3 ms·

> Also congrats to all the people with XX chromosomes who are infertile and are now men. You’ll notice I didn’t define the female sex as the ability to get pre

by thiht 4y ago

> Also congrats to all the people with XX chromosomes who are infertile and are now men. You’ll notice I didn’t define the female sex as the ability to get pregnant, nor that all of them can or want, just that it’s reserved to the female sex. You guys always do the « reverse argument trick » where you try to put words in the mouth of your victim. It’s more obvious than you think it is. > Pour one out for all the women who’ve had oophorectomies due to medical complications or women born with vaginal agenesis and androgen insensitivity syndrome. If you want to think of all the exceptions you cannot ever say anything. I’ll stick to the 90+% of humanity. The fact is, having ovaries is reserved to people of the female sex, which once again doesn’t mean all females (sex) have ovaries because of all you say. Ok, except for that one rare syndrome where men can sometimes develop ovaries, but again, we can’t possibly consider all the cases every time we speak if it means we can’t properly talk about the vast majority of the world population.

Spivak 4y ago
I don’t know who “you guys” refers to but I assure you whatever it is I’m not a member. Your trick is ignoring the stronger argument which is it’s very likely that a trans woman will get pregnant after a uterus transplant at some point during our lifetime. > If you want to think of all the exceptions you cannot ever say anything No you can’t say what you’re trying to force. I can say without worrying about any exceptions that the set of people who can get pregnant includes men, women, and non-binary people. > we can’t possibly consider all the cases every time we speak if it means we can’t… use silly biological arguments that aren’t even true for no purpose except to invalidate trans people who by current estimates are 1 in 100 people.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > the stronger argument which is it’s very likely that a trans woman will get pregnant after a uterus transplant It seems that taking a uterus, a female organ, and putting it into a male and him "giving birth" would prove the difference between the sexes. Without that uterus he wasn't going anywhere. > silly biological arguments Yeah.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    > Yeah. Look I completely agree with you. But people in this thread keep making pointless biological arguments with the motivated goal of invalidating trans people. And my hope that pointing out that the world is weirder than people assume at the biological level (like you can have a uterus where the cells are all XY) would make people realize that being trans is actually one of the less weird phenomenon that occurs in humans. Trans women aren’t women because maybe one day with a transplant they will be able to give birth, they’re women because they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man but it’s alleviated when treated as a woman. It wound be easier to argue that this is just some kind of delusion if cis people didn’t also experience it when treated as the opposite gender and it happens about 1 in 100 people.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      > people in this thread [...] the motivated goal of invalidating trans people. Not the goal of invalidating, but mainly because I wouldn't use valid/invalid language. When I disagree with a devout catholic I'm not invalidating their beliefs - even when I argue that their god probably doesn't exist. My interests in identity-based arguments are the rights-erosion I see going on. Females need, and have fought doggedly to achieve, sex-based rights such as single-sex spaces, matching funding, etc. How can those rights be respected and dangers avoided if men can declare themselves women? Even leaving aside "actual trans women", what about all the abusive non-trans males who'll use the loophole? > Trans women aren’t women because [X], they’re women They aren't though. You seem to be saying "therefore it is imperative that we treat them as if they are the sex they claim" and that's another question, and perhaps worth debate, but what would the end be? Treat them the same all the way into women's prisons? (Trans women have a higher sex criminality than the average male prisoner by a factor of four, and most are still sexually intact and functional as males.) I feel that this sort of breathless panic to protect trans people ignores that the proposed solution totally demolishes the single-sex protections that nearly half the planet enjoys, and that keep our children safe. Perhaps we could revisit this with a goal of maintaining zero additional risk to women over the status quo, but otherwise it seems like it's a non-starter because it has to come at the expense of women. > they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man but it’s alleviated when treated as a woman. There definitely are some people who chafe at the gender expectations they perceive others (rightly or wrongly) having for them. Like a girl who doesn't like dresses and being proper or whatever. I believe the solution is to remove these expectations, not to tell that girl that the source of her angst is that she's a boy in a girl's boy, but to actually help her understand the issues of growing up. She can't actually be a boy but she can be happy as a girl. How is this not like anorexia, where normal teen issues contagiously coalesced into common symptoms across a large area? Their underlying issues were real, but the expression (that they were fat and the solution was to lose weight) was manufactured collectively by our society and was near impossible to beat in an individual. Anorexia remains incredibly rare outside of American media influence. Now that same angst seems to be channeled into other externally manufactured solutions, such as being in the wrong body. Despite claims of indigenous third-gender, trans is a modern western phenomenon. A product of social contagion. In both cases the correct answer seems to be to discuss and treat the underlying issues and conditions before assuming that someone's body is broken and needs sexual modification and lifelong medicalization.
- cluedos 4y ago
  > Your trick is ignoring the stronger argument which is it's very likely that a trans woman will get pregnant after a uterus transplant at some point during our lifetime. Harvesting the uterus of a woman and hosting it inside a man does not make him a member of a female sex. Even if a womb was lab-grown somehow, rather than poached, it's highly unlikely his body would be compatible with pregnancy. And there would be massive ethical concerns in performing this experiment, given that this is an attempt to artificially create and grow a new human life in a body fundamentally unsuited to this task.

by thiht 4y ago

Spivak 4y ago

I don’t know who “you guys” refers to but I assure you whatever it is I’m not a member. Your trick is ignoring the stronger argument which is it’s very likely that a trans woman will get pregnant after a uterus transplant at some point during our lifetime. > If you want to think of all the exceptions you cannot ever say anything No you can’t say what you’re trying to force. I can say without worrying about any exceptions that the set of people who can get pregnant includes men, women, and non-binary people. > we can’t possibly consider all the cases every time we speak if it means we can’t… use silly biological arguments that aren’t even true for no purpose except to invalidate trans people who by current estimates are 1 in 100 people.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> the stronger argument which is it’s very likely that a trans woman will get pregnant after a uterus transplant It seems that taking a uterus, a female organ, and putting it into a male and him "giving birth" would prove the difference between the sexes. Without that uterus he wasn't going anywhere. > silly biological arguments Yeah.
- Spivak 4y ago
  > Yeah. Look I completely agree with you. But people in this thread keep making pointless biological arguments with the motivated goal of invalidating trans people. And my hope that pointing out that the world is weirder than people assume at the biological level (like you can have a uterus where the cells are all XY) would make people realize that being trans is actually one of the less weird phenomenon that occurs in humans. Trans women aren’t women because maybe one day with a transplant they will be able to give birth, they’re women because they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man but it’s alleviated when treated as a woman. It wound be easier to argue that this is just some kind of delusion if cis people didn’t also experience it when treated as the opposite gender and it happens about 1 in 100 people.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > people in this thread [...] the motivated goal of invalidating trans people. Not the goal of invalidating, but mainly because I wouldn't use valid/invalid language. When I disagree with a devout catholic I'm not invalidating their beliefs - even when I argue that their god probably doesn't exist. My interests in identity-based arguments are the rights-erosion I see going on. Females need, and have fought doggedly to achieve, sex-based rights such as single-sex spaces, matching funding, etc. How can those rights be respected and dangers avoided if men can declare themselves women? Even leaving aside "actual trans women", what about all the abusive non-trans males who'll use the loophole? > Trans women aren’t women because [X], they’re women They aren't though. You seem to be saying "therefore it is imperative that we treat them as if they are the sex they claim" and that's another question, and perhaps worth debate, but what would the end be? Treat them the same all the way into women's prisons? (Trans women have a higher sex criminality than the average male prisoner by a factor of four, and most are still sexually intact and functional as males.) I feel that this sort of breathless panic to protect trans people ignores that the proposed solution totally demolishes the single-sex protections that nearly half the planet enjoys, and that keep our children safe. Perhaps we could revisit this with a goal of maintaining zero additional risk to women over the status quo, but otherwise it seems like it's a non-starter because it has to come at the expense of women. > they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man but it’s alleviated when treated as a woman. There definitely are some people who chafe at the gender expectations they perceive others (rightly or wrongly) having for them. Like a girl who doesn't like dresses and being proper or whatever. I believe the solution is to remove these expectations, not to tell that girl that the source of her angst is that she's a boy in a girl's boy, but to actually help her understand the issues of growing up. She can't actually be a boy but she can be happy as a girl. How is this not like anorexia, where normal teen issues contagiously coalesced into common symptoms across a large area? Their underlying issues were real, but the expression (that they were fat and the solution was to lose weight) was manufactured collectively by our society and was near impossible to beat in an individual. Anorexia remains incredibly rare outside of American media influence. Now that same angst seems to be channeled into other externally manufactured solutions, such as being in the wrong body. Despite claims of indigenous third-gender, trans is a modern western phenomenon. A product of social contagion. In both cases the correct answer seems to be to discuss and treat the underlying issues and conditions before assuming that someone's body is broken and needs sexual modification and lifelong medicalization.
cluedos 4y ago
> Your trick is ignoring the stronger argument which is it's very likely that a trans woman will get pregnant after a uterus transplant at some point during our lifetime. Harvesting the uterus of a woman and hosting it inside a man does not make him a member of a female sex. Even if a womb was lab-grown somehow, rather than poached, it's highly unlikely his body would be compatible with pregnancy. And there would be massive ethical concerns in performing this experiment, given that this is an attempt to artificially create and grow a new human life in a body fundamentally unsuited to this task.