| ▲ | jl6 4 days ago |
| It’s not that confusing. “Has a womb” is not a common definition of “woman”. Women don’t stop being women after having a hysterectomy. The woman in question is a woman because her sexual differentiation followed the female pathway. Just because in her case that pathway led to a DSD variant doesn’t undo the rest of her female development or make her a little bit less of a woman, or male, or a third sex. |
|
| ▲ | ben_w 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| There's at least four common definitions of "woman", and I have in fact seen people use "has a womb" as one of them despite, as you may guess, all the people piling on immediately with a reply along the lines of what you yourself say — that this would exclude women who have had a hysterectomy. The other three I've commonly seen are: (1) as you suggest, developmental pathway — which tends to trip people up over androgen insensitivity, and is also why puberty blockers are part of the public debate (2) chromosomes — which has the problem of 0.6-1.0% of the population doing something else besides the normal XX/XY and (3) current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public, and also in private by anyone who has had top surgery but not bottom surgery. |
| |
| ▲ | aisenik 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Why do you use the the Nazi demographic term "transvestite?" (also, you should just not talk about trans people as you display immense ignorance in a very short time, you clearly have a concept of trans bodies that is rooted in fascist propaganda: trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery). | | |
| ▲ | arrowsmith 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I promise I'm asking this question in good faith because I would genuinely love to understand your reasoning: why does the term "transvestite" have anything to do with Nazism? From what I remember, that word was common and acceptable when I was growing up in the 90s, and I don't remember any Nazis using it. Nor did anyone tell me that the word "transvestite" was derogatory or offensive, although if social mores have shifted then fine, I won't say it. What did I miss? | | |
| ▲ | gcr 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | no worries, people typically use “transgender” or “trans” as an umbrella term these days I have heard of folks who claim the label “transveatite” for themselves. Others see it as derogatory. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I suspect there may have been a misunderstanding of my earlier comment that led to this chain. Where I wrote above: > current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public That wasn't a statement about being transgender. I was saying that people judge clothing, and are confused by that clothing. "Public" being about clothing, because there aren't many public places where you're going to see enough skin for anything else to cause confusion. ("vest" as in vestments, clothing). |
| |
| ▲ | aisenik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The emotions fueling my reaction are based on the way I experienced the word as a child in the 80s and 90s, and I could delve deeper into that but it's mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that I experienced the word in hateful ways. In truth, I misspoke when I said "Nazi demographic" and had intended to write "Nazi era demographic," as the word's origination was in its use to describe the nascent trans community in Weimar Germany. In fact, the Nazis disregarded the validity of trans status entirely and the folks we'd regard as trans women today were classified as homosexual men before being subjected to the violence of the Nazi state. Trans men received a different, no less humiliating punishment. The motivation in asking the question, beyond my disgust, is that I have observed a trend on this site of anachronistic language that fell out of favor after being associated with hate speech. It is generally being used in contexts supportive of the prominent far right agenda, and I seek to illuminate the motivations of the commentators who facilitate such odious reversions in discourse. I apologize for my lack of clarity. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The word "transvestite" predates the Nazis by a few decades, coined by someone the Nazis hated because he was gay and Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld > trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery). Transgender people go both directions, not only AMAB but also AFAB. | | |
| ▲ | aisenik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I did intend to type "Nazi era", though I find the clarification is meaningless to the point. I'm all for reclaiming words, but I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." e: The far more interesting discussion is whether the revival of eugenics-era language is justifiable. This is hardly the first example on this site of arrogant commentators casually reviving language that came to be understood as hateful in the 20th century. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular It's the primary term I grew up with in the UK specifically about what is also called cross-dressing. It's also used by one of my favourite comedians, Suzy Eddie Izzard, as self-description ("executive transvestite") before she identified as transgender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard) > Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." 1) Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces. 2) I am informed that many trans women have implants before hormones. In fact, one woman I know openly discussed face surgery as part of her transition. Also: cis women have breast surgery. I'm told most often as a reduction. Facebook, in its complete uselessness, has advertised the surgery to me along with dick pills. | | |
| ▲ | aisenik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It's bizarre that you try to talk down about trans issues that you are not informed about and label your interlocutor, a trans woman, as transphobic for not highlighting trans men when talking specifically about women. If the answer to why you use the word "transvestite" is "I am steeped in 90s celebrity and watched RHPS" fine, but your disingenuous accusations of transphobia and extreme interest in a topic you seem exceptionally ignorant about fit a corrosive pattern that attempts to shutdown meaningful discussion. The rise of eugenics-era language is deeply concerning and I would actually like to better understand why this site in particular has seen an increase of commentary using regressive 20th century language. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I am very confused by your response. I listed a bunch of different *common* definitions of "what is a woman" and showed that *all of them have flaws*. It's the idea of "common sense language" that I'm opposing here, because the reality is much more interesting than such simple definitions. I am also not labelling *you* transphobic at all. It was quite obvious that you are not, even before you stated you are a trans woman. Fun fact: myself, gender fluid. (Huh, first time I've said that in a pubic forum with my name on it…) When I wrote: > Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces. This sentence is not about you. It's a much more general observation, noting what is wrong with *the public discourse*, specifically that transphobes insist on certain definitions which end up with outcomes that they themselves are dissatisfied with. > RHPS While I also watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show in my teens (late 90s), that film (1975) predates me by so much, I wasn't sure if they used "transvestite" to mean "cross dressing" or "transgender". Where I first used the word "transvestite" to your objection, I meant specifically what is also called "cross dressing", because I was talking about *outward appearance in public*, and clothes are the outward appearance in public. That and hair, I guess. My hair is long enough I've had at least one straight guy get half way through a wolf-whistle before noticing a beard. At least, I assume they were straight, given the appearance of a beard was simultaneous with them stopping. |
|
| |
| ▲ | computerthings 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | Dildonics4All 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | crooked-v 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb (https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres...). |
| |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there. from the law > a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system
is developed to produce ova, | | |
| ▲ | gcr 3 days ago | parent [-] | | isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova? “is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something. | | |
| ▲ | belorn 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The answer is a yes, as in, the ovaries can still ovulate even without a uterus. The ovaries also continue to produce hormones, through there are a feedback loop between the uterus and ovaries which get disrupted without a uterus. It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm. | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The uterus itself doesn't have much to do with ova production. Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy? Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tomlockwood 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway? |
| |
| ▲ | jl6 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Depends why you need to know and with what level of accuracy. Just looking at their face is about 96%-98% accurate[0], and becomes even more accurate when other cues are available such as voice, gait, and build. For casual purposes, humans are incredibly good at predicting sex, without any technology or scientific understanding. One might speculate that being able to accurately find a mate is an evolutionary advantage. For the last few fractions of a percent accuracy, a SRY cheek swab test is a simple non-invasive screening test that can flag individuals for further investigation. World Athletics have just implemented this test, stating it is “a highly accurate proxy for biological sex”.[1] A positive result in this screening test could be combined with a finger prick test for testosterone level to provide further information, and at this point we’re into methods of medical diagnosis of DSDs. About 1 in 5000 individuals will have a DSD, some of which are still unambiguously male or female (e.g. XXY Klinefelter syndrome), and some of which are almost unique individuals that defy categorization. At this point, it is popular to seize on those rare individuals and declare “aha! So sex isn’t binary then! So it must be a spectrum!”, and while this is surely well-intentioned, it is scientifically illiterate.[2] I suspect part of the confusion is interpreting “binary” as a mathematical Boolean value (where exceptions cannot, by definition, exist) rather than as a scientific classification, where exceptions can and do exist and “prove the rule”. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892... [1] https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.am... [2] https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectr... | | |
| ▲ | bryan_w 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The question was: >What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway? You've managed to provide 0 tests that conclusively answer the question. | | |
| ▲ | jl6 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If your target level of accuracy is 100%, there is probably no medical test that can show anything. Did you know there is no conclusive test for Alzheimer’s, IBS, migraines, and dozens more physical conditions, nor for any psychiatric condition? Do you think these aren’t real, or that they cannot be discerned to a useful degree of accuracy? | | |
| ▲ | bryan_w 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well that's why when the law is concerned, it usually defers identification to a trained professional (e.g. as determined by a doctor ). Besides that, there are things you can determine with certainty: The presence of a substance in blood for example | | |
| ▲ | jl6 a day ago | parent [-] | | A physical examination by a doctor, possibly augmented by imaging, is an excellent way to determine sex if previous observations and tests have been ambiguous. This is rarely a great difficulty, but when it is, it's how DSDs get diagnosed. |
| |
| ▲ | tomlockwood a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | So which tests with which results would you rely on? | | |
| ▲ | jl6 a day ago | parent [-] | | Which bit are you having difficulty understanding? Make trivial observations if you want moderate accuracy (~99%), use a cheek swab or genetic test if you want greater accuracy, consult a doctor if you are still unsure. | | |
| ▲ | tomlockwood 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which part of my question are you having difficulty understanding? If this is so important and accurate surely you can name and explain the important and accurate tests, and their results. Maybe it isn't as simple as you say? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tomlockwood 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So the SRY cheek swab test that the IOC ruled ineffective before the 2000 Olympics is what you think is accurate? Interesting. | | |
| ▲ | jl6 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It is a screening test, not a diagnostic test. False positives are possible, but so are followup tests for those cases. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | googlryas 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do you suppose such a test could even exist? |
|
|
| ▲ | gcr 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| A friend of mine takes estrogen and has breasts, feminine voice, etc. Her body’s arguably taken both sexual differentiation pathways over the years. I think even this definition isn’t so clear-cut. |
| |
| ▲ | jl6 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Body modification through technology doesn’t really encroach on the scientific classification of the natural world. The Vacanti mouse which had an apparent human ear grown on its back was an amazing thing in its own right, but its existence doesn’t mean we need to update our understanding of what a mouse is. |
|
