(I’m just trying to learn. No hidden mockery in this and this is no gotcha bs aimed at t women. I’m NOT transphobic. Just saw this in a debate and wanted to know other people’s thoughts)
I just want to know:
- Is this factually correct?
- If it is, does it matter? Why or why not?
- How would you logically respond to this?
- How does this statement not contradict with Trans Women are Women
There are a lot of good points here, but one that I feel often gets overlooked at times like this is in the history of a person’s experience.
Completely sidestepping the debate, let’s assume a trans woman is a woman. What we’re acknowledging here is that this person lived some of her life as a boy or man. This would include the various biases of that.
A (biological) woman would have lived with a single set of biases and challenges. In addition to the huge experiences around child birth, female reproductive health is seriously under provided for. I’ve met many women with ongoing health issues related to it that appear to be sidelined or completely ignored by medical science.
Trans women clearly have their own challenges, but their societal biases would be different as would their possible health issues.
This leads to me believe that we might view a person outwardly as being a woman, but being a biological woman or a trans woman leads to different sets of life experiences that would likely have significant influences on a person’s worldview, modes of communication, hobbies, interests etc.
I’d say that a trans woman is a “woman” now, but in not having lived as a girl or young woman that she is a trans woman. In the same way that a (biological) woman is not and never will be a trans woman.
The history of someone’s experience isn’t captured by the term “biological” it is in the terms “trans” and “cis”.
“Biological sex” is broken down into different categories. Chromosomal, Horomonal and Phenotypic. Chromosomes hardly need an introduction, it’s the DNA programming that under most common conditions creates the blueprints for the other two forms. However this isn’t always how it happens.
Phenotypic sex is all the physical structures that conform to different expressions of sex. Genetailia, internal organs, differences in physical structure between male/female.
Hormonal sex characteristics is the group of chemicals the body releases to change the body and support adult maturation of Phenotypic sex characteristics. It also changes the biochemical makeup of the body, including the brain, so the body allocates resources differently and responds to things like stress and medications differently.
When a trans person goes on hormones or receives surgeries their Phenotypic structures change to conform to their new gender which mean in a real rubber to road kind of way they stop having as much medically in common with their birth sex as the sex they transitioned to. If you give a trans woman the “biologically male recommended” medication dosages of something like sleeping pills they are going to be taking way too much because that medication interacts differently with the Phenotypic and hormonal tissues of women which her body now conforms to.
The concept of “biological woman/man” is actually a fairly dangerous concept in the medical world because the assumption created by that framework often create errors of medical care expectations which put trans people in actual danger of poor dosages or completely wrong expectations of navigating their personal biology.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your efforts to share your perspective. However, from my perspective you’ve reinforced my point. These definitions look at the situation as an instantaneous snapshot, i.e. as the person is now, and not where they were or their life history. A person’s life history is, I believe, a much greater indicator of the kind of person they are than a reductionist breakdown of their biochemical makeup.
Also, I reject the term “cis” on the basis that the words “woman” and “man” have already been defined. These are pefectly valid and were for centuries. The invocation of the modifier “cis” today is a passive acknowledgement of logical fallacy of the phrase that 'a trans wo/man is a wo/man". A woman is a woman and a trans woman is a trans woman. Any other perspective is either disrespectful or overreach.
This is, unfortunately, a very unkind way to interface with the mental situation of transness.
You are looking at this from the perspective that wants to categorize based on your distinct values. You want to determine effectively whether a trans person is effectively really “entitled” to being called what they want to be called. The tagline “a trans woman is a woman” is unfortunate because it is a slogan that doesn’t give the full account of why it is important and the whole situation is muddied by the fact that the wider concept of gender performativty actually has almost nothing to do with what trans people are actually experiencing.
Logical fallacy wise stating that something was determined by historical precedent is also a fallacy. It’s called an “appeal to tradition”.
What is happening culturally with trans people is an attempt based off the findings of years of intensive psychological research to create sociological tools to ease the burdens of a minority population. It might be effective to conceptualize this as language being a technology and that technology effectively being applied as medicine. The people who value the comfort, and quite frankly an expanded lifespan, of trans people adopt this framework but, because to be successful it requires participation. Ideally they teach other people the reasons why it’s important to the point they will happily adopt it but that isn’t wholly nessisary. As long as someone is treating say, a trans man by using his name and pronouns and not assuming his behaviour to conform to feminine restrictions then effectively the “medicine” works. Hence “trans men are men” ie treat a trans man - as you would a man. An expectation squished into a narrow confine with all nuance removed.
The reason “biological woman” expressly doesn’t work is what trans people are responding to is almost completely their own biology. The cultural stuff about gender is kind of just layered on top. What they are responding to when someone uses pronouns is their own physical state. Say you kept calling a trans woman “he/him” what that is doing isn’t impacting some attempt at manifesting some spiritual form of womanhood - you are demonstrating you are veiwing her body, seeing phenotypic masculine characteristics and reporting them back to her. Her brain is wired to pair that with a stress reaction. To her those parts of her body are things she desperately wishes doesn’t exist because veiwing them, interfacing them sometimes touching them - is abhorrent. What you are doing when you use people’s pronouns is effectivly creating a mirror of words. The only question is whether that mirror of words is kind to the viewer. Does it reflect the things that soothe or does it reflect the things that cause strain? That’s something the speaker of those words controls because the trans person is powerless in this regard which mirror the speaker will offer them.
Saying “biological woman” aloud in front of a trans woman is effectively indistinguishable from the mental reaction you would create by calling her a man. You are reminding her that both to you and probably to herself that her body is a compromise she has to live with. She’s effectively doing everything she can but it will never be enough not just for you… But for her.
When the compromise of living in an imperfect situation becomes too burdensome not living becomes a more viable solution. It won’t kill every trans person on it’s own but paired with other factors it tips the scale an outsized amount. The reason the historical definition of man and woman is the way it is is because as a population trans people were veiwed as deviant, weird, lead by devils into perversion and a public nuisance and them being miserable was culturally a perfectly fine outcome. Them being miserable in private until they were overwhelmed and killed themselves or being treated as circus freaks- not really a problem.
In modern day we generally hope for better.
And so you should! If I knew someone would want to be known as a “man” or “woman”, then I would use those terms. However, responding appropriately to that wish might not mean that I’d be blind to the fact the subject is a trans wo/man. There’s simply unlikely to be any reason to point that out.
Similarly, I’m happy with being a “man”. I don’t really care if others regard me as a “cis man”, but I might ask that term is dropped if it’s used directly about or to me. I don’t and never will recognise the term.
I’ll happily use the appropriate pronouns, etc, but as mentioned before, I cannot regard trans women as belonging to the same category as what I am calling here “biological women” because they haven’t grown up and lived as women. I mentioned before about female reproduction and reproductive health. It cannot be understated how huge this can be for many women. Periods, period products, period pains, impacts on histamine sensitivies, getting pregnant, ecotopic prenancies, miscarriages, endometriosis, an “incompetant” cervix, still birth, premature birth, full term birth, breast feeding… The list goes on. For sure, these things don’t wholly define what it is to be a woman, but it sure as hell helps shape the bodies and minds of the only group of people who make all of us. To forget or ignore that is disrespectful to women, in my opinion.
It doesn’t matter how much a trans woman claims to want to be a part of this group, or how upset she gets at the likes of me for saying otherwise, but she will never be a part of that group. I would never say that the particular journey or struggles of a trans woman are less significant, but they are fundamentally different and for that reason it puts them in a similar, but different group.
What you are describing here is actually the holy grail of attainment for trans women. They don’t want to just be culturally a woman- The lack of these physical experience, even the bad stuff, hurts them. They want for it so badly. Phrasing it this way is a bit like flaunting riches before the poor. The number of trans women I know who would sell their soul for periods and just the potential opportunity for childbirth…
The future is a indertminate place but full functional fertility is the ultimate goal of trans healthcare and the odds are if science keeps on keeping on someone will eventually crack the code in the future.
You are of course entitled to your opinion or to care about as much or as little as you like.Your framework, as is, would be barely acceptable for a being a casual acquaintance of a trans person. For myself if I heard you air these thoughts aloud in a place of work I as a trans man would still try and avoid being around you whenever possible for my health. It would be a hurtful were I a trans person with any kind of close personal relationship to you, but I am not. I would just find you vaguely unpleasant as is my prerogative and avoid you the same way I would someone who spouts more widely culturally understood negativity in my direction.
You assume I would spout these opinions in a place of work? Well yeah, I wouldn’t want to be around someone who did that. To me there’s a clear line between having an opinion and sharing an opinion that runs the risk of hurting someone else. I’m sharing here only because that’s the point of this discussion.
But you’re saying that you think I’m out of line for pointing out an objective difference between women and trans women? A difference that you say trans women wish doesn’t exist but which does? A wish that you say I should respect by pretending that difference doesn’t exist?
Let me make clear. I would never air these thoughts in the company of someone who I had the faintest suspicion would get upset. If you don’t care for this discussion, feel free to tell me to “fuck off”. I’m genuinely confused by what’s going on and would like to discover if there’s a learning opportunity here.
Here’s what defending terms like"biological woman" sound like to trans people.
"Oh I wish to be VERY clear. When I say trans -I mean fake. You may call yourself whatever you want but in the end it is presumptuous because at the end of the day you aren’t real. You are your biology , inescapably, until the day you die to me regardless of how society treats you now. No matter what forces of misogyny are enacted upon you daily it is presumptuous to lump yourself in with a group unless you have the innate physical experience fate cheated you of and you mourn the lack of every day. No someone might hunt you down and hurt you for not being man enough. They might rape or traffic you like a woman. You might lose your upper body strength and become vulnerable in the same ways women are and be subject to the institutional inequities they face… But You will always be a man because birth is everything. You can’t have babies after all. You might want them desperately just like any other woman who fate cheated fertility from but in your case it’s different isn’t it?
And don’t be presumptuous to think you understand their experiences!
I am real and I am just fine in my gender. I am implying subtly that you should be too. Being a man is fine I have never had a problem with it and I think you do probably as some kind of weird sexual kink and we do not change our opinions for weird sexual kinks.
No I won’t use your terms but I will do the bare minimum play pretend for you to your face, poor darling, in a way that makes ME comfortable. But the reality is you don’t belong in the same spaces as women. No you are woMAN and I am going to use terms that remind you of that, that signal that I support you being treated as a fake woman. Oh, you want me to adopt a term that acknowledges both you and women as being more similar than different? Well I didn’t chose it or vote for it at council! Never mind nobody asked you if “trans” was the brush you wanted to be tarred with no I am a man and trans men are fake men thats what trans means after all. Why should I allow myself to be called anything? It’s my birthright to be treated as the default! God or chance put you in the position both of us are in and there really isn’t anything anyone can do about takingthe bite out of that is there? Sorry friend Deus vult!"
The only real difference is tone.
Honestly. I thank you for your candour, and I can totally see your point. This is why I’m only sharing opinions here that I’ve honestly never shared and am unlikely to share anywhere else. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to them.
There are a couple edge cases that I’m still struggling with. Firstly, I think there should be women’s-only spaces. A long time ago I did a couple of summer’s work for a ground’s maintenance company. One of the jobs was at a women’s refuge. I presume the people (women and children) there were mostly fleeing domestic abuse. I’ll never forget the look of fear in their collective eyes through the windows and doors as I worked with the two other men trimming hedges and mowing lawns on the property. Clearly their mistrust of men was such that they would be unlikely to accept a trans woman, and I would say asking people like that to make concessions for others would be a step too far. Maybe when they’re stronger, and happier? But not there, in that place.
You’ve outlined very well why there isn’t a reductionist, measurable unit of ‘womanhood’. Either in cells, chromosomes or in some other aspect of our biochemical makeup. I agree with you! I’ve made the case that a better measure of ‘womanhood’ can be found in a more holistic view of the life experiences associated with cis women. I pointed to female reproduction and reproductive health as a specific example. There is another example that I struggle with…
Trans women athletes competing as women in sports. The statistics show that regardless of the instantaneous measures of womanhood through measures of blood testosterone, trans women athletes clearly have a physical advantage over cis women for having a musculature and biomechanical development that likely took place during a period of elevated testosterone. To me this again shows how life history plays a significant part in the nature of the woman (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9331831/ ).
What you’ve outlined is a view that accepts a trans woman as a woman. What, from the moment she decides to take that path? Even before she’s applied the first hormone patch? What about the men who were abusive rapists and who decide to transition right before sentencing? Should they be put in an all-women’s prison? I don’t want people to suffer, regardless of sex, gender or orientation, but frankly, the complexities around issues like these make me see that classifications based on life histories are far simpler for other people with sensitivies and needs.
It almost feels like you’re saying the term trans wo/man is an insult. I’ve never considered that before. Is there no room for a trans wo/man to own that phrase and the full reality of their situation? Why are trans people not proud of who they are, what they’ve been through, and where they are, up to an including the things that medical science cannot give them?
There are cis women with primary amenorrhea and infertility. They do not have periods, they can not get pregnant.
Are they not women?
Another life history experience that I didn’t know about or include on the list.