3 ms·

> my biology is the biology of a woman regardless of whether or not doctors agree > The idea that her biology is that of a person born with two X chromosomes a

> my biology is the biology of a woman regardless of whether or not doctors agree > The idea that her biology is that of a person born with two X chromosomes and a vagina is a little ridiculous to me Well, there's a logical resolution here. The biology of women contains cis female biology as well as trans female biology. No contradiction between these two points. The point of making distinctions is because those distinctions are useful to us. Which distinctions we make are up to our discretion. Not only does our understanding inform the distinctions we make, the distinctions we make inform our understanding. Here's an example. Our culture is obsessed with elaborate social structures based on genitals, isn't that weird? If those cultural practices are rooted in biology, and we want cultural recognition of trans women, then we are saying that trans women have the biology of women. No logical problem here. Medically, it is arguable that trans women have female biology. That's not saying trans women have the same biology as cis women. Indeed, some trans women need to see a gynecologist, even. Both cis and trans women can take drugs to correct hormonal imbalances. I know a cis women who needs to take spironolactone for high testosterone just like many trans women need to; a family friend was on HRT for menopausal symptoms, estradiol, which many trans women take too. I would not be _at all_ surprised if there were a trans woman and a cis woman on the same exact hormone therapy. So not only can we make the category of "female biology" wider in a medical setting without making a logical mistake (subcategories: trans female biology, cis female biology), there really is overlap between the medical needs of trans women and cis women. This is not frivolous. Trans women get a serious amount of discrimination and contempt from many medical providers because of this cultural and medical intransigence against them. This change of distinctions has an important consequence to the quality of life of many women, and, in the long term, all of us.

tree_of_item 8y ago
"Transwomen" are just males, i.e. men. They have male biology. This is not frivolous, and not up for debate: it's extremely important that we do not lose the ability to talk about human sexuality in a coherent way. > Indeed, some trans women need to see a gynecologist, even. This is also not true. No transwomen ever needs to see a gynecologist except as a form of validation.
- sctb 8y ago
  You've been breaking the guidelines a whole lot by posting unsubstantively like this, so we've banned the account.
  - throwaway00112 8y ago
    What was unsubstantive about that post? It was on topic. It was a direct reply to this line from the GP: > The biology of women contains cis female biology as well as trans female biology. This is a false statement and the deleted post said as much. Is a response to this sort of thing not allowed? What a load of nonsense.
    - sctb 8y ago
      A response is absolutely fine! Of course it is. But it needs to be done in a way in which we stand to learn something. > "Transwomen" are just males, i.e. men. They have male biology. This is not frivolous, and not up for debate... This is unsubstantive because it is a claim without accompanying support. If the intention was to counter the original point, it should be done with actual information. “Not up for debate” is a giveaway that the commenter doesn't want to participate in a discussion, and this is a discussion site. > This is also not true. No transwomen ever needs to see a gynecologist except as a form of validation. There is also no basis provided for this statement, therefore it is unsubstantive. Thoughtful discourse contains information grounded in our shared reality. What's going on here, and not just in this subthread, is a flamewar. This is not where we learn—this is where learning goes to die in a swamp of cortisol and teeth gnashing.

tree_of_item 8y ago

"Transwomen" are just males, i.e. men. They have male biology. This is not frivolous, and not up for debate: it's extremely important that we do not lose the ability to talk about human sexuality in a coherent way. > Indeed, some trans women need to see a gynecologist, even. This is also not true. No transwomen ever needs to see a gynecologist except as a form of validation.

sctb 8y ago
You've been breaking the guidelines a whole lot by posting unsubstantively like this, so we've banned the account.
- throwaway00112 8y ago
  What was unsubstantive about that post? It was on topic. It was a direct reply to this line from the GP: > The biology of women contains cis female biology as well as trans female biology. This is a false statement and the deleted post said as much. Is a response to this sort of thing not allowed? What a load of nonsense.
  - sctb 8y ago
    A response is absolutely fine! Of course it is. But it needs to be done in a way in which we stand to learn something. > "Transwomen" are just males, i.e. men. They have male biology. This is not frivolous, and not up for debate... This is unsubstantive because it is a claim without accompanying support. If the intention was to counter the original point, it should be done with actual information. “Not up for debate” is a giveaway that the commenter doesn't want to participate in a discussion, and this is a discussion site. > This is also not true. No transwomen ever needs to see a gynecologist except as a form of validation. There is also no basis provided for this statement, therefore it is unsubstantive. Thoughtful discourse contains information grounded in our shared reality. What's going on here, and not just in this subthread, is a flamewar. This is not where we learn—this is where learning goes to die in a swamp of cortisol and teeth gnashing.