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.

"Share the post I said I was Tanner stage 3, no ifs ands or buts."

Ok, here you go.

Then you added this on page 13 at 21:55, handily at the top of the page.

"To be clear, I have no idea what actual pubertal tanner stage I was in when I started HRT. I was extremely underweight and undersized. I was making a guess based on the lack of stage 3 developments and maybe had some fine public hair and hadn't had any voice cracking, or a growth spurt."

You say you didn't go through male puberty, then say you started hormones mid-puberty. In your newer post today, you say

"I was prescribed hormones as a teen."

Which could be anywhere from 13-19. Male puberty would have started by then. This still doesn't account for the pre-pubescent advantages male children have, or the fact that puberty in males usually starts before 13.

Now I'm pretty sure you swing between using hormones, oestrogen, blockers and HRT interchangeably, while also saying you didn't get prescribed them and you did (depending on whether you are using your meaning or another poster's), and now you are quibbling about whether you were prescribed them by an endocrinologist and a GP.

And you say that the oestrogen and ethinyl estradiol (which is a synthetic oestrogen which is used in contraceptives and HRT - so oestrogen... and synthetic oestrogen.) gave you a "very strong testosterone reduction". That's a very different way of putting something than saying you had basically zero testosterone, which would either kill a person or make them very sick.

Now, my original list of things you have lied about was:

• Being a woman
• Having basically 0 testosterone
• Having literally changed sex
• Not going through male puberty at all because of early puberty blockers
• That you went through female puberty

I added

• Lied about what Tanner stage you were at, because you admitted that you had in fact just guessed.

And while it's none of my business really, I notice you haven't replied to the last bit of that post which was

"I wonder if your romantic partners may not actually know you are a trans identified male, because of the way you are determined to ignore material reality and insist you are in fact an actual woman when you really aren't.
You said in the last thread that your partners have never thought of you as anything other than female. but I really, really hope they know your actual sex is male."

After several attempts to respond in a way that will make sense to you, I now believe you are purposely misrepresenting what I have said. You didn’t provide proof of the post. If you are genuinely interested in my puberty or my transition, there are dozens of posts in Advanced Search.

I did provide proof, I've quoted your posts.

I have not misrepresented anything you have said. If anyone has purposely misrepresented anything in this thread, it's definitely you.

It's convenient that instead of refuting my post point by point (because you can't, you have said all of those things in the list of lies), you are having a strop trying to put the onus back on me to wade through and re-read all of your posts to pull the relevant quotes. I ask, who on earth has the time? Once was enough thanks.

Here’s some quotes. I’ll go through later and find more

“almost immediately knocked my testosterone level to almost nothing”

“Nothing in the way of sex development happened to my body until after I began taking oestrogen.”

“well before tanner stage three.”

“To be clear, I have no idea what actual pubertal tanner stage I was in when I started HRT.”

I love that you claim you had no sex development until you started oestrogen. So hoe did you pee before transition?

Were the hormones you were given HRT or not?

You are quite right Taz to point it discrepancies.

This.

But I would argue that I don’t believe many people at all believe that any human can change sex, in any way. It is not a belief. It is fucking tedious to keep repeating this.

Framing scientifically established fact that never changes as belief amounts to fuckwittery. Some people need this to happen so that they can philosophise reality into a belief.

It doesn’t fucking make it so. It is fucking wishful thinking.

(edit to say, I am wholeheartedly agreeing here Flirts as you know)

*how

(too late to edit)

Also, @polypostwonder, would you mind explaining to me the hormones you were given as a male teenager? Because I’m struggling to understand how they were in any way HRT. As as far as I can see, they weren’t replacing anything.

It is not just fuckwittery to deny scientifically proven facts using philosophical theories. It is gaslighting.

It is a version of gaslighting to declare that a philosophical theory such as ‘social’ and ‘cultural’ sex is in anyway meaningful to a person ‘changing sex’ to access female single sex provisions.

Absolutely it’s gaslighting. And I find it really difficult to debate with poly and others like him as it massively triggers me. I don’t understand why it’s so extraordinary to say that women (in the sense that I mean it, which is actually born female women) are entitled to sex based protections in the U.K. (which they are and always were), whilst at the same time saying that trans individuals are also entitled to protection on their transgender status, but that does not give them the right to enter the single sex space if the sex opposite to that which they were born. Because that would encroach on the rights on the basis of sex.

I would more then support trans individuals campaigning for a fourth space.

What I don’t have is being lied to and made to feel like I’m stupid and can’t understand English language.

Why were you not treated with the male hormones which would have been standard practice at the time for a boy with your disease?

The TRA arguments are just outright dishonest.

They’ll with a straight face tell you that you can’t define what a woman is and then when you give them a clear definition (which they already knew) slide into saying that it doesn’t matter as you can’t police it anyway.

It us all, all based on them saying whatever they think will get them access to spaces reserved to women.

They do not want third spaces, it has nothing to do with them wanting access to a place to go to the toilet, or to get changed, or being able to play sports, it is always about the invasion of spaces where women are, it’s this invasion which “validates” their condition.

I will not play along any more than I would play along with a grown man telling me he was five years old and trying to argue that it was valid as relativity tells us that the flow of time is not constant for all observers.

'no ifs ands or buts'

I have no words.

The male entitlement comes through loud and clear.

As I mentioned pages back, I think it is important for women to see the way these subjective realities are constructed, layer upon layer.

The confident repetition about the lack of testosterone throughout early life that apparently means that no one notices that this is a male person. It doesn’t stack up. There was testosterone exposure. There was male puberty even if there was few visible signs.

The likelihood of that male person not looking like a male child would have been very rare. Facial structure and genetics would have been in play from conception. Lowered testosterone doesn’t mean that a boy suddenly looks like a girl.

And this overly confident claim, usually accompanied by a derisive ‘I know more about my life than you’, that 100% of the testosterone produced in puberty was aromatised is just over confidence.

But apparently, we are to believe it.

It is the layering though. On this base then comes the deceptive half truths that support the built up subjective reality. Such as telling female people that the reason to take estrogen is because of a lack of ovaries. This is true but it is deceptive. It is a partial truth missing a vital bit of information. That the reason for no ovaries is that the person is male. Not only that, but is using estrogen to create extreme body modifications.

If it is being discussed as HRT, it is also a partial truth. Because that estrogen is not be ‘replaced’, it is a supplement. It is estrogen that the male person’s body is not formed to produce in such quantities at all. Whereas for female people those quantities may be replacing what should have been produced or what had been produced.

This layering is important for female people to see in action and to understand. There are many example of this type of layering that builds this constructed reality.

Shedmistress and @Taztoy, I have to be fair and point out that PPW was quoting my snark from earlier back at me there 😅

Edit re-quoting to quoting

Taz, it isn't you with the language. Much isn't possible to understand, because of techniques Helle outlines above and I mentioned earlier.

With so much deliberate/unconscious waffle, the main purpose stops being communication (like, sharing meaning and understanding). There's too much abstraction and avoidance.

I think it's defensive - and do sympathise. PPW's a minority, and sees themselves as fighting for their identity. In a sense, they are. As long as some facts don't support this, and evidence is subjective or assumed (eg. references to what "most women" think etc.), they can't afford directness. So trans ideology uses language to construct identities and moral authority which resist logic.

And that's cool - TERFs also use language to assert identity and moral right, too - like "man". The downside of that? It can be seen as "unkind" and provocative. The upside? There's an honesty to it that TRAs' arguments can't support.

But when PPW said earlier that some women want to "control" language or use it to control others, it was ironic. Because PPW's guilty of exactly the same, just in a subtler way. I'd say a more manipulative, dishonest way.

Annoyingly, though, this cynical avoidance of plain speaking is what our society favours. Indirect waffle feels less threatening and is such a useful path to power! Orwell's Politics and the English Language is so relevant right now...

• "A mass of... words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details."
• “Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”
• "As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract... prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning...”
• “Political language... is designed... to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
• "When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms...”

What really interests me is which of Orwell's options best describes PPW:

• “The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not.”

“The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not.”

I'd say none of the above.

The words are carefully chosen to divert attention away from the writer's actual purpose. The intention is to tie questioners up in traps and loops, forcing them to look inward to find ways to express important concepts without tripping linguistic or emotional traps.

It's dishonest and abusive. Anyone who has been in a certain type of abusive relationship recognises it. Stealing power and agency through stealing the victim's ability to make themself heard.

I fully agree with Rhino, he knows what he's doing and it is abusive.

I do know what you mean.

I mean, I can run with woman-as-cultural-construct. I don't find it convincing in the absolutist sense in which PPW is using it, but there's truth to it in other ways.

I can discuss the challenges of balancing rights, including the possibility of supporting PPW as "woman" in some contexts and to a certain degree.

I acknowledge PPW's challenges and circumstances.

I can do all of that.

But as long as all this is met with ridiculous responses like the denial of sexual reproduction, and tthe dismissal of the possibility of my having the slightest atom of a right to name and distinguish myself as distinct from PPW in language and law...

...It does start to feel a bit unsettling.

I agree as well.

He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing - it is deliberate so he doesn’t ever have to answer à straight question and it’s abusive.

Certainly there's no point plodding on, anyway. I'd meant to check out for just this reason yesterday, yet here I bloody well am again, still procrastinating! Gah! I think I'm here less out of interest in the thread than a horror of paperwork now 😩. Go and work, Catiette!

This is a man who has proudly stated they support me in my quest for single sex female spaces to mean that. And then twisted every bloody word I’ve said to try to make out they’re included in that womens space.

That space im legally entitled to.

that space that the supreme court has CLARIFIED the law on. (Note - not changed. Clarified).

he is a man. Legally. And in some circumstances, that matters. It’s unfortunate that Poly finds that so difficult to deal with, but actions have consequences. As I’ve said. I made a decision at 15 that I didn’t fully understand the consequences of. People do. All the time. Every day. Polys not unique in that.

(And that applies even if he is the trans woman that passes 100% of the time that he thinks he is)

Even the language he uses to describe the hormones he takes is dishonest.

And this is a man who said he didn’t have anything in the way of sex development until he started on female hormones as a teen which is clearly nonsense.

Absolutely agree. It's deliberate.

It reminds me of discussion with my ex who would turn me into knots trying to get him to understand - but he never really wanted to understand, hr wanted to make me frustrated and angry and then he had “won”.

why does he do that by Lundy Bancroft changed my life.

once you “see” it you will never un see it.