7 ms·

It’s not that confusing. “Has a womb” is not a common definition of “woman”. Women don’t stop being women after having a hysterectomy. The woman in question is

by jl6 2y ago

It’s not that confusing. “Has a womb” is not a common definition of “woman”. Women don’t stop being women after having a hysterectomy. The woman in question is a woman because her sexual differentiation followed the female pathway. Just because in her case that pathway led to a DSD variant doesn’t undo the rest of her female development or make her a little bit less of a woman, or male, or a third sex.

ben_w 2y ago
There's at least four common definitions of "woman", and I have in fact seen people use "has a womb" as one of them despite, as you may guess, all the people piling on immediately with a reply along the lines of what you yourself say — that this would exclude women who have had a hysterectomy. The other three I've commonly seen are: (1) as you suggest, developmental pathway — which tends to trip people up over androgen insensitivity, and is also why puberty blockers are part of the public debate (2) chromosomes — which has the problem of 0.6-1.0% of the population doing something else besides the normal XX/XY and (3) current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public, and also in private by anyone who has had top surgery but not bottom surgery.
- aisenik 2y ago
  Why do you use the the Nazi demographic term "transvestite?" (also, you should just not talk about trans people as you display immense ignorance in a very short time, you clearly have a concept of trans bodies that is rooted in fascist propaganda: trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
  - ben_w 2y ago
    The word "transvestite" predates the Nazis by a few decades, coined by someone the Nazis hated because he was gay and Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld > trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery). Transgender people go both directions, not only AMAB but also AFAB.
    - aisenik 2y ago
      I did intend to type "Nazi era", though I find the clarification is meaningless to the point. I'm all for reclaiming words, but I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." e: The far more interesting discussion is whether the revival of eugenics-era language is justifiable. This is hardly the first example on this site of arrogant commentators casually reviving language that came to be understood as hateful in the 20th century.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular It's the primary term I grew up with in the UK specifically about what is also called cross-dressing. It's also used by one of my favourite comedians, Suzy Eddie Izzard, as self-description ("executive transvestite") before she identified as transgender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard) > Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." 1) Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces. 2) I am informed that many trans women have implants before hormones. In fact, one woman I know openly discussed face surgery as part of her transition. Also: cis women have breast surgery. I'm told most often as a reduction. Facebook, in its complete uselessness, has advertised the surgery to me along with dick pills.
        aisenik 2y ago
        It's bizarre that you try to talk down about trans issues that you are not informed about and label your interlocutor, a trans woman, as transphobic for not highlighting trans men when talking specifically about women. If the answer to why you use the word "transvestite" is "I am steeped in 90s celebrity and watched RHPS" fine, but your disingenuous accusations of transphobia and extreme interest in a topic you seem exceptionally ignorant about fit a corrosive pattern that attempts to shutdown meaningful discussion. The rise of eugenics-era language is deeply concerning and I would actually like to better understand why this site in particular has seen an increase of commentary using regressive 20th century language.
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    I promise I'm asking this question in good faith because I would genuinely love to understand your reasoning: why does the term "transvestite" have anything to do with Nazism? From what I remember, that word was common and acceptable when I was growing up in the 90s, and I don't remember any Nazis using it. Nor did anyone tell me that the word "transvestite" was derogatory or offensive, although if social mores have shifted then fine, I won't say it. What did I miss?
    - gcr 2y ago
      no worries, people typically use “transgender” or “trans” as an umbrella term these days I have heard of folks who claim the label “transveatite” for themselves. Others see it as derogatory.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        I suspect there may have been a misunderstanding of my earlier comment that led to this chain. Where I wrote above: > current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public That wasn't a statement about being transgender. I was saying that people judge clothing, and are confused by that clothing. "Public" being about clothing, because there aren't many public places where you're going to see enough skin for anything else to cause confusion. ("vest" as in vestments, clothing).
    - aisenik 2y ago
      The emotions fueling my reaction are based on the way I experienced the word as a child in the 80s and 90s, and I could delve deeper into that but it's mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that I experienced the word in hateful ways. In truth, I misspoke when I said "Nazi demographic" and had intended to write "Nazi era demographic," as the word's origination was in its use to describe the nascent trans community in Weimar Germany. In fact, the Nazis disregarded the validity of trans status entirely and the folks we'd regard as trans women today were classified as homosexual men before being subjected to the violence of the Nazi state. Trans men received a different, no less humiliating punishment. The motivation in asking the question, beyond my disgust, is that I have observed a trend on this site of anachronistic language that fell out of favor after being associated with hate speech. It is generally being used in contexts supportive of the prominent far right agenda, and I seek to illuminate the motivations of the commentators who facilitate such odious reversions in discourse. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
crooked-v 2y ago
US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb (https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres-how-a-new-kansas-anti-trans-law-skews-the-meaning-of-gender-and-sex/ https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres...).
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  > US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there. from the law > a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,
  - gcr 2y ago
    isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova? “is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.
    - rkomorn 2y ago
      The uterus itself doesn't have much to do with ova production. Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy? Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation?
    - belorn 2y ago
      The answer is a yes, as in, the ovaries can still ovulate even without a uterus. The ovaries also continue to produce hormones, through there are a feedback loop between the uterus and ovaries which get disrupted without a uterus. It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm.
tomlockwood 2y ago
What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway?
- googlryas 2y ago
  Why do you suppose such a test could even exist?
- jl6 2y ago
  Depends why you need to know and with what level of accuracy. Just looking at their face is about 96%-98% accurate[0], and becomes even more accurate when other cues are available such as voice, gait, and build. For casual purposes, humans are incredibly good at predicting sex, without any technology or scientific understanding. One might speculate that being able to accurately find a mate is an evolutionary advantage. For the last few fractions of a percent accuracy, a SRY cheek swab test is a simple non-invasive screening test that can flag individuals for further investigation. World Athletics have just implemented this test, stating it is “a highly accurate proxy for biological sex”.[1] A positive result in this screening test could be combined with a finger prick test for testosterone level to provide further information, and at this point we’re into methods of medical diagnosis of DSDs. About 1 in 5000 individuals will have a DSD, some of which are still unambiguously male or female (e.g. XXY Klinefelter syndrome), and some of which are almost unique individuals that defy categorization. At this point, it is popular to seize on those rare individuals and declare “aha! So sex isn’t binary then! So it must be a spectrum!”, and while this is surely well-intentioned, it is scientifically illiterate.[2] I suspect part of the confusion is interpreting “binary” as a mathematical Boolean value (where exceptions cannot, by definition, exist) rather than as a scientific classification, where exceptions can and do exist and “prove the rule”. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892200133X#b0015 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892... [1] https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.amp https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.am... [2] https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectr...
  - tomlockwood 2y ago
gcr 2y ago
A friend of mine takes estrogen and has breasts, feminine voice, etc. Her body’s arguably taken both sexual differentiation pathways over the years. I think even this definition isn’t so clear-cut.
- jl6 2y ago
  Body modification through technology doesn’t really encroach on the scientific classification of the natural world. The Vacanti mouse which had an apparent human ear grown on its back was an amazing thing in its own right, but its existence doesn’t mean we need to update our understanding of what a mouse is.

by jl6 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

There's at least four common definitions of "woman", and I have in fact seen people use "has a womb" as one of them despite, as you may guess, all the people piling on immediately with a reply along the lines of what you yourself say — that this would exclude women who have had a hysterectomy. The other three I've commonly seen are: (1) as you suggest, developmental pathway — which tends to trip people up over androgen insensitivity, and is also why puberty blockers are part of the public debate (2) chromosomes — which has the problem of 0.6-1.0% of the population doing something else besides the normal XX/XY and (3) current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public, and also in private by anyone who has had top surgery but not bottom surgery.

aisenik 2y ago
Why do you use the the Nazi demographic term "transvestite?" (also, you should just not talk about trans people as you display immense ignorance in a very short time, you clearly have a concept of trans bodies that is rooted in fascist propaganda: trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery).
- ben_w 2y ago
  The word "transvestite" predates the Nazis by a few decades, coined by someone the Nazis hated because he was gay and Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld > trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery). Transgender people go both directions, not only AMAB but also AFAB.
  - aisenik 2y ago
    I did intend to type "Nazi era", though I find the clarification is meaningless to the point. I'm all for reclaiming words, but I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." e: The far more interesting discussion is whether the revival of eugenics-era language is justifiable. This is hardly the first example on this site of arrogant commentators casually reviving language that came to be understood as hateful in the 20th century.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular It's the primary term I grew up with in the UK specifically about what is also called cross-dressing. It's also used by one of my favourite comedians, Suzy Eddie Izzard, as self-description ("executive transvestite") before she identified as transgender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard) > Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." 1) Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces. 2) I am informed that many trans women have implants before hormones. In fact, one woman I know openly discussed face surgery as part of her transition. Also: cis women have breast surgery. I'm told most often as a reduction. Facebook, in its complete uselessness, has advertised the surgery to me along with dick pills.
      - aisenik 2y ago
        It's bizarre that you try to talk down about trans issues that you are not informed about and label your interlocutor, a trans woman, as transphobic for not highlighting trans men when talking specifically about women. If the answer to why you use the word "transvestite" is "I am steeped in 90s celebrity and watched RHPS" fine, but your disingenuous accusations of transphobia and extreme interest in a topic you seem exceptionally ignorant about fit a corrosive pattern that attempts to shutdown meaningful discussion. The rise of eugenics-era language is deeply concerning and I would actually like to better understand why this site in particular has seen an increase of commentary using regressive 20th century language.
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  I promise I'm asking this question in good faith because I would genuinely love to understand your reasoning: why does the term "transvestite" have anything to do with Nazism? From what I remember, that word was common and acceptable when I was growing up in the 90s, and I don't remember any Nazis using it. Nor did anyone tell me that the word "transvestite" was derogatory or offensive, although if social mores have shifted then fine, I won't say it. What did I miss?
  - gcr 2y ago
    no worries, people typically use “transgender” or “trans” as an umbrella term these days I have heard of folks who claim the label “transveatite” for themselves. Others see it as derogatory.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I suspect there may have been a misunderstanding of my earlier comment that led to this chain. Where I wrote above: > current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public That wasn't a statement about being transgender. I was saying that people judge clothing, and are confused by that clothing. "Public" being about clothing, because there aren't many public places where you're going to see enough skin for anything else to cause confusion. ("vest" as in vestments, clothing).
  - aisenik 2y ago
    The emotions fueling my reaction are based on the way I experienced the word as a child in the 80s and 90s, and I could delve deeper into that but it's mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that I experienced the word in hateful ways. In truth, I misspoke when I said "Nazi demographic" and had intended to write "Nazi era demographic," as the word's origination was in its use to describe the nascent trans community in Weimar Germany. In fact, the Nazis disregarded the validity of trans status entirely and the folks we'd regard as trans women today were classified as homosexual men before being subjected to the violence of the Nazi state. Trans men received a different, no less humiliating punishment. The motivation in asking the question, beyond my disgust, is that I have observed a trend on this site of anachronistic language that fell out of favor after being associated with hate speech. It is generally being used in contexts supportive of the prominent far right agenda, and I seek to illuminate the motivations of the commentators who facilitate such odious reversions in discourse. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

crooked-v 2y ago

US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb (https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres-how-a-new-kansas-anti-trans-law-skews-the-meaning-of-gender-and-sex/ https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres...).

ChocolateGod 2y ago
> US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there. from the law > a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,
- gcr 2y ago
  isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova? “is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.
  - rkomorn 2y ago
    The uterus itself doesn't have much to do with ova production. Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy? Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation?
  - belorn 2y ago
    The answer is a yes, as in, the ovaries can still ovulate even without a uterus. The ovaries also continue to produce hormones, through there are a feedback loop between the uterus and ovaries which get disrupted without a uterus. It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm.

tomlockwood 2y ago

What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway?

googlryas 2y ago
Why do you suppose such a test could even exist?
jl6 2y ago
Depends why you need to know and with what level of accuracy. Just looking at their face is about 96%-98% accurate[0], and becomes even more accurate when other cues are available such as voice, gait, and build. For casual purposes, humans are incredibly good at predicting sex, without any technology or scientific understanding. One might speculate that being able to accurately find a mate is an evolutionary advantage. For the last few fractions of a percent accuracy, a SRY cheek swab test is a simple non-invasive screening test that can flag individuals for further investigation. World Athletics have just implemented this test, stating it is “a highly accurate proxy for biological sex”.[1] A positive result in this screening test could be combined with a finger prick test for testosterone level to provide further information, and at this point we’re into methods of medical diagnosis of DSDs. About 1 in 5000 individuals will have a DSD, some of which are still unambiguously male or female (e.g. XXY Klinefelter syndrome), and some of which are almost unique individuals that defy categorization. At this point, it is popular to seize on those rare individuals and declare “aha! So sex isn’t binary then! So it must be a spectrum!”, and while this is surely well-intentioned, it is scientifically illiterate.[2] I suspect part of the confusion is interpreting “binary” as a mathematical Boolean value (where exceptions cannot, by definition, exist) rather than as a scientific classification, where exceptions can and do exist and “prove the rule”. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892200133X#b0015 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892... [1] https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.amp https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.am... [2] https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectr...
- tomlockwood 2y ago

gcr 2y ago

A friend of mine takes estrogen and has breasts, feminine voice, etc. Her body’s arguably taken both sexual differentiation pathways over the years. I think even this definition isn’t so clear-cut.

jl6 2y ago
Body modification through technology doesn’t really encroach on the scientific classification of the natural world. The Vacanti mouse which had an apparent human ear grown on its back was an amazing thing in its own right, but its existence doesn’t mean we need to update our understanding of what a mouse is.