2 ms·

> If you believe someone's genitals determine how they should be treated socially, you are being transphobic. I personally think that is a stupid standard, but

> If you believe someone's genitals determine how they should be treated socially, you are being transphobic. I personally think that is a stupid standard, but that is the standard that has been set for transphobia. I cannot tell if you're trolling or just intentionally ignoring all the related nuance. You must understand there are some circumstances when it is acceptable to acknowledge that a trans women has a bio male body. According to this "trans women should always be treated as women in ANY context" opinion what is a doctor to do when a trans women gets prostate cancer? "Sorry, that's a man-only disease, and you're a woman, so it's impossible you have it"???

roenxi 6y ago
I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out the obvious - you are espousing mildly transphobic principles and you should reassess your framework until it makes sense. Someone with a prostate having prostate cancer and needing treatment has an obvious, involuntary, cause and the person is presumably voluntarily cooperative in being treated. Thinking that it is even possibly reasonable to exclude a woman from playing womans sport because you don't believe they are womanly enough, regardless of their beliefs, is blatant transphobia. And the long pseudo-science "not men but kinda men" justification is the sort of thing bigots tried to deploy against gays, religious minorities and women in the past. That should stop. If someone is a women, and we can treat them like women, we should treat them like a woman. Ditto how humans should be treated like humans.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  Come on, I can easily construct a scenario where it isn't voluntary from the trans woman and is between two people, as a matter of fact I already did: > What about a situation where a cisgendered man prefers having sex with people that also have dicks? Typically, we would call this person gay, which we interpret as "men who have sex with men". However, this person would want to have sex with cis men and trans women, not because they're transphobic, but because their preference is based on the person's physical body. What are you going to say when this person declines sex with a trans women? Is that transphobia? Should they be forced to lie about why they're declining the sex? Is wanting to have sex with people with the same genitalia as you transphobic? > Thinking that it is even possibly reasonable to exclude a woman from playing womans sport because you don't believe they are womanly enough, regardless of their beliefs, is blatant transphobia. This is just projecting reasoning onto me that I've never espoused. I never made the claim it's because I "don't believe they are womanly enough". The reason is that certain people have a biological advantage that others do not. The name "women's sports" is somewhat unfortunate because the goal is not to separate women from men, but actually to separate the people with that advantage from those who without. > And the long pseudo-science "not men but kinda men" justification is the sort of thing bigots tried to deploy against gays, religious minorities and women in the past. Again, this is refuting a point I never made. Trans men are men with a bio woman body, and vice versa for trans women. That isn't pseudo-science, it's the literal dictionary definition of what a trans person is.

roenxi 6y ago

I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out the obvious - you are espousing mildly transphobic principles and you should reassess your framework until it makes sense. Someone with a prostate having prostate cancer and needing treatment has an obvious, involuntary, cause and the person is presumably voluntarily cooperative in being treated. Thinking that it is even possibly reasonable to exclude a woman from playing womans sport because you don't believe they are womanly enough, regardless of their beliefs, is blatant transphobia. And the long pseudo-science "not men but kinda men" justification is the sort of thing bigots tried to deploy against gays, religious minorities and women in the past. That should stop. If someone is a women, and we can treat them like women, we should treat them like a woman. Ditto how humans should be treated like humans.

cmeacham98 6y ago
Come on, I can easily construct a scenario where it isn't voluntary from the trans woman and is between two people, as a matter of fact I already did: > What about a situation where a cisgendered man prefers having sex with people that also have dicks? Typically, we would call this person gay, which we interpret as "men who have sex with men". However, this person would want to have sex with cis men and trans women, not because they're transphobic, but because their preference is based on the person's physical body. What are you going to say when this person declines sex with a trans women? Is that transphobia? Should they be forced to lie about why they're declining the sex? Is wanting to have sex with people with the same genitalia as you transphobic? > Thinking that it is even possibly reasonable to exclude a woman from playing womans sport because you don't believe they are womanly enough, regardless of their beliefs, is blatant transphobia. This is just projecting reasoning onto me that I've never espoused. I never made the claim it's because I "don't believe they are womanly enough". The reason is that certain people have a biological advantage that others do not. The name "women's sports" is somewhat unfortunate because the goal is not to separate women from men, but actually to separate the people with that advantage from those who without. > And the long pseudo-science "not men but kinda men" justification is the sort of thing bigots tried to deploy against gays, religious minorities and women in the past. Again, this is refuting a point I never made. Trans men are men with a bio woman body, and vice versa for trans women. That isn't pseudo-science, it's the literal dictionary definition of what a trans person is.