Roberts shows, but I didn't assume they do all the lab work in the field.

I'll still say I'll be dead, it doesn't matter.

How do you know, have you seen it?

I live within it. I am very familiar with its dimensions.

That made me laugh! 😂

I wonder if in PPW's lexicon, the opposite of an "unremarkably female skeleton" would be a "remarkably female skeleton", it's the kind of win, win, "words mean whatever I want them to mean at the time" word game-y type of thing I'd expect tbh.

I very much doubt your skeleton is "unremarkable female" given that differences between male and female pelvises are present at birth.

Just as female hormones at puberty can change fat distribution but not cause a non-existant uterus to grow, they can have some secondary effect on the male pelvis but they don't go back in time and rewrite a pelvic bone that was born male into one born female.

I'm intrigued as to why you keep returning to claim something that isn't true, in the face of women telling you you aren't and will never be one of us. You must have a masochistic streak a mile wide.

It's quite bizarre.

You don’t live within your skeleton.

Ah, but the original point was just "dug up". You are the only one who added that the observation must be "in the field" objection, simply to "win" a point that otherwise undermines your claims. Bad faith sir, bad faith.

And yet both you and I and everyone reading knows exactly what was meant and knows it is true.

So, like all Genderist arguments for why they think we should like them believe that men are actually wonen, your wriggling to change the goalposts, change the terms of the question or change the meaning of the words used to meanings you prefer simply highlights the truth you are avoiding.

I have hips, a waist and a pelvic tilt. As for the measurements of cavities and such, I assume I am somewhere within the normal average. Maybe narrow, but definitely not male shaped.

I will now forever after know the reference includes a DNA lab.

OK, you admit your dna is male. Does that not make you male?

No.

Edited to add: this is in response to the gender critical belief. It's not a statement on my belief that I can be a woman while having male DNA.

Er 'no' is very much a statement on your belief. Which is scientifically invalid, as you've just admitted.

Male DNA doesn't make you male? M'kay then.

It doesn't make you female that's for sure! 😂

If I start answering under any other context, the content will be ignored as impossible or invalid, so the only relevant answer in this environment is 'no.'

Have you ever wondered that in fact your premises are indeed impossible and invalid?

My existence has always been very much ignored, impossible and invalid in the cultural sense.

But you claim it is valid in the cultural sense.

We say it is valid as a human, but not as a woman in any sense.

So if you're now saying it's not valid in the cultural sense, in what sense is it valid?