The trans debate

[Stowaway]

I think they're chanting "TERFS off our turf."

And I think a TERF is derogatory term they've invented to describe women who think they're a bunch of nutjobs.

But my favourite is the fist-pumping howler in the leopard print top. Can we get that one in as a mascot alongside Theo?

Funny, isn’t it? Trans “women” acting like men by threatening violence and rape against actual women. It’s almost like they’ve not lost their male traits at all, and who are still attracted to women. Bunch of sexually confused drag queens.

[greyhound]

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/utah-bans-tra ... 06709.html

this has to be the way forward.
there will be protest whatever. people will protest
about anything its the norm.

[faldO]

Men asked by some hospital trusts if they are pregnant before having scans

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/hospitals-as ... iotherapy/

[Max Fowler]

I've completed loads of disclaimer forms with that question on it.

It's ok, I got through it, I'm sure you will too.

[CEB]

I can’t think of any potential negative consequences of normalising the idea that men can experience pregnancy. It’s not as if men already leverage societal power to dictate how women should experience and deal with pregnancy, is it? I’m certain that if ostensibly progressive people start to frame pregnancy as a thing that men and women can both experience, and therefore have a stake in, that male people definitely won’t use that as a way of ensuring they continue to have a disproportionate voice in reproductive rights of the the group of humans who can get pregnant, or who are impacted by either not being able to be pregnant, or going against expectations by choosing not to get pregnant…

Tl:dr? If pregnancy is framed as a thing that affects “people” rather than “women” or “female people”, then maybe someone needs to explain how you mitigate for the impact when you’re giving male people more of a say in what happens to female bodies?

[Dunners]

Gary proudly displaying his male privilege.

But it's 'complicated', you see?

[faldO]

Angela Rayner says it's ok for men to be asked if they're pregnant but it's not acceptable ask a woman if she has a penis.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 46242.html

[Beradogs]

If a man converts to a women and has all the operations can they get pregnant? I literally have no idea. It’s all got very confusing.

[CEB]

If a man converts to a women and has all the operations can they get pregnant? I literally have no idea. It’s all got very confusing.

A man doesn’t convert to a woman except in the sense that for a small number of people, a legal fiction is created where in some circumstances the law treats them as if female.

What used to be known as a “sex change operation” doesn’t actually change a person’s sex; it’s impossible to do that, and also rare to opt for surgery - the vast majority of male people who identify as women have no intention of surgical intervention on their genitals, and in fact trans activism is more invested in popularising an alternative idea - that a male body is actually a female body if the person considers himself to be a woman.

So no, is the answer - men can’t get pregnant, and every transwoman has “is male” in common.

[Long slender neck]

I dont think the surgery goes that far. Where would they get a womb from?

[CEB]

I dont think the surgery goes that far. Where would they get a womb from?

There are some particularly delightful male trans activists on Twitter who have gleefully discussed the idea of ripping them from the dead bodies of “TERFs”

[CEB]

(But even more relevant than that is that a woman isn’t a potato head kit - you can’t just put a womb into a body of the opposite sex and have it function - female bodies have evolved along a pathway that supports reproduction/gestation, male bodies haven’t.

[oxo]

If a man converts to a women and has all the operations can they get pregnant? I literally have no idea. It’s all got very confusing.

No, I'm pretty sure this is about accommodating trans men (i.e. people who are born female and identify as/live as/transition to men). They could change their legal sex to male/present as a man but still be capable of getting pregnant.

It's the same thing with language like 'people with a womb' or whatever -- I don't think it has anything to do with trying to 'erase women' on behalf of trans women, but about trying to use inclusive language that applies to everyone who has a uterus (i.e. the average woman and trans men) in particular medical contexts (e.g. gynaecology).

[Stowaway]

I dont think the surgery goes that far. Where would they get a womb from?

You don’t need to. You can just keep the foetus in a box.

[CEB]

If a man converts to a women and has all the operations can they get pregnant? I literally have no idea. It’s all got very confusing.

No, I'm pretty sure this is about accommodating trans men (i.e. people who are born female and identify as/live as/transition to men). They could change their legal sex to male/present as a man but still be capable of getting pregnant.

It's the same thing with language like 'people with a womb' or whatever -- I don't think it has anything to do with trying to 'erase women' on behalf of trans women, but about trying to use inclusive language that applies to everyone who has a uterus (i.e. the average woman and trans men) in particular medical contexts (e.g. gynaecology).

A female person who performs the reproductive role of her sex by getting pregnant and gestating a foetus is demonstrably showing a remarkably cavalier attitude to “living as a man” in any meaningful sense, and I’d suggest that a female person carrying out the female reproductive role should be expected to be able to deal with pregnancy related admin that recognises that sex is more pertinent than gender identity in the context of reproductive health both on an individual level, as well as in the wider context of recognising the political importance of reproductive rights to fellow female people.



But please, by all means explain what “living as a man” means if a woman can be actually pregnant while doing it…

[CEB]

(Trans men are a useful stand in here though, but the reality is that the reason trans activism wants to use gender neutral language for pregnancy is because male people who identify as women do not want it to be possible to recognise that there is a tangible, meaningful distinct between male people and female people - specifically, that only female people can get pregnant, or be impacted by choices or conditions related to ability or lack thereof, to carry a pregnancy to term)

[CEB]

If a man converts to a women and has all the operations can they get pregnant? I literally have no idea. It’s all got very confusing.

No, I'm pretty sure this is about accommodating trans men (i.e. people who are born female and identify as/live as/transition to men). They could change their legal sex to male/present as a man but still be capable of getting pregnant.

It's the same thing with language like 'people with a womb' or whatever -- I don't think it has anything to do with trying to 'erase women' on behalf of trans women, but about trying to use inclusive language that applies to everyone who has a uterus (i.e. the average woman and trans men) in particular medical contexts (e.g. gynaecology).

A female person who performs the reproductive role of her sex by getting pregnant and gestating a foetus is demonstrably showing a remarkably cavalier attitude to “living as a man” in any meaningful sense, and I’d suggest that a female person carrying out the female reproductive role should be expected to be able to deal with pregnancy related admin that recognises that sex is more pertinent than gender identity in the context of reproductive health both on an individual level, as well as in the wider context of recognising the political importance of reproductive rights to fellow female people.



But please, by all means explain what “living as a man” means if a woman can be actually pregnant while doing it…

There’s another relevant aspect here:
If trans activism says, as it does in terms of discussing trans men, that a female person can “live as a man” while actively choosing to perform the female reproductive role, then on what basis could any trans woman do *anything at all* that would be a legitimate reason to believe they were not actually “living as a woman”?

If a trans man who is pregnant is doing so while unquestionably being “a man”, then on what basis could I, right now, as I am - a hairy, bearded, short haired male person - be doubted if I claimed to belong in the category “woman”?

If “gender dysphoria” as a condition does not result in people abandoning behaviours specific to one’s sex - as shown by “trans men can get pregnant” being a thing we’re reminded of regularly when discussing issues with trans activists, then why does trans activism shy away from remembering that the opposite is also true - that male people who identify as women still retain behaviours and impulses associated with their sex: why is there not an equivalent of “trans men can get pregnant!” that recognises what male people retain after “transitioning”?

[CEB]

Good rant here.
Nancy Kelley being the CEO of stonewall

[oxo]

But please, by all means explain what “living as a man” means if a woman can be actually pregnant while doing it…

I can't, obviously -- in addition to the fact that I'm not a trans man, I'd imagine 'what it means' is different for different people. If you're genuinely interested in their experiences, there are some nice articles knocking about online that give some insight into the experiences of a handful of pregnant trans men:

Two from the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -mcconnell
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... son-barker

And from the US:
https://www.today.com/health/trans-pare ... id=related
https://www.today.com/health/thomas-bea ... an-t223681

Trans men are a useful stand in here though, but the reality is that the reason trans activism wants to use gender neutral language for pregnancy is...

I don't think trans men are a stand-in for anything. I reckon when they say they don't like being referred to as women, mothers, etc, they are expressing their honest preferences, and so people are trying to use more accommodating language.

As for how this relates to trans women, if anything I'd say describing women as 'people with wombs' or 'people who breastfeed' or whatever explicitly excludes them, so I'm not convinced that they're somehow secretly behind this.

[CEB]

But please, by all means explain what “living as a man” means if a woman can be actually pregnant while doing it…

I can't, obviously -- in addition to the fact that I'm not a trans man, I'd imagine 'what it means' is different for different people. If you're genuinely interested in their experiences, there are some nice articles knocking about online that give some insight into the experiences of a handful of pregnant trans men:

Two from the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -mcconnell
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... son-barker

And from the US:
https://www.today.com/health/trans-pare ... id=related
https://www.today.com/health/thomas-bea ... an-t223681

Trans men are a useful stand in here though, but the reality is that the reason trans activism wants to use gender neutral language for pregnancy is...

I don't think trans men are a stand-in for anything. I reckon when they say they don't like being referred to as women, mothers, etc, they are expressing their honest preferences, and so people are trying to use more accommodating language.

As for how this relates to trans women, if anything I'd say describing women as 'people with wombs' or 'people who breastfeed' or whatever explicitly excludes them, so I'm not convinced that they're somehow secretly behind this.

If the meaning of something is different to different people, and those advocating for that sense of internal belief are unable to provide any eligibility criteria for a given category, then you no longer have a category. You haven’t demonstrated that trans men are men, you’ve just attempted to remove any meaning from the words we have to differentiate between male humans and female humans.

Thanks for your attempt to patronise, but believe it or not, since I’m coming at this from a left wing, progressive perspective I am aware to the point of utter boredom of the experiences of the thick as mince Freddy McConnell. Fred’s experiences are that of a female person experiencing pregnancy after undergoing hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria. I’m interested in why you think that would categorise Fred into the category “men” alongside me. The only possible answer you have to that is that the category has no meaning at all as far as you’re concerned.

So, unless you can give a non sexist, meaningful definition of the word “man” that isn’t circular, I don’t believe you have anything useful to say on the topic.

[StillSpike]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

[oxo]

Thanks for your attempt to patronise

I wasn't trying to patronise you -- though I honestly did doubt that you were genuinely interested in the experiences of trans men (which on reflection is maybe a mistake as you're obviously a thoughtful person, so I'm sorry about that), because you seemed quite convinced that people who talk about trans men in this way are doing it to somehow further the cause of trans women.

I also genuinely meant that I thought some of the articles were nice (some of the people have managed to form quite beautiful and loving family relationships under quite challenging circumstances), but I appreciate that it's quite a fluffy word and it could easily be misconstrued as rudeness. It feels like you might be projecting hostility onto me, which isn't totally surprising as you've been pretty rude to several others in this thread so far.

In our previous exchanges, I feel that I've been quite polite to you, and I have conceded multiple times that I might be misreading or misunderstanding you, and in return you've asserted with seeming certainty that I don't understand the terms of the argument in general, and that even the idea that this might be considered a complicated subject is a stupid/sexist/regressive/bullshit position.

I don’t believe you have anything useful to say on the topic.

Not useful to you maybe, and that's fair enough. I think I stated from the outset that I didn't think I'd be able to debate you to your satisfaction, and that I didn't expect to able to change your mind.

[CEB]

I’m open to changing your mind if you engage with substance.

My question is - do you apply any criteria to the categories “man” and “woman”, if so, what is that criteria? And if not, do you understand that many female people maintain that actually, they are going to say “no” to language being divorced from meaning when it impacts on their ability to organise as a sex class, and to have spaces and resources based on sex.

What I think is rude - and maintain that you are doing - is avoiding the substance of a progressive pushback against what trans activism actually says. Presumably you think trans men are men. If so, then you’re going to need to explain what your working definition of “man” is, and accept that if you can’t give one, then you aren’t actual;y saying anything meaningful - it’s not an insult, it’s demonstrable; if “man” has no inherent meaning, then your assertion that “trans men are men” is not actually asseting anything other than adherence to an ideology.

[CEB]

I don’t buy that this is due to me “debating skills”. The reason I can debate this is because I know the subject, and understand the inconsistency of trans activism. I’m very happy to engage with you about those inconsistencies, if you are willing and able to actually talk a point through with me logically

[CEB]