TokenTransGirl
No bio...
User ID: 3226
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
I'm aware of your spirituality - but I'm equally aware of mine. I believe that Jesus supports my decision, and that if he were here today he would "cure" me by making me indistinguishable from a cis woman. I'm no stranger to this being called a mental illness, either because someone doesn't agree that "Jesus" exists or because someone doesn't agree that "gender" exists. It seems like a fair equivalence myself - I'm asking you to have faith in some internal truth of mine that I can't prove to your satisfaction.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
Sorry, I'm having a dozen slightly different conversations, and it can be hard to keep track of them. My point on urinals is that merely seeing a penis is not harmful. I have seen vastly more penises in the men's bathroom than I have seen in any other context. Stadiums and those big trough urinals are especially awful here. There are a lot of penises on display, even if supposedly no is trying to "show off."
I also, separately, think you're wrong about how often guys do enjoy showing off, but maybe I just got unlucky growing up. The core point is that people routinely have their entire dick out and exposed, and strangers are going to accidentally see a bunch of penises in there whether they want to or not. Maybe not every time you pee, but over a lifetime you're certainly going to see a lot more cocks than if we didn't have urinals. Some bathroom designs are certainly better here, but if we actually cared about privacy I dare say we could do a lot better.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
Alright, well, if we agree on that then cool. Not much else to say :)
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
Well, you're consistent at least. I do think a realistic assessment of health ought to look at happiness a fair bit more, though. I was never going to reproduce for a variety of reasons, so I think it's totally reasonable to trade that off for happiness. I think people have plenty of hobbies that make them happy, despite being dangerous: they drive cars, they drink alcohol, they eat badly.
On a spiritual level... I'm not much for formal churches and whatnot, but as best as I can tell, my soul, my connection to the divine, wanted me to do this. I trust it, because when I was even younger, it held me back and said no, you're not ready to do this yet, and looking back I think it was right.
But there is a difference between getting a hormone treatment to treat your mental illness and trying to make everyone else in society believe your mental illness.
Plenty of people are spiritual, and plenty of people think it's a mental illness. I'm spiritual myself, but I still expect the people in the latter category to try and show some respect for people of faith.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
That all seems quite fair to me. I think a lot of what I've been curious about is whether the backlash is "really" about more permissive laws, or if it's just that we've become a lot more visible. It's not an easy question to explore in most spaces! TERFs mostly seem disgusted by our very existence and don't want to compromise at all. The trans community is unfortunately dominated by a lot of extremists yelling everyone else down. And of course, it's the sort of conversation where society likes to yell and scream at anyone who dares express the "wrong" opinion, so most people are just unwilling to actually speak their mind.
So, thanks for being part of a cool community where I could actually hold this conversation, and find it productive :)
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
Now that I've learned a bit about the definitions here, this actually seems even easier:
The basic idea behind trans ideology is that sometimes you get a person, a trans woman, who is born as a guy. Despite this, they feel a strong desire to modify their body to have breasts and a vagina. When they modify their body in this way, they become much happier - it is one of the most successful medical interventions, on that axis.
So, a woman is someone who prefers to have a vagina rather than a penis, and vice-versa. But of course "prefers" is really hard to confirm, so let us instead say: a woman is someone with a vagina.
Tada! Nothing circular, and nothing referring to any sort of immutable biology.
I'm totally aware that plenty of trans activists want to go beyond this, of course, but it seems pointless to discuss anything past this point without first agreeing to this point. If you reject this, then obviously you reject anything more radical, and I'm more curious where the possible middle-ground is. I don't like the modern trans "grab as much privilege as we can" attitude at all; I just want to pee in peace, and that requires at least some willingness to compromise.
(I am less familiar with trans men, I will admit. I get the impression their goalposts are more "remove boobs and grow a beard", which still doesn't refer to anything immutable or circular)
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
We're talking about, like, 100 out of 300,000 trans women misbehaving. Do you really think there are not 100 men in the UK that have waved their penis around and tried to make people uncomfortable? Or are just socially oblivious and therefore always take the closest urinal instead of spacing out?
My personal experience with locker rooms is that if you take 100 guys, there'll be at least one that Really Clearly Does Not Mind Showing Off. Maybe they're not actively strutting around with an erection, but they're making zero effort to hide it, they're taking their sweet time changing, and they're more than happy to walk over for a conversation with it danging right there. Congratulations on you not personally being a victim of all that, but as a victim... I find it really weird that everyone here just wants to ignore that and reassure me that no, unlike my experience, everyone ELSE gets taken seriously an there's consequences when it happens to THEM.
But also, if the standard is purely "subjected to social consequences", then... what's the problem? It still feels insulting to me to say that cis women are utterly incompetent and can't even handle a simple disruption like this, but somehow it's absolutely zero problem for men to handle it. In what other areas are women too psychologically frail to handle things that don't affect men? If women can't even handle one person behaving inappropriately in the bathroom, why in the world are we trusting them to be police officers and politicians?
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
Alright, that seems fair. I do think there's some important semantics, but at the end of the day the thing I actually care about is bathrooms and such, not whether everyone thinks like me.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
You keep retreating into semantics, and dodging the question: why is it important to sort a post-op trans-woman into the men's locker room? Why is it totally acceptable and safe for a trans woman to show off her neovagina in a men's locker room, but showing off that neo-vagina in front of cis women should be a crime?
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
I mean, if your criteria is "menstruation", then you have to exclude the cis women who don't menstruate, even if they're rare. Otherwise, it's not really menstruation you care about. This is just how logical categories work. We create categories because they're useful for our purposes, and I can't fathom what purpose you're looking at here.
I mean, yes, if you're looking for someone to get pregnant, I'm a bad choice. But so is the infertile cis woman! And if you just want to get laid, surely the question is whether the experience is enjoyable?
I can see why this information is important to share with fellow trans women, and I'm not arguing that it's not true. I just don't see why you care or how it affects you, even if we're fucking?
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
I think there's a large contingent of mixed-race people who "pass" as one race or another without any real controversy. No one seems particularly concerned that light-skinned black people might "pass" as white, and no one seems to object to calling Italians white anymore.
I think, outside that category, you mostly only find "bad actors" who are looking to abuse the system.
If it turns out that 1% of the population really does, in good faith, identify as "trans-racial" and undergoes permanent surgical alteration to achieve that... I mean, wild, didn't see that coming, but... okay, we probably should accept that. And maybe we were being dicks for mocking those "drop of Native American blood" types. But when it's a handful of people who are pretty clearly just trying to gain an advantage... I don't see any particular reason we need to accept that?
I also think on a systemic level, we give advantages to women because they are currently threatened, and the best good comes from extending those protections to trans women. Conversely, racial affirmative action is meant to adjust for inequalities from the past: an unequal starting position. So extending those protections to someone who did not actually have that unequal starting position doesn't make any sense. (I'm totally open to the idea that racial affirmative action is a failure, and we should focus on things like "actually born in poverty" instead. Racial justice isn't my area of expertise.)
It's worth noting that I'm focusing on a more moderate trans agenda here: I expect trans women to go on HRT, try to pass as female socially, and eventually undergo surgery. I think there's benefits to protecting people who are only partway through that process, but the goal is to protect people who are actually undergoing the process. You can't just stop at "self identifying" if you want society to accept you; you've got to meet people halfway.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
they have an agenda
You say that like it's a weird, nefarious thing, but it seems like everyone who wants to change anything is obviously going to have an agenda?
I'm certainly not adverse to "abolish gender entirely" but it seems a lot easier to slot trans women into the existing system -vs- getting rid of the whole thing.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
If we didn't assume that almost everyone is bipedal and able-bodied, when building new houses and office blocks, why would we bother building stairs as part of the new construction?
Um... you might want to read some building codes? If you assume everyone is bipedal and able-bodied, why all these requirements for elevators, and curb ramps for wheelchairs?
In fact, now that I think about it, this is just extremely basic Bayesian reasoning
Okay, we're going around in linguistic circles here. If you see someone in a wheelchair, you don't demand any further proof that they can't walk unless there's some sort of extraordinary situation. I'm asking that if you see me and think I'm female, that's also sufficient proof, and you let me go pee in the women's bathroom.
Word games aside, can I pee in the bathroom? I've got a vagina, which locker room do you want me in?
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
But the fact that a small number are, and the ones who aren't will not allow any sort of guardrails that might prevent this, means unfortunately you are basically siding with the predators.
I mean, that seems unfair. I'm off in the middle saying "no, I think some guard rails are fine, obviously this 100% self-identification experiment failed". How is that siding with predators? What would I have to do to switch sides, if that's not sufficient?
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
I have zero interest in addressing this until a source is provided.
"And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011)."
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
I feel like the CDC is a pretty good source.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8360364/
Or maybe the NIH?
At least for me, the Google Search "made to penetrate" produces quite a few other good sources
Though I must say, I find it interesting that you're recycling manosphere/MRA talking points from a decade ago.
People I dislike are often right about things! That's the benefit of debate; sometimes it turns out the facts don't actually align with your beliefs, so you change your mind. I was pretty blown away when I first ran into this, but it would certainly seem like Feminist anti-rape efforts have done a remarkable job leveling the playing field in recent years.
Sounds like you know exactly what "female" really means when it suits you.
I think the word has like six different definitions, and everyone handles that just fine for every other English word. But it's still cheating when 99% of the category is incapable of the crime. I don't think you're actually willing to count trans women as women so it's hardly a "gotcha", just pedantry about how I use language. I don't think you're really confused here, you're just trying to score petty debate club points.
If you simply want to chide me for a minor slip in language... okay, fine. I'll go edit it since it's so incredibly important to you
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
If I, as a man, want to declare myself a woman, what requirements would you place on me to be considered actually a woman?
I mean, me personally? I don't care. Join the club. Self identification 100%
But just because I don't care doesn't mean other people don't have valid concerns, so I figure it's a social negotiation to find a contract that can at least satisfy the majority of people (since, obviously, you're never going to satisfy everyone)
I think if you've gone through the trouble of getting on HRT and consulting a doctor, it's probably safe to let you use the bathroom - the big controversies seem to be about sports and lockers. So not quite "just self identification", but a pretty low bar.
I think once someone has had surgery, the only controversy should be sports (which we've already covered)
I mean, for a medical form, "Which of the following do you have: [ ] breasts, [ ] uterus, [ ] vagina, [ ] penis" doesn't seem particularly unreasonable?
So you basically want to abolish the distinction between sexes in normal English usage?
I feel like "for a medical form" and "normal English usage" are pretty clearly two different domains.
I think in practice, most everyone uses "female" to mean "person I perceive as female" (or who they're humoring), whether they mean to or not. Lots of transphobic people call me "ma'am". Normal English usage, outside of dating and athletics, is about identifying people - and that's all about gender presentation. If you tell the cops they are looking for a guy, they are not going to find me.
Do you really, seriously think that a post-op trans woman is indistinguishable from a cis woman?
Yes, the empirical observation within the post-op community is that it's not an issue. As good as the real thing! Okay, maybe not exactly as good, on average, but well within the cis range, certainly? Vaginas come in a huge variety and most people only get intimate with a few people in their life.
Possibly the connoisseurs would weigh in and say something different, but Hugh Hefner seemed pretty trans-positive. He put trans women on the Playboy cover multiple times. I feel like if we're good enough for his tastes, then it's at least fair to say the onus is on you to show some evidence that neo-vaginas are sub-par goods?
you don't think someone should be able to filter out post-op trans women
If you can filter on whatever criteria you like, and exclude Christians and Democrats and Bisexuals, then it would seem crazy to say "oh, but you can't filter based on trans status"
But if you don't require people to actually list their religion, politics, and orientation, it would also seem crazy to say "oh, but you have to tell us if you're trans."
That said, I don't see any harm in putting post-op trans women in the "women" box.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
Your counterfactual world where you have XX chromosomes requires you to not exist. It requires a completely different person to have been conceived and born.
Okay, so if a person has Magic XX Genetic Defect Syndrome, and is born with XX chromosomes, a vagina, etc. but no large gametes, they're... third gender? To be clear: there is no world where this person produces large gametes, since as you said, changing their genetics results in a completely different person.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
some organism in a disease state becomes healthier.
Pre-transition I was miserable, and now I'm happy. Surely that means healthier? Is there some health risk associated with transition that you're particularly concerned about?
If my genetics gave me depression, would you be opposed to me taking anti-depressants?
Are you equally opposed to cis people getting cosmetic surgery?
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
a) it never undergoes menstruation
There's plenty of biological women in that category, so it doesn't really seem relevant
b) it must be continually dilated for several hours every day, for the rest of the recipient's life
"dilation must continue regularly for at least one year postoperatively." I would hardly call that "the rest of their life." It's not even daily after the first six months.
There's also improved techniques being researched to improve recovery time even further. And in many cases already, dilation is just a precaution against a 10-20% chance of stenosis, not a situation where stenosis is guaranteed to occur.
Not to mention that vaginal stenosis is potentially congenital: https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/conditions/vaginal-stenosis
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
What should the government do when ye olde yardstick begs to differ?
Isn't the anti-trans position the opposite, though? You're saying that if someone was "born" 5'10" and somehow gained 2 inches of height, they're still 5'10".
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
“Abraham Lincoln was assigned male at birth”
You're the only person to say it ever, if Google is to be believed, so it is perhaps unsurprising that you can't find anyone from 1995 saying it
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
Google confirms that sex assigned at birth as a term did not exist before 2014.
https://columbialawreview.org/content/sex-assigned-at-birth/ would suggest otherwise. "Not common on the internet" hardly means the term wasn't ever used. A simple Google search suggests there's examples of usage dating back into the 40s.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=AMAB&year_start=2000&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=1 I mean, it seems really odd that "AMAB" goes back to 2000. Did it used to mean something else?
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22assigned+male+at+birth%22&year_start=2000&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=1 If nothing else, "assigned male at birth" takes off a couple years earlier, 2012
Very shoddy methodology - basically all noise and no light here.
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
And to be clear, I'm not (just) mad at those things because I disagree with their politics. I genuinely think those are terrible movies. They have bad plots, bad characters, bad dialogue, and often even bad at basic filmmaking stuff like editing, camera angles, and sound mixing.
I tend to think it's the bad film-making ruining things, not the woke. The original Star Trek was pushing all sorts of boundaries (i.e. "woke" for it's era), but it holds up because the writing is good, and the characters are amazing.
But they went into it saying "I want to write a great sci-fi story that is also diverse", not "I want to write a diverse sci-fi show". The goal was to make a good TV show, not to ensure that black lesbians got more air-time.
A lot of shows these days start with the premise "what if we did X, but 'diverse.'" There's no thought to the characters beyond some token diversity labels - god, when was the last time we saw a Strong Female Character that wasn't basically interchangeable with every other Strong Female Character? But Uhura? She was an actual character, and she existed because it made sense for her to be in the story. She reacted how Uhura would react, not following a generic Strong Female Character script.
(I feel like the recent "all female" Ghostbusters was the best example of this: they swapped the genders, but somehow that had absolutely no effect on the rest of the script. They didn't bother to write interesting new female characters, or even to explore how gender-swapping might affect the existing plot.)
TokenTransGirl
2mo ago
If you routinely need to count past 10 on your hands, I highly recommend learning to count in binary. I don't think this is a huge group, though, and decimal is definitely much more compact for doing math on paper
I think a lot of trans women genuinely fall into the older, classic model like me. It's really hard to say if it represents the actual community, because there's some loud voices that want to make the newest ideology the only one, but I do think there's a lot of people like me, and still are, even if we're no longer the majority within the trans community. I think there's a lot more of us than you'd guess, simply because we tend to be quiet: we already got what we want, as long as we don't draw attention to ourselves.
I have a bit of trouble taking someone seriously as a "trans woman" if they just want to self-identify, don't have dysphoria, and aren't even taking HRT, but... I'm asking people who don't believe I'm a woman to call me "she/her" anyway, so I'm at least fine with names and pronouns even there.
If we accept the idea that I want to have a cis-woman looking body despite not being born with one, it doesn't really surprise me that some people might want "non-binary" mixes. I don't really understand the category well myself, though. I think a lot of non-binary is much more about abolishing gender roles entirely - most cis women I meet who identify as "non-binary" just seem unhappy with society's concept of "female", or are viewing that concept through a fairly narrow lens. All that said, if you're actually going out and getting surgery, I'm going to take you seriously.
More options
Context Copy link