So, it seems like a number of pro-trans people still believe in the brain sex theory, perhaps because it's assumed that it's necessary for transgender people to be accepted as valid. So I thought I'd suggest an alternative brain-based theory that I think is better supported by the evidence and has basically the same implications. There are non-brain based theories (like Transsexualism: A Different Viewpoint to Brain Changes), but these seem to lack enough appeal to garner attention.

So what if GD is a type of neurodevelopmental disorder? Brain studies of transgender people are often inconclusive, and the only place I've seen anything notable is in areas related to self-perception [1]. Assuming there's something in the brain which is supposed to detect sex characteristics in oneself and this just develops atypically in people with GD, this would be sufficient to trigger mood disorders, body image issues, and more. It would also explain the compiled evidence of an association between depersonalization and gender dysphoria (article). Also, one intuition that people often have is that people who transition only detransition because they realize that it wasn't a match for their brain sex. But if there's a disconnect solely at self-perception, people would still be motivated to transition and people without dysphoria would still be motivated to detransition.

So here's a few things that I think are (and are not) implied by this theory:

1. Would this mean that gender dysphoria is a mental illness? Not really. It would probably be better classified as a disability that often runs co-morbid with mental illnesses. Neurodevelopmental disorders do include conditions like schizophrenia but they also include dyslexia and autism which are not mental illnesses. The common tendency seen towards conflating gender identity with biological sex may be interpreted as delusion, but there are alternative explanations. The gap between "I don't feel connected to my body" or "I feel like my body is missing parts" and "I must be the opposite sex" is quite vast, and it is not clear that the gap isn't being filled by choice.

2. Would this change current perspectives on treatment? Probably not. Neurodevelopmental disorders quite often do not have a cure, though in some cases medication can be taken to alleviate symptoms, much like hormones with GD. There's a fair bit of anecdotal evidence to suggest that people with mood disorders are often over-medicated and under-treated with therapy, but if the source of the mood disorders is a neurodevelopmental disorder, therapy likely would not be effective. Effective treatment of gender dysphoria does assume social acceptance, often justified on the grounds that it is harmless or that it actually helps with dismantling sexism, but it is not clear that this would change without a corresponding change in culture.

3. Would this be a way to distinguish "true" transgenders and lead to gatekeeping? Probably not. No one has been scanning people's brains to detect brain sex, and if anything, it'd lead more credibility to people transitioning just because they want to, since it'd just be self-evidently counterproductive for people who don't have GD. We might see more thorough screening for children of pro-trans caregivers though.

4. Would this invalidate the legitimacy of trans claims to manhood/womanhood? Perhaps this will come off as tongue-in-cheek, but not any more than the brain sex theory does. Plenty of people went about their lives as seemingly normal cisgender folks before transitioning, and few people measure how masculine or feminine someone is as a litmus test of if they are truly men or women. Seems like the popular view is that people can transition if they want to and nothing about the above seems to call that into question.

I think it's important that people stop seeing science and medicine as a threat, even if they firmly believe that trans rights should be a thing. While the root cause(s) of gender dysphoria are still unknown, many researchers have tested the brain sex theory and haven't found the evidence they were seeking. Brain differences by sexual orientation? Sure, refer back to [1] for an example. But the idea that transwomen share a brain type with women that they don't share with men just doesn't hold up to the evidence. And as far as the GC - QT debate goes that really doesn't mean very much.

In my time knowing trans women personally and reading what they have to say, I have heard a series of outlandish things about how they think we operate and function, including but not limited to:

1. We have a natural biological inclination toward stereotypically "feminine" cultural signifiers (high heels, makeup, painting our nails, dresses/skirts, dolls, etc.) rather than being culturally pressured into liking or using these

2. Women's restrooms are a social place and we spend longer in the restroom than men because we love to stand in the mirror side by side reapplying makeup and lipstick, brushing our hair, gossiping about boys and laughing with one another

3. Growing up a girl was all about slumber parties where we sat in a circle braiding one another's hair, gossiping about boys, painting one another's nails and soaking up one another's femininity

4. We are aroused by our own breasts and our own bodies

5. We secretly enjoy being cat-called, groped, and sexually harassed by men because it makes us feel "sexy" and "validated"

6. We are by nature clumsy, ditzy, and air headed

7. Our menstrual cycles are not painful and debilitating but a fun time where we can sleep all day and the men in our lives will serve us bedside while we inundate ourselves with chocolate and ice cream

If trans women were actually women, had "female brains" and had "always innately been women" how do you justify them honestly believing this is how we behave and how we think? Shouldn't they "innately" know this is not how we behave, and that this is a male view of womanhood, seen from the outside in?

Sometimes I feel like my views align with QT and other times GC. I am constantly worried that I'm going to get called a TERF in leftist/feminist spaces and get cancelled. I support the right of people to dress their bodies however they want and not be discriminated for it.

For the record, I am a female. When people ask about my sexuality or my gender identity, I say I'm queer as an act to reject the binary and concept of gender completely. I honestly do not care what pronouns people use for me. I respect whatever pronouns other people use, but sometimes it just starts to seem a bit much. If I'm in a more conservative crowd and have to describe myself for some reason, I just say I'm a woman and bi. I've never understood what makes a woman a woman, a man a man, or an agender an agender, etc. The way we dress? Our genitals? How others treat us? Hormones?

Growing up, I did a lot of "boy" and "girl" things, obviously there's nothing inherently gendered. I have always felt uncomfortable in my body. I don't feel at home in it, but I don't think transitioning to another "gender" or plastic surgery would solve that either, because, to me, hormones, your body, and your junk don't define you. To me, queerness is rejection of any role forced upon me, an acceptance that it's okay and normal to have a variety of expressions and experiences, and an acknowledgement that language will never be able to nor should fully express your identity. I obviously still face sexism because I'm female and look like what society has determined to be a woman. Despite my views in wanting to abolish gender, I still assert that there are material conditions that generally impact sexes differently (birth, breastfeeding, periods, different types of cancers, physical strength, height, hormones). Science has shown us that there are many expressions of sex/chromosomes/genitalia, obviously. I often feel like the QT community doesn't want to acknowledge the material differences of sexes? Thoughts?

I also don't understand how creating new terms like gender fluid, demigender, agender, etc or even affirming the gender binary helps anyone. Because what are we basing gender on? Clothes? Pronouns? Social hierarchy? I'm genuinely confused.

I also don't understand medical traditioning or going on hormones. Your genitals or hormones don't make your gender. To me, going on hormones or medically transitioning doesn't seem that much different than other types of body modifications, plastic surgery, or being on psych drugs. There's been plenty of times where I've felt unaccepted within society due to my weight, height, facial structure, etc. to the point of being suicidal. If you look at a lot of plastic surgery forums, tons of people feel not at home in their bodies due to their nose or cheeks or whatever. Plenty of people get help with general dysphoria through therapy and psych drugs. On the other hand, lots and lots of people have been botched from plastic surgery and psych drugs. This is coming from someone who's experienced severe medical and psychiatric abuse as a child. I worry about the bodily harm that may be medically inflicted upon people due to a society that can't accept a diversity in expression.

I'm guess I am just trying to understand what makes something gender dysphoria and transgender identity?

I guess I just don't understand the fuss of wanting to hold onto the concept of gender.

Thanks in advance, I hope everyone on both sides understands I'm coming here in good faith to learn more.

Let's pretend that it was scientifically proven that "brain sex" is real and that trans people truly believe, with every fiber of their being, for reasons unrelated to sex stereotypes that they were meant to be a member of the opposite sex.

Even if this were true (which in our view, it is clearly not), why would that obligate us to change our definition of womanhood for you?

I would then change my argument from "you're adhering to sex stereotypes and enforcing them on the rest of us and redefining womanhood according to them" to "you are mentally ill and your belief that you were intended to be a woman is similar to being anorexic or schizophrenic" and would begin viewing it less as an issue of male entitlement and more of a mental health issue, and I would say that the same way we are not obligated to tell schizophrenic people that they are actually hearing voices, or that we are not obligated to tell anorexic and bulimic people they are really overweight and justified to take extreme weight loss measures, we (GC) still would not be obligated to change our definition of womanhood.

In phalloplasty, the skin usually from the arm, thigh, back, or abdomen is used to "construct" a "neopenis" which trans people say is a penis, but is it? Why is a "neopenis" not a penis? For example, if I create a statute of an "apple" out of mold, is the product not an apple? If it is an apple then why is a "neopenis" not a penis?

Or take lab-grown "meat", the "meat" is made by first taking a muscle sample, collecting stem cells from the muscle tissue, multiplying them and allowing them to form more muscle tissue and when they are layered together, they get "meat". But if this man-made "lab-grown meat" is meat. then why is a "neopenis" which is constructed by using a skin tissue not a penis?

And why are penis, testes, etc male and why are vagina, uterus, etc female? Why can't penis, testes, etc be female and why can't vagina, uterus, etc be male?

If no, where are they supposed to go?

If yes, how would you feel about encountering lets say Buck Angel looking person on your way out of the restroom?

If yes, wouldn't a male be able to still get into females spaces by stating they are a trans man?

Both sides, what are your thoughts on this article?

https://mamasuncut.com/texas-school-told-boy-cut-your-long-hair-or-identify-as-a-girl

From the grandmother's Facebook post:

once I asked him about his trans gender students he proceeded to tell me that they are guarded by the federal law, a law that was passed in Washington that states all transgender student must be excepted… That a boy student can wear a dress on the first day of school and continue to wear dresses throughout the school year, because that student has started a transition into a female lifestyle I was totally appalled...but my four-year-old grandson who is wearing his natural hair is a distraction

What ramifications does this have for gender nonconforming male students? This is a conservative school that has been forced to comply with federal requirements regarding children who have been transitioned at a young age, but they sure as hell are not going to allow little boys who acknowledge themselves as little boys to be GNC. There's no federal protection for that.

For this I'm making the distinction between gender dysphoria and gender identity. Feeling like you are in the wrong body is not the same as believing that you are actually in the wrong body.

I'm a gender atheist. I do not have an innate gender identity. I do not feel like a woman. I'm just a person who happens to be female. Why should gender atheists like me be forced to accommodate gender identitarians subjective beliefs? Religious people also have very personal, deeply held, life changing beliefs, but they should not be allowed to impose their subjective faith based beliefs on anyone else in society. Neither should trans activists be allowed to impose their personal subjective belief in a gender identity on the rest of society.

It is an objective fact that there are two sexes. Male and female. Rare intersex cases are a red herring. Changing our laws to cater to subjective gender identities will have catastrophic far reaching consequences on the rest of society.

Trans identitarians demand for special privileges at the expense of their fellow citizens rights will result in destroying or sidelining essential rights that are based on people's sex. Women will be the most affected group. Some rights that are affected by trans activism:

• Reproductive Rights (Essential for women's right to complete bodily integrity)
• Consent, Safety & Basic Safe Guarding in Prisons, Single Sex Locker Rooms, Bathrooms, Rape Crisis Shelters etc. (If we ask for a female tsa agent patdown, doctor, gynecologist, roommate, baby sitter, girl scout leader, home care nurse etc. we expect to actually be working with a woman. Not a man who claims to be a woman. Women need to take less precautions around other women than men. That's the main reason why we need single sex spaces. Male violence & sexual harassment is a constant overarching threat to women's dignity, safety and freedom to participate in public life.)
• Sex based medicine & proper research in how diseases and drugs affect women as well as men. (Men are the default human in our culture and women have been suffering sometimes even dying, because of the lack of adequate research on women's health)
• Equal Opportunity in Professional Sports (Women have just as much a right as men to compete athletically on a fair playing field.)
• The Right to Organize Politically (Women have been treated as the inferior sex throughout history and the present day. We need the right to politically organize for women's issues without men present.)
• Freedom of association (Women should have the right to form female only social/hobby clubs. Some women may include trans women in their women only hobby groups. Some will not. Trans identified males should respect each women's group's choice on who they are willing to associate with.)

Trans Activism should not come at the expense of sex based rights. They should not be granted special privileges for having a pseudo religious belief in an innate gender identity. Certainly trans identified people should have the same basic rights as everyone else, but they should not be allowed to force their way into opposite single sex spaces or to force others to accept biological men in women's only spaces and vice versa.

Thoughts?

For me the big misunderstanding I feel that many trans women have about women is that we enjoy things coded by society as "feminine" due to an innate sense of gender identity rather than generations of social conditioning, being rewarded for adhering to gender roles, and being penalized and shamed for not doing so. I also think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how women behave.

For example, I know a trans woman who said that the first time they used a female restroom they were surprised that it wasn't like in teen movies where the girls are standing by the mirror brushing their hair, applying makeup, laughing while putting on lipstick, and gossiping about boys. Or that the entirety of our childhoods consisted of sleepovers where we sit in a circle braiding one another's hair, wearing frilly dresses, gossiping about boys and painting our nails. I was in complete disbelief that people actually think this is how women behave.

I ask this not as a leading question but to genuinely find out if there are any RIGHTS that trans people are being denied.

A disproportionate amount of trans activism revolves around aspects of societal treatment that are not actually rights. Things like romantic and sexual desirability, discourse around pronouns, and so on.

What about actual fundamental rights? There is the issue of violence but that is a subset of male violence against anyone who is not a gender-conforming straight male and is not an issue unique to trans people.

Everybody acknowledges (or should) the privilege cis men have over cis women. It’s been defined and discussed ad nauseum, we don’t need to revisit it here. This is sex based oppression.

How does the analysis of sex based privilege extend to the trans community? Assuming the individuals in question are similarly situated in terms of class, race, age of transition, how well they “pass”, etc:

What hardships, discrimination, oppression and obstacles are faced by trans men (FtM) that are NOT faced by trans women (MTF)?

I can think of many - reproductive rights being the most obvious.

Then the reverse: what hardships, discrimination, oppression and obstacles are faced by trans women (MTF) that are NOT faced by trans men (FtM)?

I can think of none.

It is reasonable to conclude that within the trans community, natal men (MTF) experience male privilege compared to natal women (FTM) regardless of gender identity.

So where does cis privilege fit in? How does this affect the comparative privilege of cis women and trans women? Do cis women have inherent privilege over trans women?

The answer is no. It’s apples to oranges. Cis women have oppression based on innate characteristics that can never be experienced by any natal man. And trans women experience discrimination and hardship based on their gender identity and expression. But, to put it bluntly, those problems are not based on being born a woman but based on not being born a woman.

Cherno Biko provides an excellent example of this. Cherno Biko is a high-profile trans woman who is heavily involved in advocacy. In spring of 2016, Biko attempted to forcibly impregnate her partner. These facts are not in dispute, the victim posted about it on social media and Biko responded, confirming the story and offering a very creative attempt at making herself the victim. She called her victim “mentally unstable” multiple times, even as she admitted to removing the condom, raping and ejaculating inside her partner, while saying she wanted to make “non-binary black babies”.

It gives me great pain to use female pronouns for Biko in this story, because this was such a visceral act of male violence. Bikos victim - a trans man - was not targeted for his gender identity. He was targeted for his female anatomy and physiology, his reproductive ability. Tale as old as time. Could Cherno Biko ever experience this type of oppression herself? No. If her victim had been a cis woman instead of a trans man, what would we have to say about the role of male privilege and sex-based oppression?

Discuss.

There is some old saying that "you know who is in control because that is who you cannot criticize."

Trans women have been able to, at being less than 1% of the population, change the way all of society must discuss gender, womanhood, biological sex, and speak not only about trans people but how we must speak of ourselves. Openly stating we do not want to call ourselves "cis women" puts a target on our back.

Anyone who openly disagrees with the trans lobby can be threatened, harassed, rape threats, death threats, and even fired for speaking out.

If people are oppressed on the basis of not having systematic power, how can you argue trans women are oppressed given that they have had the legislative power and social capital to change all of society within a matter of years and no one can say anything about it?

Many trans men had previously lived as butch lesbians, dated lesbians, and existed in lesbian spaces. If a lesbian woman is dating a trans man who she knew before that trans man came out as trans, why should she as a lesbian have to redefine herself to maintain attraction to that same person?

Also, many butch lesbians do present themselves in a way that many people could mistake them for being a man. What is the objective difference between a trans man and a butch lesbian especially if the trans man is not fully through transition?

Why are the people saying this suggesting that lesbians should be more attracted to natal males who call themselves women who have never existed in lesbian spaces prior to forcing themselves into them, who share very few of their life experiences, and do not have female anatomy, but it is considered a grave offense to maintain attraction to trans men?

[deleted]

More questions for discussion:

Do You Believe That JY And Karen White Are Women? Why Or Why Not?

What Can Trans Activism Do To Prevent Dangerous Males From Taking Advantage Of TWAW And Gender Identity To Harm Women?

Do you believe that trans activism currently shields and enables males like them to harm women by giving them easy access to women they want to victimize and using the law and social pressure to prevent women from speaking out about it?

Is my question transphobic? Why or why not?

All the QT people here continue to say that the cotton cieling doesn't exist. That its something GC people made up. Even while QT and protrans posters participate in it here. Some version of it include- its transphobic for lesbians to not include TW bc some look just like women, or some TW are post op so they have the right equipment, you should evaluate why you don't like penis, or you should just ignore the penis. That's all been said here in this sub. Unfortunately, lesbians get the brunt of this. Outside of this sub, I've seen comments like this towards gay men, hetero women, and hetero men.

I guess I should first ask, do you agree that it's transphobic for monosexuals to exclude one sex, including trans people who don't identify that way from their dating pool. This includes post op trans people. Do you believe that shaming and pressuring a monosexual into dating someone of the sex they aren't attracted to, regardless if they don't identify that way, is wrong? Do you believe that is rape culture? These questions have been asked before and the answer is it never happens or that it's wrong, so I'm operating with the assumption that's your answer. If that's not the case, please feel free to answer if you think it's transphobic and why. Do you also acknowledge that the cotton ceiling exists? How is this different from rape culture? Can you explain?

For those who believe that it's not transphobic or wrong to shame people, do you say anything when you see other QT/pro trans people participating in this?

Article

1. Do you believe relevant information should be released when describing the perpetrator they’re looking for? Why/why not?

2. Do you believe that there was any political motive behind their unusual actions?

3. Do you believe these actions should become the norm? Ie, not release what the perpetrator is wearing when releasing their description.

If a trans woman dresses/presents very feminine, she gets accused of “parodying femininity”. If she doesn’t, it’s touted as “evidence she’s a man”. If she expresses sexuality in any capacity it’s demonized, pathologized, and used against her. If she doesn’t look “how a woman should”, she’s ridiculed.

How in the FUCK are there still cis women who are too evil and braindead to see the similarities between these and our own experiences. We are criticized for being too feminine, for not being feminine enough, for expressing sexuality, for not looking how “a woman should”. How can you claim to stand for women while doing ALL THE SAME SHIT you are supposedly fighting against.

How can you as a cis woman recognize how violent men are towards us and imagine they are any less violent towards trans women? Are you fucking out of your mind? Men are openly violent to OTHER MEN just for being “too feminine”, and you think trans WOMEN are somehow exempt from this? While we as cis women have to deal with abuse from men and from other cis women w internalized misogyny, trans women have to deal with all that AND you fucking evil traitorous losers. And as with all two axes of oppression when combined, the effects of these are not just added but multiplied.

If your response to men holding us under a magnifying glass is to then hold trans women under a microscope? I can say with COMPLETE confidence that if you were a cis dude, you’d be EXACTLY the type of violent, abusive piece of shit you claim to hate. At the end of the day, you’re not critical of cis men’s power and privilege, you’re envious of it. As evidenced by the fact that you spend EXPONENTIALLY more time harassing women (both trans and cis) than you do actually discussing what men do wrong.

Read here and here for some basic analysis of murder rates of trans people compared to the rest of the population. Salient points include:

The Human Rights Campaign maintains a year-by-year database containing every known case of a transgender individual being killed by violent means, and gives this number as 29 in 2017, 26 in 2018, and 22 in 2019. Not only do these figures not reflect a year-by-year increase in attacks on trans persons—they are remarkably consistent, and may be trending slightly downwards—they also indicate that the trans murder rate is significantly lower than the murder rate for Americans overall.
Let’s crunch the numbers. Taking the HRC’s highest recent estimate of trans fatalities (29) as representative, and assuming the transgender population to be 0.6 per cent of the U.S. population—although some trans activists argue the true figure is as high as 3 per cent, which would make the murder rate even lower—the total number of murders in a hypothetical all-trans USA would be roughly 4,800 per year (4,833). In other words, if you multiply the population of the US (327,167,434) by 0.6 per cent you get a current transgender population estimate of 1,963,004.6, and if you divide that figure by 29 (the number of murders) you get 67,690—one murder per 67,690 trans citizens. That works out as a projected annual total of 4,833 murders (327,167,434/67,690) in an all-trans America, with an annual murder rate of 1.48 per 100,000 Americans. That’s about one-fourth of the actual current murder rate: there were 16,214 recorded homicides in the United States in 2018 (five per 100,000) and 17,294 in 2017. While LGBT advocates may be correct that there is some under-reporting of the transgender murder rate because not all trans individuals are “out,” the fact is that the murder rate for trans people would have to increase by 300-400 per cent to match the murder rate for the general population.

I was curious, so I went to the FBI crime database to see for myself. I found that in 2018, 14,123 people were murdered: 6,088 were white, 7407 were black, and 2173 were Hispanic or Latino. 10,914 were male and 3,180 were female. When I compare the number of total yearly murders to a number like 29, it's hard for me to see an alarming trend of violence.

I also went to the FBI hate crime database and pulled some additional numbers (please not that hate crime =/= murder).

In 2018, the nation’s law enforcement agencies reported that there were 8,819 victims of hate crimes. Of these victims, 173 were victimized in separate multiple-bias incidents.

• 59.6 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offenders’ bias against race/ethnicity/ancestry.
• 18.7 percent were victimized because of bias against religion.
• 16.7 percent were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation.
• 2.2 percent were victims of gender-identity bias.
• 2.1 percent were targeted because of bias against disability.
• 0.7 percent (61 individuals) were victims of gender bias

Of the 1,445 victims targeted due to sexual-orientation bias:

• 59.7 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-gay (male) bias. = 862 people
• 24.9 percent were victims of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (mixed group) bias.
• 12.2 percent were victims of anti-lesbian bias. = 176 people
• 1.7 percent were victims of anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.5 percent were victims of anti-bisexual bias.

Of the 189 victims of gender-identity bias:

• 160 were victims of anti-transgender bias.
• 29 were victims of anti-gender non-conforming bias.

Of the 61 victims of hate crime motivated by offenders’ biases toward gender:

• 33 were categorized as anti-female.
• 28 were anti-male.

I realize underreporting is an issue, but I don't see how the current numbers are anywhere near reflective of an epidemic.

Hey guys, I was in a debate the other day where the motion was "This house wants to live in a world where everyone wears grey jumpsuits." I got interested on what it actually meant and if it was a metaphor or not. However, I only found this reddit threat that clearly talks about this. Can anyone please explain what a Grey Jumpsuit Dystopia means or what it stands for ?! Where does the idea originate ?! Waiting for your responses.

The word "cisgender" seems to be used in the three following ways:

1. Someone who does not identify as transgender: This seems to be used as the primary definition by both trans and cis people in simple conversation.

2. Someone who experiences a natural(?) pull towards the cultural role associated with their biological sex: This seems to be what trans people equate with definition #1 in any conversation regarding gender that goes past just scratching the surface - the internal feeling of being a man, woman, both, or neither.

3. Someone who does not experience distress/irritation if their biological sex can be accurately perceived by themselves(?) or others: This seems to be what cis people equate with definition #1 in any conversation regarding gender that goes past just scratching the surface - mentally knowing their sex and not having issues with it to the extent they would identify as trans.

In the past when speaking to trans people online, they have assumed that definition #2 is one I would relate to when in reality it is one that describes a pretty heavily featured struggle in my life as someone who almost exclusively wears clothes "made with men in mind," has always had what many assume to be "masculine" interests, has mentally disassociated with my secondary sex characteristics, and who works in a male dominated industry where I'm basically faced with proving my right to be there every single day.

In these conversations, they then insist that there's no way I could possibly be cis until I offer them definition #3. At that point it has always been said that if #3 is the case for me then #2 must also be true... whereas I think that the discrepancy between those things is the whole reason something like a feminist movement would exist to begin with... or the discussions about how cultural notions of hyper-masculinity can be harmful to the significant portion of men who feel they need to act the part instead of just naturally ending up there.

Obviously opinions may differ within either group, but it seems like there needs to be some overlap, otherwise there's no substantial disagreement.

To use a silly example: if one person is saying "gay" means "person exclusively attracted to members of their own sex", and another person says it means "happy", those people aren't really disagreeing about a thing out in the world, just how to assign a certain sound.

Likewise, if a QT person says: "people who self-identify as men are men because 'man' = personal identity", and they define "man" to only mean "person who identifies as a man", that's just a tautology. If a GC person says "people with XY chromosomes are men because man = male = person with XY chromosomes", that's likewise a tautology. The two groups would basically saying "people who identify as men are people who identify as men" and "people with XY chromosomes are people with XY chromosomes".

So aside from the word, what do the QT and GC definitions of "man" have in common? I can think of a few candidates:

"The group who straight women and gay men are exclusively attracted to"

"The primary beneficiaries of the patriarchy"

"The group that society puts a certain set of expectations on"

Others? What are the things, aside from the word "man" itself, that QT people believe are tied to an internal identity, and GC people believe are tied to XY chromosomes/male reproductive systems?

ETA: Line breaks

Bear in mind, this is all hypothetical, and not at all a "gotcha" attempt. I am genuinely curious to have your opinion on this. This question is for QT.

1) If my lesbian wife comes out as a man tomorrow... I am supposed to instantly lose my attraction to him, otherwise I'm not a lesbian? Or, if I'm still attracted to him, do I become heterosexual? Bisexual? Even if I'm not attracted to 99.99999% of men? If he later detransitions, do I become a lesbian again?

2) If, according to your personal opinion, my sexual orientation changes after he comes out as a man... does that mean that someone's personal identity has the power to change another's? Is the term "personal identity" not incorrect, as the definition of "identity" relies on the concept of individuality?

I know it may sound all confusing, I'll be happy to clarify in the comments if needed!

Generally, people split "gender" into "gender identity, gender expression," and biological sex. Those who believe this often believe that they're all independent from each other, as I commonly see phrases such as "gender expression != gender." I don't disagree that fashion is separate from gender.

How is "gender expression" essentially different from fashion? It sounds as though it's primarily the way one dresses, uses makeup, etc. I don't see why a term had to be created when "fashion" already exists; it seems to be ascribing gender to fashion needlessly (and of course perpetuating gender stereotypes).

Bonus: Do you feel that "gender expression" belongs in the realm of gender, or should be disregarded as it's irrelevant to one's gender? Personally I feel that, if it's completely independent from gender and is essentially genderless (not having to do with gender), I don't see why it's included in "gender components."

[removed]

Honestly, I am a bit befuddled at everyone acting like she is a complete monster and that there are actually articles in the Washington Post that she needs to stop writing(even though there are writers out there with way, way more offensive views) I was honestly relieved that she pointed out how silly it is to pretend that women aren't the ones that have periods. I am kind of tired of this over political correctness where we use language like folx or latinx or have to pretend that there are more then two genders. I also really liked how she pointed out that men and women can have different symptoms of conditions like MS, and that sex differences are very real. It also concerns me that there are more and more girls seeking gender clinics. I also wish people would stop pretneding that gender non conformity isn't the main reason that kids are saying they are trans. Do you think JK Rowling actually deserves to be piled on like this?

As far as I know, intersectional feminism includes all women based on the oppressions they face as a group. For instance, women with different backgrounds regarding race and class face different oppressions, however they all share common experiences that unite them and thus they take part in the feminist movement.

Radical feminism states that these common experiences are the result of the oppression based on the biological sex and that is the reason why trans women are not included in the movement. Women of all ethnicities, all social classes, all nationalities, all ages and women with or without disabilities have to deal with the same threats because they are all females, even though each group deals with different challanges which are particular to their situations.

Therefore, I would like to know from QT users in this sub: what are the common oppressive elements that tye together both women and trans women?

I often hear there is a unique oppression trans women experience and it is often called "transmisogyny."

But when I analyze what I see happening to trans women, I see the oppression as what would be experienced by a man who fails to live up to gender expectations on men (being punished for not acting masculine or how society expects men to act), and who is experiencing homophobia (gay panic when men attack their trans sexual partners). How, do you believe, is there anything "woman" related about your experience with oppression?

Context for my beliefs: I was strongly QT up until about 6 months ago, when I came across a few GC arguments that made sense to me and lined up with trends I had noticed in trans people I know. I don’t believe that transgenderism as a concept is invalid, but I am skeptical of the misogynist stereotypes that seem to underly some trans women’s understanding of femininity.

Anyway, my question is: If being trans is a fetish and a choice, how do you reconcile that with the high rates of violence against trans people? I went looking for instances of trans women assaulting cis women and could only find information about cis on trans violence, which is clearly a real thing that happens.

Moreover, if it’s just about their dicks how are trans women okay with taking hormones that make their dicks stop working?

I dislike people who transition with the goal of being a “bimbo” or an airhead. I believe that that is totally rooted in sexism and the way socialization as a man conditions one to see women as hypersexual idiots. But I also don’t see how we can make the blanket statement that all trans people are in it for their own gain, when a lot of them seem to actively resent the fact that they are trans and put themselves in real danger by coming out.

I saw a post on the GC sub which I found pretty interesting that presented a model for evaluating cult-like behavior in groups. My response to it was removed from the sub though, so I'd like to publish it here, and also open a discussion about harmful cult-like tactics that are sometimes used in political groups.

I'm not sure if the author would like me to link her here or not, or of that is allowed on this sub, so I have DMed her and she can reply to take credit if that's what she would prefer. Here is the description of the BITE model that she linked. My response is to specific parts of the model she had highlighted as possibly applying to transgenderist groups.

My evaluation of the GC sub community based on participating in the past:

Behavior Control: Promote dependence and obedience; Restrict or control sexuality; Beating, torture, rape, imprisonment, murder (in this case in the form of threats against GCs via social media).

• dependence - no. other subs have taken off from here as far as I know, nobody is encouraged to only come here.
• obedience - yes, you're a bad person, anti-liberation, whatever, if you don't agree with certain ideas.
• control sexuality - strong no, I saw content shaming women for having sex with men removed several times.
• beating, torture - if we include emotional abuse, I would say yes for certain demographics of women, unambiguously abusive speech has been left up.
• rape, imprisonment - no.

Information Control: Deliberately withhold and distort information; Forbid you from speaking with ex-members and critics; Discourage access to non-cult sources of information; Divide information into Insider vs. Outsider doctrine; Generate and use propaganda extensively; Use information gained in confession sessions against you; Gaslight to make you doubt your own memory

in general, strong yes, there is lots of information control here.

• deliberately withhold information - yes (distort, not sure.)
• forbid you from speaking with ex-members and critics - no, there's several subs advertised here to engage with critics and ex-members have been seen there too.
• discourage access to non-cult sources of information - information sources are curated, some are called "anti-woman" and forbidden from being linked here
• divide information into insider vs. outsider doctrine - I would say yes, I saw a lot of "we're radfem, not libfem, not tra", seems like it fits
• generate and use propaganda extensively - kinda. GC does not feel as propagandistic as some but it seems wrong to say there's no propaganda being made. it's definitely more propagandistic than an obscure hobby club.
• use information gained in confession sessions against you - I would say yes, I had people look through my post history and use it to make various counter-group-ideology accusations against me. I saw other women banned in such ways as well. Not quite sure if these count as "confession sessions".
• gaslight to make you doubt your own memory - to some degree yes, there are claims of being fair and open when content has clearly been removed in the past for ideological reasons. the affiliated actualwomen sub's description of itself is an example, they remove content that goes against their ideology while still claiming to be a place for women to discuss freely with each other.

Thought Control: Teach thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thoughts; Instill Black vs. White, Us vs. Them, & Good vs. Evil thinking; Change your identity, possibly even your name; Use loaded language and cliches to stop complex thought; Induce hypnotic or trance states to indoctrinate

• Teach thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thoughts - yes, for some topics.
• Instill Black vs. White, Us vs. Them, & Good vs. Evil thinking - yes I would say so. not all things are treated this way but some are, to some extent, but not as much as some other political groups. again though, much more than an obscure hobby group would.
• change your identity, possibly even your name - I'd say no, people think of themselves as "radfems" and may change allegiance in a way in that regards, so maybe there's an element of this, but changing your name and such behaviors is not something I've really seen as an element here.
• Use loaded language and cliches to stop complex thought - yes definitely. on some topics no, there is a wide area of possible disagreement and many perspectives, but on some topics, yes. GC does seem a lot more thoughtful and open to complex discussion than many political groups though.
• Induce hypnotic or trance states to indoctrinate - no, I didn't see this.

Emotional Control: Instill irrational fears (phobias) of questioning or leaving the group; Label some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, or wrong; Promote feelings of guilt, shame, & unworthiness; Threaten your friends and family; Shun you if you disobey or disbelieve; Teach that there is no happiness or peace outside the group

• Instill irrational fears (phobias) of questioning or leaving the group - I'd say no, people can come and go as they please, but there is an element of fear of not achieving the group's political goals and something bad happening, or bad things happening if you join a competing ideology.
• Label some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, or wrong - absolutely. there are a lot of things that are considered unacceptable to think or feel without repenting.
• Promote feelings of guilt, shame, & unworthiness - if you don't agree on certain topics, absolutely.
• Threaten your friends and family - no.
• Shun you if you disobey or disbelieve - absolutely.
• Teach that there is no happiness or peace outside the group - yes, maybe not outside the group, but the idea is that the liberation the group hopes to achieve is needed for true peace and happiness.

I also think transgenderist ideology is generally worse in terms of these cult-like behaviors.

To my understanding the only thing that unites the LGB community is same sex attraction. Attraction is based on sex, not gender. Being transgender is a completely different issue, no matter how you frame it. Why can't the two movements be separate? A lot of what the current LGBT movement does in terms of activism is for trans rights, and as a natal lesbian this just has nothing to do with me.

I'd prefer it if there was a separate space where the LGB community could focus on issues directly pertaining to LGB people which often get ignored as the Trans movement is at the forefront of activism. Gay marriage is still illegal in 170 countries and being gay in itself is a crime in more than 80, so it's not like we don't have work to do, and the trans movement is distracting from those very real issues. What are your thoughts?

I recently came across this exchange. Here’s the article to which they linked.

I found it interesting, because I don’t think of this community as a recruitment tool for GC. In fact, it’s more like the opposite? I really like the conversations that happen here, but there is a steep learning curve that can be quite off putting.

I feel as if it is natural for the GC community to want a place to debate. For many of us, it feels as if our voice gets silenced everywhere else and we cannot often confront the ideologies that for us feel quite... ridiculous. I know personally the emotional blackmail and social coercion aspects of the QT community personally made me just bottle up my questions, concerns, and criticisms of the ideology, activism, and community. Finding GC allowed me to explore those thoughts and feelings, but this community allowed me to develop them into more concrete and logical ideas. Basically this feels like the community feels like a place for a person to refine their beliefs and arguments (whatever side they may be on) for the benefit of themselves, but not to convert others.

I've mulled over what compromises we can reach, and one I consider most likely is that feminists are forced to cede the word "woman" as no longer a descriptor of biological reality but a nebulous cultural concept or social role. But trans activists would also be forced to acknowledge sex as a significant and unchangeable factor in oppression/social class.

So basically, this hypothetical compromise would mean trans women are "women" but they would be specified as male women while the rest of us are female women. And trans men would be female men.

I know a lot of GC are absolutely against ceding language which I respect, but just imagine this is a compromise we have met: Trans Women Are "Women."

QT: Even if trans women are women -- how are they not the most privileged subset of women? The current discourse claims trans women are the most marginalized and oppressed social class in existence, and that women oppress trans women by way of cis privilege.

But how? TW are discriminated against in hiring... so are women. TW are raped and murdered indiscriminately by men... so are women. TW are sexualized and objectified... so are women. TW are degraded with slurs... so are women.

Anything TW experience as oppression, women already experience. But flipped around, women are degraded for their periods, are forcibly impregnated, are selectively aborted or drowned at birth for being female, and go through the permanently damaging hell that is female socialization. Meanwhile TW actually benefit from male socialization, and some even bypass hiring discrimination by waiting until they're in a good position in their career before coming out. Not to mention the ingrained misogyny that makes up so much of male socialization. And it's plain to anyone who has taken part in trans discussions that TW are positioned above TM and dominate those conversations and resources. Even on tumblr, which is majority female trans people, TW are prioritized.

So TL;DR - if TWAW, why would TW be the least privileged subset of women, and not the most privileged subset of women?

EDIT: I welcome GC thoughts on my compromise as well, if you have any, as a reply to the top comment I have made for GC. And I really do want to hear QT opinions; I notice none have commented yet and hope this question didn't come across as bad faith.

(Cross-posted fro the other sub, and also related to Nomme's recent question here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GCdebatesQT/comments/hbm191/qt_why_do_trans_men_and_trans_women_refer_to/ )

Gender-critical folks often insist on defining sex, or at least natal sex, by reproductive sex.

But we currently live in a sex/gender-essentialist and transphobic society, where sexual biology tends to imply certain oft-stifling and oft-destructive social roles.

So in these contexts, should gender-critical feminists seek language which either doesn't support the association, or challenges it: e.g. "half the world is born male, but no one is born a man"?

Trans folks often insist on defining sex by target sex for trans people, and then trying to extend the definitions for non-trans and detrans people. I know I do.

Right now, navigating transphobia, gatekeeping, etc. tends to encourage us to say we really are our target sexes, and avoid letting reproductive sexual biology define anything outside itself. For a long time I'd use "Müllerian" and "Wolffian," much as gender-critical folks use "female" and "male." And I still tend to use "female" and "male" to refer to the hypothetical biological basis for target sex.

So in specifically feminist contexts, away from transphobia, should trans people object to gender-critical language and definitions?

PICTURED: Man, 61, who 'killed his ex-neighbor, 59, after decades-long feud disguised himself as a UPS delivery driver and hid his gun in a box before shooting her 3 times in the head and 4 in the back in the doorway of her Massachusetts home.

Story.

For Gay Men, an Attraction to a Different Kind of Scent

Preference for Human Body Odors is Influenced by Gender and Sexual Orientation

I've found a few different studies that suggest that pheromones also play a role in attraction (be it sexual or just general). It strong evidence that not only male and female, but also even homosexual and heterosexual groups of people are different from each other on a detectable, biological, and fundamental level.

So what I'm wondering is... are there any decent studies that include trans people in their control/sample as well? I'm curious about how different groups of people perceive the odor of trans people relative to other groups of people. I've been struggling to find any. I am, however, aware that some testimonies of trans people during transition note a change in body odor over time (though I'd have to find them), so I'm curious about how one's "rating" of an odor changes over the course of transition.

Hello, this is a throwaway because I don’t want my main to get banned off of some subreddits for posting on GC subs. I discovered GC quite a while ago, and read through the posts and peak trans stories. If I get answers to my questions, I think I can slowly convert to the GC side of things

I just don't understand and get confused because the internet is full of articles that say there's no male or female body

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-body.html

And articles that say men can have vaginas, ovaries, etc and women can have penises, etc

https://theconversation.com/can-a-woman-have-a-penis-how-to-understand-disagreements-about-gender-recognition-101991

And so the nonbinary people I know use words like "male eggs, male vagina, male ovaries, etc", and they use words like "female sperm, female penis, female testes, etc"

Can GCs explain to me why words like "female sperm, female penis, female testes, etc" and "male egg, male vagina, male uterus, etc" are wrong? Why can't sperm, penis, testes, etc be female or feminine? Why can't egg, vagina, uterus, etc be male or masculine?

If trans men are men, and trans women are women, why don't they just refer to themselves as "men" and "women" when they are talking to each other in trans-oriented spaces?

I resent the fact that while I am otherwise very progressive and on board with nearly every part of a "progressive" political agenda, I just cannot get on board with this one without significant struggle.

I firmly believe, as I always have, that trans people deserve equal protection under the law, deserve to live their lives free of violence or physical threat for being trans, and that as a member of what I wish to become a compassionate society, I want to be willing to accommodate you in your belief that you are a member of the opposite sex if it will make you happy. When I see stories about trans people being discriminated against, the instinct I have to defend anyone who is oppressed in any way kicks in, and I want to rush to their defense but I have so many reservations about the basic tenets of the transgender movement that I second guess whether or not rushing to their defense is wise.

I cannot get past the following and find them to be significant road blocks.

1. Lack of respect and ability to meet halfway: I find that while the trans community demands acceptance and respect, I do not feel like I can raise any of these concerns publicly and be met halfway. I am expected to just silence myself and cosign anything and everything the trans community demands, with no concern for how it impacts me or society as a whole. Any reservations or concerns on my part are met with quotes of statistics about trans suicide rates and how I am "denying someone's existence" or "implying trans people are not valid" even if I am merely raising concern about how trans women competing in combat sports against cis women can cause significant and often unilateral physical harm to cis women. There is a totalitarianism to the entire trans movement that I find very scary and undemocratic.

2. Pressuring people into sex and shaming them for being transphobic if they do not comply: there is a frightening tolerance in trans activist spaces for behavior which, in any other context, would be seen as sexual harassment or against the basic principles of consent. People who say "no one is pressuring you into having sex with trans people but if you won't you are transphobic" are talking out of both sides of their mouth. If you believe that refusing trans people as sex parters is transphobic, and you believe being transphobic is bad, then logically you do believe that refusing to have sex with trans people is bad, is an issue needing correction, and that even if not forced, people should be PRESSURED into it until they finally cave. And it seems that no one is being honest about what they are really advocating for here, because they know we know how bad it sounds but we are not allowed to question it.

3. My keen understanding that the only reason a trans person "looks" like a member of the sex to which they claim membership is hormonal and surgical intervention. It is hand-crafted and manmade. If a trans person stopped taking their hormones, they would eventually revert to looking unpassable as a member of the sex to which they claim membership because the physical reality is something completely different than what we are allowed to acknowledge. Yet we cannot use language like "natal woman" "natural woman" "biological female" when discussing ourselves because it hurts someone's feelings. By saying things like "trans women are women" I am being asked to deny that which I know to be true and which every person, even trans people themselves, know to be true: all of the progress you have made toward being passable as a woman can be easily unraveled.

4. Trans people's claim to being a member of the opposite sex is based on their adherence to harmful stereotypes. Some people will say "no one says this about cis women who adhere to harmful stereotypes!" which is true, but we adhere to those stereotypes as a survival mechanism in a world that will penalize us financially, career wise, in our interpersonal relationships if we do not, whereas for many trans women, wanting to adhere to these stereotypes is what they believe MAKES them a woman to begin with. By cosigning this I am being asked to give credence to stereotypes which make my own life difficult, limited, and boxed in.

5. I don't believe nonbinary identities are valid. Back in my day we had a greater and more sophisticated understanding than today that women could be masculine and men could be feminine without it literally making them another gender, while it seems now that we believe if you do not adhere to rigid sex stereotypes you are no longer a man or a woman. This is a step backwards, not forwards. And this view is now being imposed on small children. Little Cindy hates dolls and would rather play football? Maybe she is a boy or non-binary. Little Tommy wants to play with Barbie? Maybe he is a girl or non-binary.

6. TRANS SUPPORT OF SEX WORK AND PORNOGRAPHY. This is the big one for me. Sex workers can never fully "consent" to what they are doing because the vast majority of the time, they are forced to become sex workers to make ends meet because they have no other options. There is always a coercion behind the choice to be a sex worker. Yet trans rights activists make it out like being a sex worker is empowering.

Is there any way I can reconcile my desire to be an ally with my clear issues with the movement?

You get banned most places if the mods equate your questioning of gender to be transphobic. The only sub that comes close to mind is /r/stupidpol but maybe some of you know of others? Apologies if this post is not allowed.

I've asked this in every "is sex bimodal" thread and have yet to get a response. I'd really like to know, so I suppose a post is in order.

The only answer I can conceive of is "femaleness" or "maleness," but what the hell is that supposed to mean, and how do we measure it?

If anyone would be willing to link a drawing of the bimodal graph that would be nice, but it's not necessary.

This applies to people saying it’s any %, high or low. The only people you know are trans are those who don’t pass* or those who disclose. How does one get any sort of accurate count of those who pass?

*Even then you could sometimes mistake a cis person with very atypical features as trans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEhis4L4ohY&t

She's an educated health care professional and it makes me doubt GC beliefs...

I’m going to break down a line of thinking I’ve seen, in the limited conversations I’ve had IRL with trans people (and backed up by what I’ve read from a lot of other people).

I’ve noticed that many ftms will acknowledge the huge effect being born female has played in their lives. They have a male gender identity (which of course has massively affected their life experiences) and in many cases have transitioned and are “passing”. However they typically are still aware of the ways being born female have influenced how their world - beyond simply the discordance between sex and gender identity.

On the flip side, I feel that many mtfs totally discount the ways in which their lives have been influenced by being born male. In particular waving away the sex based oppression women have experienced. Older mtfs who have transitioned will tell me “I experience sexism too just like you” and will often point out that they have also experienced a lot of negativity around being trans. I walk away from a lot of these experiences feeling like I am being gaslit.

Sex based oppression is largely based, at its core, on control over sexuality and reproduction. In most societies, contemporary and across history, men seek to exercise power over women’s autonomy - not because they identify as women, but because they were born female. This is not something mtfs have experience with.

Many cis women believe that our sex is critical to the way we have experienced life... so my question is why is gender identity seen as more valid than sex as a facet of somebody’s experience? Why is there not room for divergent opinion on this? Why are cis men weighing in at all?

This is a twin-thread to my recent GC-centered one, since titles can't be changed on reddit. The idea is to help with better understanding of other's experiences and where they're coming from.

I see a lot of anecdotes and not a great deal of hard evidence online. Of the studies that are available, many are flawed, particularly in how the data is collected. For example, I've seen "transgender" as an option when being asked for sexuality or gender. The poor wording and the lack of consistency isn't doing anyone favours.

I've previously come across a three step questioning process where it asks for:

1.) Sex assigned at birth(or observed at birth whatever you prefer)

2.) Gender

3.) Intersexed or not.

I believe that including this type of questioning in a range of areas including health and justice departments would greatly improve be the data that's available.

I don't know if this is the best method and I'm sure that some people would be offended at the idea, but how else can we get accurate data?

Sure there are already researchers out there who put hours into data collection themselves, but many of them already have some form of bias, whether it's for or against the 'trans agenda', the results are likely to be skewed in one direction. So I ask you, how can research in this area improve and what research do you feel needs to be done? Is this a wasted effort?

The word gender obviously gets talked about often. I’ve looked through past threads and I’ve noticed that we haven’t really gotten a solid definition of gender.

I have repeatedly seen QT people saying that GC feminists are not only conflating sex and gender, but that’s they are independent concepts, that gender is an innate biological experience, and that we need a better understanding of science to know what is gender.

I have seem to have missed whatever mass-update to the definition or understanding of gender. Looking at Wikipedia and dictionaries is not helping as they seem to be somewhat contradictory or extremely vague in some of their explanations. Some just merely define it as “a shared identity held by a group”. 🤔

Furthermore, some definitions of gender tie it to social constructivism and the roles / expectations of one’s perceived sex. How does gender from a social constructivism POV disentangle itself from the inherent sexism, if we can agree that there is a patriarchy and that these views / expectations are not neutral / are influenced by the patriarchy?