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 isn't anything different than what I've said before. Nothing in the way of sex development happened to my body until after I began taking oestrogen.

Everyone else I knew was well into puberty by the time I observably started to mature. Even my younger brother.

Rubbish! Sex begins developing at the point of conception.

You've just admitted you went through puberty. You say you started taking oestrogen "mid-puberty".

What do you think puberty even is?

"almost immediately knocked my testosterone level to almost nothing"

Urm... I'm pretty sure someone would die if this were true, or at least be extremely, extremely unwell! I'm pretty sure @Helleofabore has a really helpful graphic for levels of testosterone that she normally has to break out when people try to say men with certain DSDs have testosterone "in the high female range", which funnily enough is also utter bullshit!

As people have told you before, changes would have been happening to your body that you will not have noticed or remembered. You just said you were in mid puberty.

Some people are late starters. Again, (and if true), not particularly special.

@FlirtsWithRhinos One for the book.

"Observably start to mature". Otherwise known as puberty. Used by certain trans identified males who don't like to acknowledge the p-word or its effects on them.

Mid-puberty was well before tanner stage three.

ETA: Above is male... And for symmetry, concluded at female stage five.

What on earth is female stage 5, have I achieved it yet?

And?

My puberty was different. Whether I disclose specific details or not doesn't change its affect on my body and how people treat me based on my body.

Not really all that different in that you went "mid-way" through male puberty.

But you are correct, it doesn't matter if you disclose specific details or not, because the effects on your body of the male puberty that you did in fact go through remains unchanged.

Another thing that remains unchanged is that you've changed your story from saying you didn't go through male puberty at all, to now admitting that you went "mid-way" through puberty. The politest way to describe that is unreliable narration.

https://laboratories.newcastle-hospitals.nhs.uk/test-directory/testosterone-serum/

Testosterone

Male Tanner Stages (7-18 years):
Stage 1: <1.0 nmol/L
Stage 2: <15.0 nmol/L
Stage 3: 2.3 – 27.0 nmol/L
Stage 4: 6.2 – 26.5 nmol/L
Stage 5: 6.5 – 30.6 nmol/L

Female Tanner Stages (7-18 years):
Stage 1: <1.0 nmol/L
Stage 2: <1.0 nmol/L
Stage 3: <1.0 nmol/L
Stage 4: <1.0 nmol/L
Stage 5: <1.3 nmol/L

Care to keep denying that you had a male body producing testosterone at male levels before you started to take estrogen?

“Another thing that remains unchanged is that you've changed your story from saying you didn't go through male puberty at all, to now admitting that you went "mid-way" through puberty. The politest way to describe that is unreliable narration.”

yep.

Gosh look at that. T is a hell of a hormone.

Ha ha! I had my satirical post deleted. Oh well, never mind. I amuse myself at least! 😂

Still though, no one in the history of human kind has ever literally changed sex, or been given pills by the doctor which allow them to magically go through the opposite sex puberty.

And male children have physical advantages during pre-pubescence in comparison to female children, which then increase during puberty.

Not everyone is a fan of reality and facts, but they remain, nonetheless, unchanged 😂

Absolutely.

What PPW wrote:

Objectively, I am a woman. I live life every day as I have for decades. Subjectively, in this space, you call me a man. This is because you have taken ownership of the word woman under gender critical beliefs and define it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs and removes trans women, specifically.

and

My use of 'objective' and 'subjective' above was in reference to my life as a woman, discussed on this website. It wasn't meant to be a 'trans-inclusive' definition.

Either you don't understand what "objective" means, or (we could say), you've "taken ownership of the word objective under your own beliefs and defined it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs".

Applying this word to individual circumstances and to hell with its actual (objective!) meaning exemplifies what's frightening about this ideology. It feels almost nihilistically individualistic.

You amused me.

I appear to have been deleted for nothing more than a grammatical correction, which is odd.

Thank you! (takes a tiny bow) 😂

Oh, has the reporting started? It must not be fun winding up the wims anymore.

At least I actually did something a bit naughty that warranted deletion! I think it was worth it 😂

Maybe you could ask for your post to be reinstated? I can't think of anything you've said that would break guidelines!

Thanks for replying in this detail but, to be completely honest, I couldn't follow quite a lot of this. I could guess at probable meanings, but so much of what you write - here and elsewhere - is semantically, grammatically and/or structurally ambiguous. You tend to compound abstraction on abstraction on abstraction to the point that it's impossible to pinpoint actual meaning and argument. I don't know to what extent this is conscious ploy or unconscious defence mechanism, but it works in the same way your misapplication of "objective" did. I'll read on to see what others make of it all, though.

Nor can I. But I can't be bothered, it can sit as a deletion re correct grammar to show the pettiness of the reporter, I'm fine with that!

Reading on...

PPW, have you noticed the degree to which your posts are built on personal pronouns, and ours rather tend to explore the abstract - wider philosophical, ethical and logical arguments?

Have you at least considered that this could reflect how much wider - more "inclusive"! - and less "subjective" our focus is than your own?

I know right...

Now we know the even a male person with 10 nmol/L will have a higher performance than a female athlete on average.

Imagine what months of higher testosterone exposure PLUS the exposure as an infant that the study has suggested is a part of the male children's performance advantage does to that base that female children start performance development from....

That base of average advantage just gets larger and larger for male children in 'mid puberty' the more we look into it.

Then there is the lack of reliability on the efficacy of the ability of drugs generally. We also know this because of the studies into those male people who suppress testosterone. We have the knowledge about artificial hormone supplements. Just like we know full well that the female contraceptive pill is not 100% reliable.

So, even though we are told by a poster who doesn't seem to understand female puberty that there really is a chance that there was even more testosterone exposure than they want to believe, the chances of the average male person NOT having a physical advantage over the average female person is getting rather minimal.

Remembering that we also only have a male person's word that they don't have any performance advantage. AND add that that performance advantage is likely to be underestimated just like those studies that we have seen by researchers who wish to show that male people with testosterone suppression have no advantages over female athletes OR because a male person's performance is conceptualised as being 'just like a female person's' because that is how they erroneously conceptualise female athletic performance.

All to declare that some particular male people (over the age of about 8 - 10 years old) are not a risk in female people's single sex provisions .....

I very much have personal experience with 'woman' as it applies to more than half of the population. Not one person, government or organisation has ever needed to know what my chromosomes are, my internal organs look like, what gametes my body was organised to support, or the status of any SRY genes. I live under the same language, law and cultural beliefs. I am not above it, nor do I control it.

I do feel that things like this highlight how limited, privileged (and, ironically, sex-based) your conviction that there's no need for a shared noun for adult human females is.

Maybe think of it this way...

Your definition of "woman" liberates you to say, as you do here, that "I very much have personal experience with 'woman' as it applies to more than half of the population."

But you saying that renders the same phrase meaningless for nigh on all of the 4 billion women globally. Because, in their wonderful infinity of collective experience, they'd be mystified by what it could possibly mean.

Prior to your inclusion, of course, they'd have been perfectly clear: menstruation, a likely capacity for pregnancy for a proportion of their life, and menopause. With your inclusion, though? That's the silence of not far off 4 million women scratching their heads in bemusement as they try to work out what commonality could possibly unite them all outside of that. I mean, we're so wonderfully, fabulously, expansively different! What's left, besides biology, that doesn't flatten "woman" into unrepresentative homogeneity?

Your answer would be, I assume, "being seen and treated as women". And right there is the privilege. Because that's an extraordinarily dangerous definition that women simply can't afford. To be defined by how we're seen and treated? Really?! Look around you at the world today!

Your definition downplays the physical reality that is the axis of our shared oppression to indiscriminately embrace the very constructs which exploit that reality.

Your phrase "Not one person, government or organisation has ever needed to know what my chromosomes are, my internal organs look like, what gametes my body was organised to support, or the status of any SRY genes." is so extraordinarily and ironically revealing. We'd kill for this to be about some theoretical "knowledge" of our gametes and chromosomes etc. for us. If bloody only! For women, knowledge is irrelevant. Our life is the experience of living them. To misquote Descartes, We "know" because we are.

Your more liberal and liberating definition? Our prison.

Your conviction that women globally can afford (let alone want) to embrace woman-as-perception over retaining a shared word with which to name and resist the daily - hourly - challenges that unite us? Our evidence of your privilege.

As ever, you nail it.