This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, it's not -- but the analogous transition for cutting your dick off would be 'eunuch', not woman. I'm fine if you'd like some other category ('trans person' or something), but like I say this doesn't seem to me the road you'd like to go down.
But it's not cutting off your dick, it's turning it into a vagina. If the end state was a Ken doll, it'd be a very different conversation.
If Blofeld gets cosmetic surgery to look just like 007, that doesn't mean he is Bond.
If that surgery involved cutting off his arm, it does still put him in the category 'crippled'.
More options
Context Copy link
Granted, cutting off your dick and undergoing bottom surgery are meaningfully different concepts, but referring to the latter as "turning your penis into a vagina" might be putting things a bit generously. A more accurate description might be "turning your penis into a decidedly crude approximation of what a vagina looks and feels like, and which is markedly different from real natal vaginas in numerous ways - most notably in that a) it never undergoes menstruation and b) the immune system will treat it as an open wound, so it must be continually dilated for several hours every day, for the rest of the recipient's life, to prevent it from closing up".
There's plenty of biological women in that category, so it doesn't really seem relevant
"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
100% of neovaginas never undergo menstruation. Something like 3-5% of female people experience secondary amennorhea (i.e. they have gotten their period by the age of 16, but it's stopped for one reason or another). Somewhere in the region of 0.1% of female people never get their period. All menopausal women and prepubescent girls do not menstruate by definition, but once did or will in the future (a distinction I've made exhaustively clear). Moreover, amennorhea in pubescent or post-pubescent females is evidence of something going wrong with their bodies, and they are urged to seek out medical care; neovaginas not undergoing menstruation is them working as intended. It baffles me how you can pretend not to understand this.
Like, menstruation and child-bearing are pretty much defining features of vaginas - that's what they're for. I point out that literally zero people with neovaginas have ever borne a child or had a period, and all you can say in retort is "well a tiny minority of women can't have their periods either, so it's no big deal".
To return to an earlier analogy, surely you understand the difference between "a motorcycle which runs", "a motorcycle which was once running but which no longer runs because of damage to the cylinder" and "a bicycle which has been modded to superficially resemble a motorcycle, but does not actually have an engine attached (and anyway the wheels have been removed)".
"The frequency required to use [a dilator] decreases over time, however remains obligatory lifelong." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginoplasty)
So, again, all trans women are required to use a dilator for a significant period (possibly indefinitely) after undergoing bottom surgery. A minority of female people (possibly as few as 1%, according to Wikipedia) are required to use a dilator in order to treat a specific medical condition (which can often be treated by methods other than dilation). Ergo, there's nothing strange about including males in the category of "women". Okay.
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?
Allow me to illustrate why I don't think it's appropriate to refer to your neovagina as a vagina.
The vagina is a sexually reproductive organ. Its purpose is to be used for procreation, and all of its key functions (sexual intercourse, delivering children and, indirectly, menstruation) serve that end. Our default assumption is that any nubile woman's vagina has the full range of functions outlined above. There are rare instances in which post-pubescent women are unable to get pregnant or menstruate, but these are properly considered as disorders in which the body is not functioning as intended for one reason or another. There are also menopausal women who once could get pregnant and menstruate but no longer can, but this is a normal part of the aging process as the body begins to break down over time. Finally, there are prepubescent girls who cannot yet get pregnant or menstruate, but we assume that they will if they have a normal development.
A post-op trans woman has a neovagina. This organ cannot be used for procreation, and this is by design. Unlike vaginas which never menstruated and which could not be used for conceiving a child at any point in their life cycle (which are a tiny minority of all vaginas), 100% of neovaginas don't menstruate or could even in principle be used for conceiving a child. Thus the purpose that a neovagina is meant to serve is entirely different from the purpose a vagina is meant to serve. The fact that they are in two entirely different categories of organ is plainly demonstrated by the fact that the failure states for the two organs are entirely different: if a trans woman's neovagina was bleeding for five days straight, that would be cause for concern and the person in question would be strongly advised to seek medical attention. If a cis woman's vagina is bleeding for five days straight (i.e. if she was menstruating), we would consider that "working as intended". When "working as intended" for one organ looks like "malfunctioning" for another organ, I think it's plain to say we are talking about two different categories of organ. (By way of analogy, a cyclist must expend energy and calories to make their bicycle move: that's how a bicycle works. If a motorcyclist has to expend calories making their motorcycle move, it means something has gone wrong with it. You're not supposed to have to physically push your motorcycle to make it move - that's what the engine's for.)
In fact, if you believe that an orifice which can be used for receptive penetrative sex but which can't be used for procreation ought to be included in the set of "vaginas" (because a small minority of women can't get pregnant or menstruate), then I would argue that you already had a vagina from birth. Most of us would call it your anus, but if we're being this expansive about categories and the definitions of words, why not? You get a vagina, you get a vagina, everyone has a vagina! (Is this what the most terminally horny trans activists are getting at when they demand people to stop using the word "vagina" and use the word "bonus hole" instead?)
"That's totally different, faeces come out of my rectum." About that. Do you see how annoying and pointless this line of reasoning is, how it proves too much? A minority of women don't menstruate or can't have babies; ergo, all neovaginas (none of which can be used for menstruation or procreation) are vaginas. By the same token, a minority of women experience stool in the vagina; ergo, all rectums are vaginas.
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?
Where and when did I say any of these things
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link