General transgender discussion thread - Take the tranny related debates here.

[Baloney Face]

No, your husband did not "become a woman," he's still a dude.

If she doesn't comply with the new terminology (and perhaps the reporter warned her of this) the story doesn't get reported. At least that is my speculation.

 

[Scolopendra Dramatica]

They lost that chance the moment they started acting like they're the other sex. That's inherently abnormal.

They don't really act like the other sex though, that's half their problem. The other half is they don't really look like the other sex either.

Ultimately troons of both genders act like retards larping.

 

[AMHOLIO]

Someone linked Cambridge's "How to Identify TERFs" article to the troon sideshow on social media thread, which I then dissected for the fun of it. As I said at the end of that post, I wanted to check out how a few of the other trans articles went that were linked under the Further Reading section. Here's the first notable one that is not a complete wall of text: Debunking Trans Women are Not Women Arguments, by Ms. Serano. Remember, this was linked in an official Cambridge guide for students on their website, a tacit endorsement from some (but not all because several others said it was a witch hunt) of the staff and student body.

Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments​

Julia Serano

Jun 27, 2017·

A quick note about the author:
All I will spoil for now is that yes, the author is a trans woman. If you want to check out what she looks like, scroll all the way down. I'm going to try not to misgender her as a challenge and as a small sign of respect for now. Don't expect that respect to last.

Spoiler: An absolute unit of a reply to a unit of an article

I was recently interviewed by the New York Times about my work and writings as a trans feminist. From pre-interview conversations we shared, I knew that my interviewer planned to ask me about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s comments from earlier this year wherein she claimed that trans women are not women. So in preparation for my interview, I decided to revisit my first book Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity and create a list of all the arguments that I made there to counter such claims. I would go on to make some of these points during the interview, although only a few were included in the final article (as it was edited for length). But since these trans-women-are-not-women claims recur on a regular basis (and are often forwarded by people who self-identify as feminists), I thought that it would be worthwhile to compile all my relevant counterarguments in one essay.

There's going to at least one or two references to the author's other works or own website & blogpost for each fucking topic brought up. I don't feel like purchasing something that goes "reeee why are we so oppressed" even if it was from a cis woman, so I can't give a shit about this one. This is going to be a running, annoying theme, so please, prepare yourself friends.

I think one of the reason trans women fucking hate the TERF Boogeyman is that they see the Feminist Squad as the ultimate gatekeepers of womanhood, the people who are supposed to understand them the most. They're hurt by betrayal, which is understandable from their point of view even though cis women go "???".

Preliminaries: regarding the term cisgender

Throughout this essay, I will use the terms cis or cisgender to refer to women who are not trans or transgender. I explain the logic behind this terminology in my FAQ on cis-terminology, and in two additional follow up essays that can be accessed here. Women who insist that trans women are not women often object to being called “cis women” under the false assumption that it somehow undermines their femaleness — this is not at all the purpose of this language. The sole purpose of cis terminology is to name the unmarked majority (similar to how one might refer to white women, or heterosexual women, or able-bodied women, etc.). In other words, referring to someone as “cisgender” simply means that they have not had a transgender experience.

I really don't mind Cis being used as a contrast to Trans in this case. The author is trying to make the point that trans women = women so saying "women vs trans women" would be like saying "asian women & women", it's othering. I think trans women SHOULD be othered because I'm a filthy woman who believes that healthcare & socialization for both are different and thus should be separated out of respect for both's struggles, but we're not fucking here to get into the autism wars that is cis/trans, we're here to get into general autism.

Trans women’s realities

Trans women differ greatly from one another. Perhaps the only thing that we share in common is a self-understanding that there was something wrong with our being assigned a male sex at birth and/or that we should be female instead. While some cisgender people refuse to take our experiences seriously, the fact of the matter is that transgender people can be found in virtually every culture and throughout history; current estimates suggest that we make up 0.2 – 0.3% of the population [or possibly more, see note further down]. In other words, we simply exist.

I'm going to add in what the article says right here:

Spoiler: Population of Trans People in the USA

How many adults are transgender?

Population-based data sources that estimate the percentage of adults who are transgender are very rare. The Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey represents one of the few population-based surveys that include a question designed to identify the transgender population. Analyses of the 2007 and 2009 surveys suggest that 0.5% of adults aged 18-64 identified as transgender (Conron 2011).

The 2003 California LGBT Tobacco Survey found that 3.2% of LGBT individuals identified as transgender. Recall that the 2009 California Health Interview Survey estimates that 3.2% of adults in the state are LGB. If both of these estimates are true, it implies that approximately 0.1% of adults in California are transgender.

Several studies have reviewed multiple sources to construct estimates of a variety of dimensions of gender identity. Conway (2002) suggests that between 0.5% and 2% of the population have strong feelings of being transgender and between 0.1% and 0.5% actually take steps to transition from one gender to another. Olyslager and Conway (2007) refine Conway’s original estimates and posit that at least 0.5% of the population has taken some steps toward transition. Researchers in the United Kingdom (Reed, et al., 2009) suggest that perhaps 0.1% of adults are transgender (defined again as those who have transitioned in some capacity).

Notably, the estimates of those who have transitioned are consistent with the survey-based estimates from California and Massachusetts. Those surveys both used questions that implied a transition or at least discordance between sex at birth and current gender presentation.

Please note: the sentence structure the author uses here implies that the number of 0.5-2% is consistent across cultures. So far, we don't know: it seems like the USA and some Euro countries have done surveys. This study quotes the number in the USA in the "Introduction" section and talks about how the data isn't there yet. The actual population of trans people is unknown and does vary from culture to culture, with some being only counted as gender non-conforming men, to only gay men (Iran in particular), to identifying as a different gender than your sex (a good portion of the western world). I don't know if symptoms of gender dysphoria vary from country to country as the data isn't there, but it would be a fun study.

I always found the "Trans Women Don't Exist" arguments to be funny. You really shouldn't put it as "Trans Women don't Exist", you need to put it as "Trans Women are wrong". They're still a group like Christians or SJWs, they are a real grouping, but they're like the fabled Tomgirls of Chris: a misnomer. Christian Scientist can exist but still be retarded if they don't get their cancer treatments and only turn to the lord, much like how those who call themselves trans women can be retarded if they don't seek long term doctor & patient therapy and psychological help for more than just gender dysphoria. I think TRUE and HONEST trans women exist, but I don't include Autogynophiles so that reduces it by like, 80% at least.

In my own case, I spent a number of years trying to make sense of the inexplicable and irrepressible feelings that I experienced before finally making the decision to transition seventeen years ago. I have been living as a woman ever since. Every single day of my life, people perceive and treat me as a woman, and I routinely experience sexism as a result. While cis feminists who claim that trans women are not women obsess over questions of identity (“How can a ‘man’ possibly call ‘himself’ a woman?”), they purposefully overlook or play down the fact that we have very real life experiences as women.

Like women more generally, many trans women are feminists. Feminism and transgender activism are not in any way incompatible or mutually exclusive. As feminists who acknowledge intersectionality, we believe that we should be fighting to end all forms of sexism and marginalization — this includes both traditional sexism and transphobia. Forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism.

See author's picture. I'm wondering what those "experiences" are that both the author and cis women share?

You can see trans women on reddit LOVE feminism: it tells them they're superior to icky men and gives them power over bullies and nonbelievers. I would say I could see where ending "gender discrimination" could be a thing, but sexism? The thing that is different from gender under TRAs? Yeah, probably not since you still can't change you're chromosomes yet or tell your parents your gender identity is different than your parts when you're a newborn about to get female or male circumcision. It also probably won't help because if John from accounting looks at Mary (Cis) & Sophia (trans) and sees Sophia as more relatable or reliable because s/he has a penis, then we're still at square 1.

The “biological woman” fallacy

Claims that trans women are not women often rely on essentialist (and therefore incorrect) assumptions about biology. For instance, people might argue that trans women are not “genetically female,” despite the fact that we cannot readily ascertain anybody’s sex chromosomes. Indeed, most people have never even had their sex chromosomes examined, and those that do are sometimes surprised by the results.

Links to the author's own site . She has a vocabulary list that's 1billion words long. Here's what she links to:

Essentialism, Essentialist: the belief that all members of a particular category (especially those categories that are presumed to be natural in origin) must share a particular set of characteristics, qualities, or “essence” with one another. One relevant example would be the notion that all women are genetically XX, or are attracted to men. While essentialism fails to account for the naturally occurring complexity and heterogeneity exhibited by humans (and other organisms), people routinely rely on, or resort to, essentialist explanations of how the world works. People often mistakenly conflate essentialism with biology -- I debunk such misconceptions in Excluded, pp. 138-168. Additionally, I outline the differences between essentialism, identity labels, and umbrella terms in Excluded, pp. 11-14.

So she links to a definition made by her, that links to an entire book made by her that I have to purchase to understand the arguments of. Yeah, thanks asshole, that'll help poor SJWs with no money.

The outliers that are Chimeras and XXY and other combinations are just that: outliers. If you're intersex or have chromosomalduplicates, you're highly likely to be affected by other healthcare related problems, each varying by condition that can range from mild to disruptive to fatal. For example, underdeveloped testes in intersexed children leaning towards female can turn cancerous if not removed after a certain point. Having non-standard chromosomes tends to lead to disability because your body isn't supposed to come out like that: it doesn't mean you're lesser at all, just that your genes made an error. Tl;dr: lol stop trying to appropriate intersex and chromosome disease havers.

Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant.

Yes and no: it ignores some cisgender gals don't do those things, but being an XX or cis gender woman means your body was set up to create ovum/large gametes/eggs. The fact that your body doesn't is called a health problem because it is supposed to do that, and can be a symptom of other health problems or cause emotional turmoil for those who experience it.

Trans women could argue that their body was supposed to be born male. But we don't have a biological conformation for anyone but intersex people: what says trans women were supposed to be female is their brain and it's vague notion that no, I was supposed to be a woman. What IS the difference between that and people who believe they were supposed to be born disabled and try to disable themselves because of it? Can the root of the problem be psychological rather than physical?

I'm on the side that trans women should be able to transition if they want as long as they can write an essay on the side effects of SRS/GRS & estrogen. If you don't understand them then you can't do it. If you understand them then fuck yourself over, you have no one to blame but yourself for choosing it. It might be a controversial stance but I stand by it since knowledge is power and as a kiwi I am all for chaos stemming from bad choices. For those who understand and don't want to go through with it, alternate therapy should be given: i.e., talk therapy and perhaps medication. We need more research done on this, as well as to not stigmatize it as conversion therapy if the patient decides that they want to take this path. Cockblocking it won't help.

Claims about genitals are similarly problematic: Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters. If you and I were to meet, should I refuse to recognize or refer to you as a woman unless you show me your genitals? And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end?

Lol. You can tell I'm a woman because I'm smaller in proportion to males, with wider hips, narrower shoulders, tinier hands, fat distribution, and a few other key details that aren't just a bow in my hair or a skirt that goes spinny. There is confusion occasionally since there are deep voiced and tall women as well as short high pitched men, but talking to them for 5 minutes can usually help determine their sex by voice and studying their body naturally (not intensely, just noticing smaller things when you talk to someone). Face blindness can be a factor in not being able to tell, but there is a reason why it is considered a bummer to have.

Natal women have an easier time telling gender apart since we have to notice details like that for protection. Our brains also pick up on more detail in general. I understand that sometimes sex is hard to tell, but some of us do have a leg up and can tell very, very quickly. There are several biological differences even in your skeleton that humans can pick up and tell your sex, documented in hundreds of studies. We can't be human gender chromosome abnormality detectors, but we can usually tell if someone is Female or Male at birth by looking at them and observing them with shockingly accurate results.

Genitals CAN vary greatly. But guess what? Missing parts or misaligned parts are STILL seen as a disability because they get in the way of functioning properly. Jennifer is still a woman even if she's got a strangely crooked vagina, she's just going to have a much harder time with sex. Bill is still a man if he has a penis but no testicles, he too is just going to have a hard fucking time getting hard (hehe) or having children, which still is a disability.

I would argue that all of these appeals to biology are inherently anti-feminist. Sexists routinely dismiss women by pointing to real or presumed biological differences. Feminists have long challenged the objectification of our bodies, and have argued that we are not limited by our biology. So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women.

[note added 7–17–17: I discuss this particular topic in more depth in a subsequent essay, Transgender People and “Biological Sex” Myths.]

"We are not limited by our biology" is true and false. Most statistics show that when comparing men and women's abilities on most things, we pretty much average the same or with small differences, sometimes with men ahead and sometimes with women. One of the few biological advantages males have is, well, strength and fitness. The woman weightlift record is 300lbs. The male weightlift record is 500lbs. That was not a typo. Females compensate in other ways like stamina and immune related areas, but if you put the strongest man and the strongest female in the room against each other, there's a good chance the man will win unless the woman is a bodybuilder herself (go her!).

There's other areas of difference too: men can compartmentalize things better or think of sex more as a mechanical function than women do, chicks as said before can be more detailed focused, better at relying on and maintaining group connections, and are better multitaskers. These stay true even if someone transitions as hormones don't change the structural connectivity of our brain. Again, it isn't a bad thing, it just means we have differences. We might not always understand each other, but learning and realizing some of our wiring differences leads to better communication and learning we can complement each other and hold each other up, respecting each other's talents, not teabagging one gender as lesser.

We also have different biological needs and sometimes treatment that works for men does not work for women. For example, men have chance of fucking dying if they get the donated blood of a pregnant woman. We need to appeal to biology sometimes: we could fuck ourselves over if we don't.

The big crux of feminism is "We should be respected in spite of our biological differences". There's plenty of feminist who've tried to argue otherwise, and I feel their pain but there are differences and we should let people do them. I rather agree with that, but that is a personal conviction and not the focus of why this article is silly.

And listen, I can only discuss one retarded article at a time and I'm not as keen as other kiwis on here who can run circles in biology around me and especially this chump. Look at it yourself.

The Caitlyn Jenner fallacy

These days, trans-women-are-not-women arguments invariably cite Caitlyn Jenner, typically making the following claim: “How can someone like Jenner, who lived their entire life as a man and experienced the privilege associated with that, ever possibly claim to be a woman?” There are likely appeals to biology in this particular example, as many people remember Jenner as a physically masculine decathlete. But the main thrust of this assertion is that women are women because of socialization and/or their experiences with sexism.

But what about me then? I have lived more of my adult life as a woman than as someone who was perceived to be a man, and I have experienced plenty of sexism since my transition: street remarks and sexual harassment, attempted date rape, men talking over me or not taking me seriously, and so on. Or what about young trans girls who socially transition early in life, and who never have the experience of being perceived or treated as a man? If you are making the “socialization” or “experiencing sexism” argument, then you have to concede that many trans women have these experiences too, and are therefore women under such criteria. Even older transitioners like Jenner will face sexism once people begin perceiving them as women. And even if the trans woman in question is visibly transgender, she will still experience plenty of sexism in the form of trans-misogyny.

But what about *people like me, then? Don't be self centered.

Street remarks, sexual harassment, & date rape: all things experienced by men (particularly gender nonconforming gay men) as well as women.
Men talking over you and not taking you seriously: see author portrait. If you look like a man with terribly frazzled hair and problem glasses, you won't be taken seriously by a lot of people of either sex.

The transmisogony link goes to more definitions with more links shilling the author's works. The somewhat more detailed explanation is this, and I honestly disagree on most of those points as being trans my soggy knees aside from the sexualization of trans women (ironically also perpetuated by the notorious A.G.P.s) and trans women being more joked about in media since we're used to women in unisex outfits rather than men and it is hard to get rid of the affects of testosterone. Trans men are less talked about because there was less of them and taken more seriously before the influx of teen girl dysphoria because there are many, MANY more AGP and AGP chasers than there are autoandrophiles.

If you happen to be a proponent of the women-are-women-because-of-socialization argument, then I ask you to consider the following scenario: A young girl is forced against her will to live as a boy. Upon reaching adulthood, after years of male socialization and privilege, she comes out about identifying as female and begins to live as a woman. Do you accept her as a woman? If your answer is yes, then it is hypocritical of you to not also accept trans women as women. (Indeed, the “forced against her will into boyhood” scenario is exactly how many trans women describe their childhoods.)

Socialization isn't the only factor, it is one factor in a large argument. Don't make me drag out poor David Reimer into this again.

More often than not, people who claim that trans women aren’t women make both the biology and socialization arguments simultaneously, even though they are seemingly contradictory (i.e., if biology is the predominant criteria, then one’s socialization shouldn’t matter, and vice versa). Much like their homophobic counterparts who make appeals to biology (“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”) then hypocritically invoke socialization (e.g., claiming that people can be turned gay as a result of gay teachers or the “homosexual agenda”), the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd desperately throws the entire kitchen sink at us rather than attempting to make a coherent argument.

"(i.e., if biology is the predominant criteria, then one’s socialization shouldn’t matter, and vice versa)" what the fuck? No, they complement each other you fuckass. Genetically, if you are predisposed to depression, there is no guarantee you will get it because you are also affected by other things around you, from your other genes to your coping mechanisms to your life as is. They seem contradictory only to you, as you can't be assed to look up the differences & similarities between male and female thoughts and behaviors and how they can change or stay the same throughout people's lifetimes. I don't think I'm wording this properly but goddamn neither are you.

"the entire kitchen sink at us" - maybe it is because every single trans person has a different argument for being trans. Maybe it is because gender is a complex topic. Maybe it is because you're overwhelmed by points other people make when some make sense and you can't counter them. While biology is the definite "one or the other" argument, everything else is a lot of factors all together.

While gender socialization is quite real, all of us are capable of overcoming or transcending the socialization that we experienced as children. And gender socialization doesn’t simply stop when one reaches adulthood: All of us are constantly facing gender-related social pressures, expectations, and obstacles throughout our lives. If you believe that these statements are true for cis women, then they also must be true for trans women.

Ah, this is a nice paragraph I can agree with. Shame the rest was fucking stupid.

Hell, I even agree with the trans women part: trans women face gender AND sex social related pressures, but not the same gender AND sex social related pressures cis women do. A trans woman who has been clocked will face expectations of femininity, but will be judged based on sex as well. Cis females have sex = gender so they only get one set of expectations. So if you like, you can say you're double oppressed in expectations. Certain that you guys won't face the troubles of having a period, pregnancy and birth complications, hysterectomies, smaller anatomy that reacts differently to certain diseases, different reactions to medication, and so forth, aka the major experiences that unite us females across cultures. The expectation for females to be promiscuous or not think about sex at all changed over time within the western world. That's not a uniting feminine experience that bridges cultures, it is a difference. Think similarly about transwomen and their experience of cultural gender-based discrimination rather than sex based ones.

The “male energy” and “male privilege” fallacies

One offshoot of the socialization argument goes something like this: Despite transitioning to female and moving through the world as women, trans women nevertheless still possess “male privilege” or “male energy.” The “male energy” claim seems especially sexist to me, as it implies that men have some kind of magical or mystical life force that women do not or cannot possess.

I actually kinda agree: describing it as "male energy" is stupid and makes it sound like you're describing spirituality rather than psychology.

Alright, picture this: a group of women are having a conversation, 1 out of the five is a trans woman. Does the trans woman let everyone speak, or does she dominate the conversation? Does she focus more on actions in a story, or does she focus on feelings and interpretations? Does she complement other women in the group on their thoughts, or does she focus solely on saying her piece and making sure her argument wins even if it isn't an argument but a discussion of things you like or dislike? Is the trans women catching onto the same clues as other women in the conversation get when looking at body language? Does she have a similar body language to them?

That's the "male energy", aka, male socialization gender criticals talk about. Considering autism and other cognitive disorders that affect grasp of social norms are much higher than their allistic counterparts as well as abuse which can lead to bad socialization, I can understand if some of it is lost on the other side of the conversation if said incidents affect the defendant.

These sorts of claims seem to be based on conjecture or projection. For instance, in my many years of being perceived by the world as a cisgender woman, I have never once had anyone claim to detect “male privilege” or “male energy” in me. However, upon learning that I am transgender, some people are likely to read these traits into my behaviors. In fact, if I were to tell you that a particular woman is transgender (even if it was not true), you might be inclined to (re)interpret her in a similar way: reading any tomboyish or butch tendencies she exhibits as manifestations of “male energy,” and assuming that every time she asserts or stands up for herself it must be a sign of her deep-seated “male privilege.”

Have you thought that people clocked you but said nothing so you'd feel better about yourself? As if they might be being polite and respecting your presentation until you were comfortable trusting the other party with that information, at which they can say stuff to you about it because you trust them with said personal sensitive factoid?

Also lol, that might work on people who haven't met or seen many transgender people, but gender critical chicks and dudes tend to see enough troon women to tell who's cis or not with startling accuracy. You can try, but it would depend more on them trusting you not to lie rather than not being able to see physical differences. Chromosomes!

Male privilege is a very real thing. In my book Whipping Girl, I talk at length about my own personal experiences of having it, and subsequently losing it post-transition. However, not every trans woman experiences male privilege (e.g., younger transitioners). Furthermore, the whole purpose of talking about privilege (whether it be male, white, middle/upper-class, able-bodied, or straight privilege, to name a few) is to raise awareness about the advantages that members of the dominant/majority group experience due to the fact that they do not face a particular type of sexism or marginalization. And the fact that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd constantly harp about trans women’s real or imagined male privilege, yet refuse to acknowledge or examine their own cisgender privilege, demonstrates that their concerns about privilege are disingenuous, and that they are merely using the concept in order to delegitimize trans women’s identities and lived experiences as women.

I'm not going to lie chief, I think those who were too polite to point out that you were transgender or learned it later on still considered you male, but a failed male. Failed male is society's stance on you being effeminate or confused on gender, considering you lesser or ridiculous for not conforming to the expectations society has set for you. That's why a lot of third genders cross culturally are male to femme or male to female, not woman to masculine. You basically stopped being taken as seriously as soon as you were perceived as a failure, which is different than having female privilege.

I can't tell you whether or not someone like Jazz experienced male or female privilege. If you're more knowledgeable let us know. Child transitioning faces a whole heap of problems, but that's a digression from this article's point of "trans women are women".

Oh god not another definition. Just link to something that fully discusses it instead of linking 5 extra links. Define WITHIN the definition, motherfucker, don't dance around and show how much you can write about it.

The trans-women-as-caricatures-of-women fallacy

This somewhat overlaps with the Caitlyn Jenner fallacy, and it goes something like this: Trans women cannot possibly know what it’s like to be a woman. So therefore, they must be driven to transition by an extremely superficial or stereotypical idea of what it means to be a woman, one based upon conventional feminine ideals that many feminists have rejected. In other words, trans women are not actual women, but rather we merely turn ourselves into “parodies” or “caricatures” of women. People who make this case often additionally invoke male privilege — e.g., insinuating that it must be “male arrogance” or “male entitlement” that leads trans women to presume that we can understand and/or become women ourselves.

No, not all trans women. Some just don't conform to the male expectation and transition because of black and white reasoning, some are looking for a cure-all to their self hatred and depression, some like women's clothes so much they think it would be easier to transition, some are gay men who feel unaccepted and are trying to correct themselves, some are gay men looking to fuck straight boys and stick it to hetero cis women, etc..

Also, lol.

Do not take a drink every time you hear the word "bimbo" in the trans thread. You will be dead by hour 3 of reading it. I would make more arguments but I really can't seem to top myself aside from say linking Yanniv or other special individuals.

There are numerous problems with this line of reasoning:

1) It relies on a highly negative view of feminine gender expression (that I have debunked in my writings) and implies that conventionally feminine cisgender women are also behaving superficially and/or reinforcing stereotypes.

2) It ignores the many trans women who are outspoken feminists and/or not conventionally feminine.

3) Trans women do not transition out of a desire to be feminine; we transition out of a self-understanding that we are or should be female (commonly referred to as gender identity).

4) Trans women who are conventionally feminine are not in any way asserting or insinuating that all women should be conventionally feminine, or that femininity is all there is to being a woman. Like cis women, trans women dress the way we do in order to express ourselves, not to critique or caricature other women.

5) This line of reasoning accuses trans women of arrogantly presuming to know what cis women experience, when we do no such thing. In reality, it’s the cis women who forward this accusation that are the ones arrogantly presuming to know what trans women experience and what motivates us.

Oh god dammit more fucking links. This time it is to an article instead of five more links at least. Let's break those above points down:

1. There's a difference between naturally acting feminine and performative acting feminine. The later is pointed out more, more exaggerated, comes off as stiff and unnatural, etc.. This doesn't invalidate the argument for the AGP crowd.
2. Being conventionally feminine and a feminist aren't mutually exclusive, didn't need to group them in one sentence as an and/or. I'm too lazy to find the many "male predators hide amongst feminist to get into their pants" articles out there, pretend I added them in. I'm also amused at the writer's argument: are they saying "men like traditionally feminine women only and there cannot be performative tomboyism"? Why wouldn't an AGP shape themselves as an awkward, forced, butch lesbian if he finds that hot?
3. What is the difference between women and femininity? What is the difference between them and being female? The author is skirting and bending definitions to suit their argument more. It is not working well.
   Transitioning ideally was to treat extreme dysphoria, showing up as a woman to others so you would not have to think of your own sex so often and be distressed. It relies on people being polite enough to not misgender you and people being unfamiliar with transgender women's appearances as compared to a normal woman, being distorted by feminine looking things. Looking non-traditionally feminine can have people mistake you for male since it accents your male traits. I think what the author wants is to redefine trans so that a statement of "I'm a woman" is all you need to be counted as a chick, which is admirable but breaks down the concept of passing. Good for non-standard transwomen, horrible for transwomen who never ever wanted to be remarked "happy trans rights day" by people they're not out to.
4. chief. Some aren't. There are a number who are, and you can learn it by talking to them and hearing what they say about it. Some are homosexual males shitting on cis hetero females as revenge for shitting on them. Some are obvious fucking fetishist and I do not need to cite that shit when I'm writing this for about 5 other autistic farmers to read.
5. I think we can both mislabel each other. However, the more we get to know a person, the more we can guess at their motivations, even if they say something else. Surprisingly, people lie. People even lie to themselves. You can be cis or trans and be that way, and I'm sure the author has experienced a woman shitting on the author with actions yet saying trans positive things and claiming otherwise.

I'm really tired of "which I have debunked" & "which I have defined". Link to other assholes. This was written in 2017, there were plenty of other "queer" writers out there writing long diatribes on trans people. Imagine promoting your fellow trans women!

As a trans woman, I will be the first to admit that I cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels on the inside. But the thing is, the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels either! Every woman is different. We share some overlapping experiences, but we also differ in every possible way. Every trans woman I know acknowledges this diversity. In contrast, it’s the cis women who attempt to exclude us who seem to have a singular superficial stereotypical notion of what constitutes a woman, or of what women experience.

The first half is true. The second half is not. Some cis women see it that way. Some trans women see it that way. Neither of us are always enlightened.

A final note: The “trans women as caricatures of women” claim is highly related to the “trans women reinforce sexism” trope, which I debunk in the following Twitter thread:

I can't copy this and I can't be assed to run through twitter to see the thread. Fuck off Julia.

The brain differences fallacy

When you are a trans person (who does not possess cis privilege), people will often compel you to explain or justify your gender identity. One common response is to say something like, “I was born with a female brain despite having a male body.” Many times, this is a purposeful oversimplification on the trans person’s part — an attempt to distill down the complexities of the transgender experience into a sound-bite that the average cisgender person can comprehend. In other instances, the trans person may be referencing research that suggests that, in a few super-tiny gender dimorphic regions of the brain, trans women more closely resemble cis women than cis men. (Trans people differ significantly in whether we believe this research to be preliminary, valid, or invalid.)

However, some cis feminists will extrapolate from this that all trans people must hold highly essentialist beliefs about female-versus-male brains, and therefore that we are an affront to feminism. Often, they will make this case while simultaneously making essentialist claims themselves (e.g., regarding reproductive capacities) in order to undermine our identities (as Elinor Burkett does in her “kitchen sink” trans-women-aren’t-women op-ed; see video of me rebutting her arguments here).

This is a round about sort of argument that skirts around the point that there are brain differences, but doesn't address that it is, in fact, a reason against transitioning, just defending trans people. Also, no, I'm not watching that.

The Rachel Dolezal fallacy

Along with Caitlyn Jenner, contemporary trans-women-aren’t-women arguments almost always namedrop Rachel Dolezal. The implication is that a “man” claiming to be a woman is as ridiculous (and as enabled by privilege) as a white person claiming to be black. But here’s the thing: Rachel Dolezal is one person. In sharp contrast (as I alluded to earlier), transgender people are a pan-cultural and trans-historical phenomenon, and comprise approximately 0.2 – 0.3% of the population. [note: one reader pointed out that more recent studies suggest that it may be 0.6% or higher.]

Lol, there's more coming out now baby. I wonder if the author could predict Olie London coming out.

I see the best argument the author has against why transracial is fake is because they can only name one transracial. I think that's a little weak, to put it nicely.

If you are interested in learning more about the existence of gender-variant people, here is an endnote from my book Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive referencing this history and cultural diversity:

I'm not reading your fucking book. I came to this article for answers, not your fucking bibliography.

The “trans women refuse to acknowledge any distinction” fallacy

People who make the trans-women-aren’t-women case will often insist that there is a distinction between cis women and trans women, yet trans women refuse to acknowledge this distinction. I find such claims endlessly frustrating. I have never once in my life heard a trans woman claim that our experiences are 100 percent identical to those of cis women. Indeed, the very fact that we in the trans community describe people as being “transgender” and “cisgender” points to an acknowledgement of potential differences!

Wow, times really have changed. I'm glad that at this point in the author's career, they did not encounter other trans people saying that women = trans women 100%. I am also glad that when this article was written they never heard a single transwoman say that they were SUPERIOR to cis women. I'm sorry, Julia, times have changed and shit has been archived over and over on the troon thread.

The problem isn’t that we (i.e., trans women) refuse to acknowledge any differences, but rather that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd refuses to acknowledge our many similarities.

Nah. The problem is that we have different needs. When a woman is fighting for a woman's only shelter because she was assaulted by a transwoman, she can't take care of your needs. When a transwoman is fighting for control of her children, cis women can't take care of her needs. Our goals can be opposing and based on subtle and major differences, and even within the trans community (and female community) there are different motivations on what rights you want or decide to have. There's different motivations on why some people are trans, even, including the predators said not to exist but are rapidly filling the UK's jail cells (I think it was a bit under half of all trans inmates were in due to SEX OFFENDER reasons).

Females have no motivation to be female. We are just born as such. We can't change it, and we are forced together like that. I'm in the camp that TRUE and HONEST transwomen are the same, but science and time can prove me a fool too.

There was a time in the 1960s and 1970s when many heterosexual feminists wanted to similarly exclude lesbians from women’s organizations and from feminism. The justifications that they forwarded were eerily similarly to trans-women-aren’t-women arguments: They accused lesbians of being “oppressively male” and of “reinforcing the sex class system” (see earlier Twitter thread). If you read the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier in this paragraph, you will find that lesbians fought back against such accusations. They didn’t do this because they believed that they were 100 percent identical to heterosexual feminists. They did it because some feminists were attempting to exclude them from feminism and the category of woman. Just like those who forward trans-women-aren’t-women arguments are attempting to do to us now.

With lesbians vs heterosexuals, it changed because women realized that A) not all lesbians are predators and B) all lesbians also have a vagina. It was a two fold change, seeing more visual lesbians being human beings made people realize they're people and the unchangeable fact of having 2 XX chromosomes.

Funny enough, the rise of transgender rights coincides with a drop in LGBT acceptance. I wonder why.

Trans women are women. We may not be “exactly like” cis women, but then again, cis women are not all “exactly like” one another either. But what we do share is that we all identify and move through the world as women. And because of this, we all regularly face sexism. That is what we should be focusing on and working together to challenge. And as I said at the outset, forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism. In fact, it only serves to undermine our collective cause.

That's a nice ending paragraph at least. for you, author.

This essay was made possible by my Patreon supporters — if you liked this piece and want to see more like it, please consider supporting me there. You can learn more about my writings and activism at juliaserano.com.

Note added 5–27–20: A few commenters over the years have complained that I have not offered a “proper definition” of “woman” in this essay. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with dictionaries can tell you that most words in the English language have multiple (sometimes many!) meanings, and “woman” is no exception. Indeed, this makes “trans women are not women” arguments especially frustrating, because their advocates constantly shift their definition of “woman” (is it biology? socialization? “energy”? experiences with sexism? make up your mind!) in their attempts to exclude trans women. So here, I have attempted to address *all* these potential definitions. If you are curious as to how I might personally define it, this brief excerpt from my book Excluded should provide some insight. If you are interested in how other feminists have defined “woman” over the last half century, I highly encourage you to read Talia Bettcher’s essay “When Tables Speak.”

I don't feel like it. The definition should be biological but I can't speak for all women or dictionary writers, funny enough.

Note added 6–25–20: In the wake of the recent JK Rowling statement, several commenters have complained that this essay does not address the issue of “women’s safety” (by which they mean cis women’s safety, but not trans women’s safety, as they don’t seem to give two shits about the latter)—the implication being that trans women represent a direct or indirect threat to cis women in women-only spaces. This is a red herring, as multiple research studies have clearly shown that is not at all the case: see Barnett et al., 2018 (summarized in this ThinkProgress article), Hasenbush et al., 2018 (summarized in this Teen Vogue article), and the 2014 Media Matters article 15 Experts Debunk Right-Wing Transgender Bathroom Myth. The only people in 2020 making the specious case that trans women impose such a threat to cis women are those who wish to exclude trans women a priori.

Ah, more . Good luck.

TOO FUCKING LONG; DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT: The author is a self promoting narcissist who floats between ok points and a narrow worldview with contradicting statements and retarded statements. They make you jump through several hoops to read things instead of giving a basic text explanation. They do not write well and I feel incredibly bad that people have told them that they do. Also:


And, as promised, about the author:

Spoiler: Stress Sigh

Here's how she describes herself in the first sentence of her about me (archive) page:

Julia Serano is a true Renaissance woman: a writer, performer, activist, musician, and biologist.

Yeah, that's not enough for Renaissance person. Also, can you revoke someone's Biology degree post getting it?

In addition to all this, Julia has a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics from Columbia University, and spent 17 years as a researcher at UC Berkeley in the fields of genetics, evolution and developmental biology. Her understanding of biology, along with her life experiences as a trans woman, give her a unique perspective on gender and sexism that challenges many commonly held beliefs. She has given performances, presentations, and keynote talks on topics related to feminism and LGBTQ+ issues at a diverse array of colleges and conferences (a comprehensive list can be found here).


Her website (archive) is early 2000s-tastic.

Thanks for baring with this autism. Feel free to call me or the author fat and gay, or tell me to put this shit in a different thread.

 

[Yizu]

There's this group of troons I really hate but can't dox because they would know who it was. When I was a minor, they tried grooming me into a relationship both online and offline, making creepy comments about my hair, talking about wanting to "be me" (whatever that means). I thought they would finally leave me alone after I made them freak out by saying that I didn't feel attracted to people with dicks, fast forward a few years and one of them is still in my hometown and most of my friends and acquaintances think I'm just a "soul grape" or liar for calling him a pedo, and criticizing me for refusing to use "she/her" to refer to it. The only thing I can hope for is that he decides to leave for some liberal city like he tells everyone he wants to, and I can try to forget he exists.

 

[MadStan]

Here is my precise and exact argument against the trans community.

They want to be recognized as women with the addition of characteristics they have determined are present on women. A. Boobs.
B. Vaginas.

This grotesque image of a woman who is only defined by the presence of literally 2 things: boobs and a vagina is the ultimate is degraded thinking at its peak. One can clearly see this in the photos they post - why wear a bra if you have no boobs to be held up? This means they associate the bra with the idea of a woman rather than associate the bra with the requirement to hold a breast - this is an important distinction because it shows their degraded view of a woman.

Ask the majority of the population what is a woman and within that general consensus is a general understanding that a woman is an opposite of a male, capable of childbirth and thanks to hormones, is capable of different states of mental being than a man - and also by genetics have different traits than a man in terms of brain structure. And as a result has different physical characteristics that are required to perform this function as a woman. Just as a man has physical requirements to perform as a man: Muscle mass, larger stature, different brain, different hormones and chemistry and yes, a penis.

A woman wears clothing that they do; make up and a variety of other characteristics not by real choice but because their minds, chemistry and structure drive them to these choices as much as men are driven to act and dress a certain way.

These beasts of trans-people are asking us to throw out our definition of as woman to suit theirs, the definition the exists in their minds - but not in the minds of over 99% of the population.

It is precisely the same definition they have that would mean if I slapped on a fake silicon set of tits (body suit) and a plastic vagina (not prosthetics) that by their definition I would be a woman.

They are disgusting in their minds of what constitutes a woman and should be recognized for what they are: Mentally ill. After seeing post after post by these fiends on twitter and in various journalism I've come to accept that their goal is to impose a disguising idea of what makes a woman a woman in their minds and impose that on us as a some legal standard.

I went from ignoring them to now outright willingness to thwart them. Their goals are not the same as the gay community either, but have hijacked their cause and included themselves in it where they actually have virtually nothing in common with the gay community.

 

[AMHOLIO]

is capable of different states of mental being than a man -

I'm confused by your wording - what states do you mean? Or did you mean situational states of mind like a woman looking for a different thing that a man in conversation?

I vibe with your comment mostly. I think men and women aren't driven to wear specific clothes though: they'll be driven to wear specific clothes for like, attracting a mate or feeling protected, but a lot of what a man and woman dress like depends on culture. I'd say there's a biological drive for men and women to dress in a way that attracts mates, to fit in, or to feel more protected (modesty vs immodestness), or to convey a message (warpaint!), but yeah. It is autistic nitpicking in an otherwise fine point.

 

[MadStan]

I'm confused by your wording - what states do you mean? Or did you mean situational states of mind like a woman looking for a different thing that a man in conversation?

I vibe with your comment mostly. I think men and women aren't driven to wear specific clothes though: they'll be driven to wear specific clothes for like, attracting a mate or feeling protected, but a lot of what a man and woman dress like depends on culture. I'd say there's a biological drive for men and women to dress in a way that attracts mates, to fit in, or to feel more protected (modesty vs immodestness), or to convey a message (warpaint!), but yeah. It is autistic nitpicking in an otherwise fine point.

Thank you. By what I said I meant that women and men quite literally have different brains - wiring is different to such an extent that a woman has literally different vision than a man - peripheral vision is different.

Biologically, the effects off hormones on a body and a brain are nothing short of astounding and it results in different states of mind.

Other authors have gone into it is amazing detail and I am just paraphrasing the basic concept. But the idea of adornment has much to do with attracting a mate and how a female attracts a mate versus a man is different and not always guided by culture but by genetic inclination.

A peacock anywhere in the world will do his dance whether that peacock had ever observed it being done by another peacock or not. Some things, behaviors are handed down through genetics specific to our gender.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

Honestly, though. Y'all (and by "y'all" here I mean trans-identified men) literally reinforce and prescribe the sexist standards you're complaining about! The only non-sexist-as-fuck way to define "woman" is "adult human female," a definition that correctly infers that women can look however they want, act however they want, and live however they want and still be women, with the only uniting factor being female biology. Any other definition, including whatever the fuck one y'all are using to try and fail to "identify" into womanhood is one that reinforces misogynistic stereotypes about how women look, dress, act, feel, etc. or else is so reductive and absurdist that it means literally nothing (see: "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman").

Imagine moaning about society's sexism while being a whole ass man who is so deeply sexist that he believes that not only can he understand what being a woman is like despite being a man but also that he is entitled to womanhood and to decide what womanhood entails. Crikey.

that's the most sexist of all. female is about the genes. woman is a social construct built on top of genetic potentials. separate the two, understand that some people are born cross wired between them and stop debating the validity of trans people already, please?

 

[Sourceress]

that's the most sexist of all. female is about the genes. woman is a social construct built on top of genetic potentials. separate the two, understand that some people are born cross wired between them and stop debating the validity of trans people already, please?

Wanting to adhere to the sexist stereotypes assigned to women and girls by society does not make you in any way, shape or form a woman. It makes you a misogynistic man who fetishizes womanhood and feels entitled to it in a disgusting and creepy way. You'll never be anything but a man.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

Wanting to adhere to the sexist stereotypes assigned to women and girls by society does not make you in any way, shape or form a woman. It makes you a misogynistic man who fetishizes womanhood and feels entitled to it in a disgusting and creepy way. You'll never be anything but a man.

you assume things about me and other transgender intersex people that simply aren't true. i don't claim to be a "woman" , just a transfemme intersex person with a very unpleasant male aspect. My behavior is similar to any older butch lesbian and i pass easily as a female person, despite the male bits and not dressing "en femme".

 

[Sourceress]

you assume things about me and other transgender intersex people that simply aren't true. i don't claim to be a "woman" , just a transfemme intersex person with a very unpleasant male aspect. My behavior is similar to any older butch lesbian and i pass easily as a female person, despite the male bits and not dressing "en femme".

Well, you know, you're right.

You are a very unpleasant male.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

Well, you know, you're right.

You are a very unpleasant male.

Aw, bless your heart! Have you got any rational arguments or is that the best you have, dear?

 

[Sourceress]

Aw, bless your heart! Have you got any rational arguments or is that the best you have, dear?

There's no point trying to bring rational arguments against a man who believes he and his fellow men can be or become anything like a woman. That's a fundamentally irrational, delusional belief and when you're that entrenched in delusion, no rational discussion is going to pull you out of it. There's no point. So I'll just point and laugh at you for being the nasty creeper of a man you are and always will be instead.

It's honestly looking better. Just a little cheese on the tip now

Spoiler: Update NSFL

View attachment 2630304View attachment 2630306View attachment 2630307

Jesus fucking holy shit. That thing... I have no words. None at all. Oh my god. It looks like some kind of rotting flesh worm. Which... I guess it is, but still! The end is all cut off and they didn't even apparently bother putting some skin on it or something? Whaaaat.

I didn't look at the earlier pics because... ew, and now I really wish I hadn't looked at these either. Oh my god.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

There's no point trying to bring rational arguments against a man who believes he and his fellow men can be or become anything like a woman. That's a fundamentally irrational, delusional belief and when you're that entrenched in delusion, no rational discussion is going to pull you out of it. There's no point. So I'll just point and laugh at you for being the nasty creeper of a man you are and always will be instead.


Jesus fucking holy shit. That thing... I have no words. None at all. Oh my god. It looks like some kind of rotting flesh worm. Which... I guess it is, but still! The end is all cut off and they didn't even apparently bother putting some skin on it or something? Whaaaat.

I didn't look at the earlier pics because... ew, and now I really wish I hadn't looked at these either. Oh my god.

tl;dr go for what you know misinformed, misandrous madame. you have no rational argument here and resort to name calling, adhominems and contradictions with no substantial support for your arguments.

Ah I see the thread has become infected.

Hopefully it'll drop off like the frankendick a few pages ago.

whine to an admin and i'm sure they'll be happy to thread ban me and delete my posts in defense of your right not to have your belief systems challenged.

 

[behindyourightnow]

you assume things about me and other transgender intersex people that simply aren't true. i don't claim to be a "woman" , just a transfemme intersex person with a very unpleasant male aspect. My behavior is similar to any older butch lesbian and i pass easily as a female person, despite the male bits and not dressing "en femme".

lol what “intersex” condition do you have? Please provide details about this condition that you are definitely not making up.

Also still waiting for the definition of “woman” that isn’t just sexist stereotypes or a tautology. Any minute now I’m sure.

(One more thing: no one “accepts” you as a female because of your behavior, they just pretend to because you’ll get upset and threaten suicide if they don’t. Trust me on this. What is “female” behavior anyway? I’ll take the definition of that too please.)

because you're obviously a misinformed transphobic twat clinging to obsolete biology and debunked pseudoscience, demanding special treatment, so that your right to be a rude asshole not be infringed?


for some it is, miz andry, man hating phallophobic toxic talking turd that you are. Again, don't lump me or the majority of the community with the train wrecks of the Trans Taliban you TERF twats are always fighting with.

Well at least he got one thing right lol

 

[PresidentTerf]

whine to an admin and i'm sure they'll be happy to thread ban me and delete my posts in defense of your right not to have your belief systems challenged.

No need, it's not a safe space like reddit so you're free to sperg, nobody is interested though, you're a bit like the door knockers, I'm afraid.

 

[behindyourightnow]

tl;dr go for what you know misinformed, misandrous

Ok now I am pretty sure he’s actually an incel pretending to be a tranny

But then again, is there any other type

 

[Fields Of Rye]

that's the most sexist of all. female is about the genes. woman is a social construct built on top of genetic potentials. separate the two, understand that some people are born cross wired between them and stop debating the validity of trans people already, please?

People aren't born cross wired idiot. You can't be born, i.e. be genetically predisposed to behave in a manner which is socially constructed. Either the behaviors arose genetically via evolutionary selection or they arose from a society. This is literally on par with the "human thoughts can influence random number generation" in terms of cognition affecting reality.

And as long as your "born this way" condition also carries with it a 50% comorbidity rate with 2 or more serious psychological and personality disorders, I'll believe it's a product of an already fucked up psyche coping with said disorders. And no amount of sassy Tumblr gifs will change that.

Yall. I come here to look at stink ditches and arm sausage.

What's with all the tranny threads being derailed by retards arguing these last couple days.

Update on this horror dong.


It's honestly looking better. Just a little cheese on the tip now

Spoiler: Update NSFL

View attachment 2630304View attachment 2630306View attachment 2630307

Fucking coke can cock. Seriously every time it's like a fucking protagonist from a flash porn game with a nondescript hunk of G I R T H. Like idk, maybe I'm a grower, but I can comfortably wear a speedo at a public pool and not get fucking arrested.

I wonder if it would be easier to go smaller, or like a kid learning to write, the surgeons gotta do big letters.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

lol what “intersex” condition do you have? Please provide details about this condition that you are definitely not making up.

Also still waiting for the definition of “woman” that isn’t just sexist stereotypes or a tautology. Any minute now I’m sure.

(One more thing: no one “accepts” you as a female because of your behavior, they just pretend to because you’ll get upset and threaten suicide if they don’t. Trust me on this. What is “female” behavior anyway? I’ll take the definition of that too please.)



Well at least he got one thing right lol

your approach is way too offensive to indulge. i'm really not at all like the train wrecks you terf twats taunt mercilessly and don't feel any need to validate myself to a malicious, misinformed, misandrous millennial mental midget. there's much more to womanhood than reproductive behavior. i don't act like a man in many ways, most of which few here would believe because they insist on interacting with me aggressively like manly women defending their breeder sisters.

 

[thyme]

your approach is way too offensive to indulge. i'm really not at all like the train wrecks you terf twats taunt mercilessly and don't feel any need to validate myself to a malicious, misinformed, misandrous millennial mental midget. there's much more to womanhood than reproductive behavior. i don't act like a man in many ways, most of which few here would believe because they insist on interacting with me aggressively like manly women defending their breeder sisters.

What the fuck are you even talking about. I never bothered with your thread because you look like a methhead homeless grandpa & rn the 'methhead' part of that is very very evident

'i dont act like a man' grow up. Do you even meet real people or do you just make up strawmen in your head each time? Every person is an individual and some of them are men, some of them are women. It has fuckall to do with how you act.

I'm sure your life is swell, constantly pidgeonholing yourself and others into your drug fueled gender woo concepts. Ah wait, if you really had a great life you wouldn't be wasting it here trying to convince others that your IQ is greater than double digits.