Marzipan

I would never deny that misogyny harms natal women. It absolutely does.

The point is: women’s oppression is sex-based — not “gender-identity-based.”

So if a person permanently changes their sexed physiology to align with the female sex class, the law should acknowledge that change.

Those in between should, in my opinion, be offered a third ‘X’ marker.

But you can’t be naturally reproductively male (able to impregnate) and medically female at the same time - or naturally reproductively female (able to conceive) and medically male.

How can an individual be regarded as ‘trans’(sexual) if they experience no incongruence between their intrinsic (neurological and/or psychological) sex and the discordant, opposite-sexed reproductive and anatomical features of their body?

The point of FtM/MtF transition is to approximate the phenotype organized around the opposite type of gamete - that is, to develop the opposite secondary sex traits, remove internal reproductive organs, and reconfigure external genitalia (or, in the case of TSMs, to wear or use a prosthetic). 1/2⤵️

There are two axes ⬆️➡️: one for typology and one for function.

The male seahorse phenotype — still organized around the production of small gametes — functions in such a way that the male fertilizes the female’s eggs after they have been transferred to his brood pouch.

Humans are not seahorses, and male seahorses do not conceive; they possess testes.

Rights in what way? And how would that be possible?

How for example could you in any shape or form be considered a male in any real sense if you have capacity for pregnancy?

Sounds like you don’t understand why things like legal sex exist in first place.

Moreover, their non-permanent transitional status means they cannot be medically categorized as the opposite sex.

They’re going to need to collect statistics based on penis-holders versus vagina-holders, since one group represents potential impregnators and has a significantly higher risk of committing rape.

“You’re missing something i said, bc i never said i just want symbolic rights.”

- Inadvertently you did. Because if I as a post-op female is considered the same as a non-op ‘male woman’, that means the government will have to default us both to male. 1/2⤵️

“Cis women are also losing access to pregnancy prevention, due to cis men deciding women shouldnt have freedom like that.”

- Which just reinforces my point. Cis women are losing that access because they’re legally immutably considered female.

“There have been cis women fired for being too masculine and existing in the womens restroom.”

- That’s NOT an issue with lack of legal recognition. That’s a socio-cultural issue with transvestigation.

The cissexual woman could sue and win.

The transsexual woman? Nothing.

Are you from the US or UK?

A legal sex marker that doesn’t guarantee you’ll be treated as the sex your marker says you are? Yes, pretty much useless.

Imagine how many post-op transsexual females risk having their neovaginas wrecked in male spaces because of such legal fiction bs???

This is a cissexual by typology - but transsexual according to function.

The transitioned could theoretically include a cissexual who choose to become a functional transsexual, like this person, yes.

But that’s why I said, research needs to be divided by TYPOLOGY.

Legal affirmation by FUNCTION/phenotype.

With proof of SRS* not without.

No one would have to be tested. They would just need to be able to seek for such resignation without proof of SRS/permanent transition.

If non-ops want a legal fiction, that’s not my business.

But then we need to divide the two groups.

So then my interests and needs to be protected and secure female rights as a post-op female, collide with your wants for symbolic recognition, which if taken away from you won’t hurt you - but could risk my safety.

So do you see why we shouldn’t be lumped into one?

Legal fictions are mostly useless - and can be overturned at any moment and gives no guarantees or actual protections.

Because it’s not considered as defining material reality.

No. Biomedical convention is legal sex recognition according to functional/phenotypic sex.

It is the reason intersex women with XY chromosomes such as CAIS and Swyer are legally considered female, and not retroactively changed to male.

Here’s an example:

Cissexual people do not have their legal sexes threatened at any point.

There’s for example never a risk a cissexual female will have to sign up for selective service (in countries with a male-only draft policy) or be put into a male prison or relegated to male spaces.

As for bio-medical convention that would truly only be justified for permanently transitioned people, who can’t naturally revert back to natal biology.

So post-ops (or gonadectomized).

For the brain and genetic research, the division would have to depend on typology. So you would have to have for example only study subjects who all fit 6/6 criteria and in actuality sub-divide between non-op (no reprod./genital incong. & dysph.) vs. pre-op (reprod./genital incong. & dysph). 1/2⤵️

I’m advocating for transsexuals because when we’re lumped in with cissexual gender nonconformists, we get treated like cissexual gender nonconformists - not like people who are sex affirmed.

It takes away from us, not add to them.

And bio-medical convention is the only form of legal sex affirmation that can protect us from what has for example happened in both the US and the UK now.

Where even post-op transsexuals are relegated to spaces according to birth-assigned sex.

Research, like brain research for example will result in inconsistent outcomes if we compare apples 🍎 to oranges 🍊.

Legal sex affirmation can never reach the level of bio-medical convention (similar to what intersex people have), unless it applies only to people with altered biology.

So with that in mind, I’m not surprised by sloppy or non-existent voice training.

She probably ‘woke up’ late. But better late than never.

Right?

I think Dana used to be one of those transgender welcoming transsexuals who were anti HBS back in the day (that’s just my assumption though based on what I’ve read about her earlier activism - and I think she mentions in the video she helped to push legal recognition for non/pre-ops.

I promise you, I’m not trying to be rude.

I just observe a big difference in how we understand words and which is again why ‘gender’ is so unhelpful > because it’s a blurry concept to begin with.

To me a guy is a male person.

What is a guy to you?