Current Events > Do you consider Trans Women real Women?

(+) Yeah! (+)

So my issue is this

ilfait posted...

"that transgendered person is a person; an individual with strengths and failings, and thoughts and feelings unique to him or her as a person."

That is already how I feel. But at the same time, when it comes down to it, such as a question like this, they are still the gender they were born as. Nothing can ever change that

I feel like a lot of people tend to misconstrue the majority's argument, thinking that we are calling for the heads of transgenders or trying to outlaw it. This is America, you can do whatever the fuck you want. You want to get surgeries and claim you're a man or a woman or a dragon like the one in game of thrones? Go for it. It's the attempted normalization of it when there is a 40% suicide rate attached to it (and a very high regret rate) as well as people arguing that you are a shitbag (like that one guy in this topic, shockthemonkey I think it was) if you feel otherwise, that is where the issues are

TC I'll first need your definition of what a "real woman" is. If you mean real as in biologically born a woman, then no.
---

Dudes a dude in my eyes, inverted penis or regular one. IDGAF what they do or say, long as no one's getting hurt.
---

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

Obviously an hyperbolic example but that's the road the yes people are going down by making that argument, yea

Edit- you don't even need to do the surgery or take hormones. The yes people usually don't argue that, just that if you "feel" like the opposite sex, you are. This poll also indicates that as well, only a small percentage picked the yes only with surgery option

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

That would be a big headache for the left.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

Better yet, what if Trump doesn't chop off his penis or take hormones. He just says he's female.
---

Squall28 posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

Better yet, what if Trump doesn't chop off his penis or take hormones. He just says he's female.

I'd quicker believe if he said he was a shit-head.
---

Squall28 posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

Better yet, what if Trump doesn't chop off his penis or take hormones. He just says he's female.

It would be the funniest thing next to him winning the election.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

If he was genuine and not trolling, sure.

Might think he is an awful person, but doesn't change if he is trans or not. Same with Caitlyn Jenner and Sayoria.
---

not__shawn__z posted...

So my issue is this

ilfait posted...

"that transgendered person is a person; an individual with strengths and failings, and thoughts and feelings unique to him or her as a person."

That is already how I feel. But at the same time, when it comes down to it, such as a question like this, they are still the gender they were born as. Nothing can ever change that

I feel like a lot of people tend to misconstrue the majority's argument, thinking that we are calling for the heads of transgenders or trying to outlaw it. This is America, you can do whatever the fuck you want. You want to get surgeries and claim you're a man or a woman or a dragon like the one in game of thrones? Go for it. It's the attempted normalization of it when there is a 40% suicide rate attached to it (and a very high regret rate) as well as people arguing that you are a shitbag (like that one guy in this topic, shockthemonkey I think it was) if you feel otherwise, that is where the issues are

It's how I already feel as well, and it's possible that even the majority of people (in North America at least) feel that way; I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the perception so often portrayed by news outlets etc. is a skewed one. But it also doesn't take a majority for a person or group to be unjustly treated. What I'm saying is that I hope that gradually people will become even better at considering other people as individuals, and I think it's inevitable that this will eventually happen through positive exposure to visibly different "types" of people.

I also agree with you that it's dangerous to prioritize the normalization of dangerous behaviour in a way that obfuscates the dangers from susceptible people. And gender transitioning does seem dangerous, from what I know and suspect, and should ideally be undertaken by people who fully understand the risks.

Squall28 posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

Better yet, what if Trump doesn't chop off his penis or take hormones. He just says he's female.

I mean that worked with his transition from being a Democrat to the Republican party...
---

Real people, sure. Real women? No.
---

Hexenherz posted...

Squall28 posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If Donald Trump chop off his penis, start taking hormones and identify as a woman, would you consider him to be the first female president?

Better yet, what if Trump doesn't chop off his penis or take hormones. He just says he's female.

I mean that worked with his transition from being a Democrat to the Republican party...

I always found it funny that people try to use this disparagingly. I find it the opposite; I think it's a bad thing if you have voted blindly democrat or republican your whole life

trans women are women
trans men are men
---

ilfait posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

We're talking about socialization in human society, not scientifical classification. Speaking about unfeasible, do you refer to other people as "hey, you humans/homo sapiens over there"? Should we do brain scans before we diagnose autism or depression because they might not biologically have it? If brain transplants start becoming a thing in the future, a dog in a human body would still fit all the classifications of a human and their sex but are you going to say that "human" is the same person they were before the transplant?
There's also the aspect that the current system might be outdated and you want to literally deny the reality that they have the brains of the opposite gender because "it isn't feasible" which contradicts your whole "we've got to do everything scientifically accurate" approach.

When I talk about feasibility I mean it in the sense of scientific classification, I don't mean it in the sense of what we should refer to people as on a daily basis in social interraction. We obviously refer to strangers as what we superficially perceive them to be throughout the course of our daily lives.

Should we do brain scans on people to determine if they're autistic or have depression? Yes, if that's what's required to meet the definition, and if our goal is to classify a person as autistic or depressive.

I think that the simplest answer is to say that it's a human body with a dog's brain stuck into its skull.

I'm not saying that the classification must not take brain structure into consideration, or that scientific classifications can't and should not evolve to be better, more accurate, more useful etc. I'm saying that behavioural characteristics right now, whether represented physically in a brain scan or not, do not define gender.

Pluto was a planet, and now it's not. Through, I suppose (I don't know a lot about astronomy), a combination of our understanding of Pluto, and a decision to change the criteria of classification, we now call it a dwarf planet. The same type of process could happen with organisms. Classification of what biologically constitutes a man or a woman could evolve. A person born with a vagina but with brain features consistent with and exclusive to one half of humanity, could in future be classified as a male, or, more realistically, the human equivalent of the distinction given to Pluto.

If we wanted to be scientifically accurate as possible then yes, we should take brain structure into account when we determine gender. Of course, it's "unfeasible" as you say, but it's also unfeasible (and why we don't actually do it) to brain scan someone everytime a professional diagnoses someone with autism or depression. But if you are for that, then unless you're inconsistent, then you'd be for using brain structure to determine the true gender too.
And about the dog thing, then it's simple as well. A transgender person is an opposite sex brain in the body of the opposite sex.
A lot of people here just seem uninformed of how transgenderism works. Studies have shown consistent transgender individuals have been that way since a very young age. Trump hasn't expressed anything about being female or having gender dysphasia in his entire life so it's 99% likely that if he suddenly just brought it up he's bullshitting. Don't forget that trained professionals also officially confirm if someone is truly transgender or not because they give hormones, sex surgery etc.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

Trump hasn't expressed anything about being female or having gender dysphasia in his entire life so it's 99% likely that if he suddenly just brought it up he's bulls***ting. Don't forget that trained professionals also officially confirm if someone is truly transgender or not because they give hormones, sex surgery etc.

But using the people who are voting yes' own logic. And I don't actually mean this at all so please don't take offense to it, lol, but this would be the response- you're a bigot. Of course he wasn't open about it. It's hard to be open about it. Who are you to tell him how he really feels?

Additionally as noted by this poll, most people think surgeries and hormones are irrelevant

GiftedACIII posted...

If we wanted to be scientifically accurate as possible then yes, we should take brain structure into account when we determine gender.

Reproduction has always been the core of what sex is about, and sex is what most people think about in regards to being a man or woman.
---

not__shawn__z posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Trump hasn't expressed anything about being female or having gender dysphasia in his entire life so it's 99% likely that if he suddenly just brought it up he's bulls***ting. Don't forget that trained professionals also officially confirm if someone is truly transgender or not because they give hormones, sex surgery etc.

But using the people who is voting yes' own logic. And I don't actually mean this at all so please don't take offense to it, lol, but this would be the response- you're a bigot. Of course he wasn't open about it. It's hard to be open about it. Who are you to tell him how he really feels?

Additionally as noted by this poll, most people think surgeries and hormones are irrelevant

Yeah, I despise leftist extremists. Unlike them I don't go by emotion and feelings, I go by science and logic. If the brain scan shows they're not what they say they are, then they're wrong. I definitely do believe there are plenty of "trans" people who aren't legitimate and are just using it for various reasons; attention, reputation, going through a phase etc. This is why I actually don't believe Jenners is genuine. He's made many remarks that imply he's just doing it for attention and doesn't truly have felt he's been a women since his earliest childhood memories.
---

Squall28 posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

If we wanted to be scientifically accurate as possible then yes, we should take brain structure into account when we determine gender.

Reproduction has always been the core of what sex is about, and sex is what most people think about in regards to being a man or woman.

Not really. In fiction, when people get their brains changed around, people always refer to the brain as their name and gender, not whatever the switched body is.
In real life, there are many intersex individuals who have all kinds of abnormal aspects. There are xx chromosome penises, there are people whose genitalia changes there are people with no visible genitalia. It's pretty ignorant to just go by the surface and broad definition. Not to mention some people just can't reproduce period.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

not__shawn__z posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Trump hasn't expressed anything about being female or having gender dysphasia in his entire life so it's 99% likely that if he suddenly just brought it up he's bulls***ting. Don't forget that trained professionals also officially confirm if someone is truly transgender or not because they give hormones, sex surgery etc.

But using the people who is voting yes' own logic. And I don't actually mean this at all so please don't take offense to it, lol, but this would be the response- you're a bigot. Of course he wasn't open about it. It's hard to be open about it. Who are you to tell him how he really feels?

Additionally as noted by this poll, most people think surgeries and hormones are irrelevant

Yeah, I despise leftist extremists. Unlike them I don't go by emotion and feelings, I go by science and logic. If the brain scan shows they're not what they say they are, then they're wrong. I definitely do believe there are plenty of "trans" people who aren't legitimate and are just using it for various reasons; attention, reputation, going through a phase etc. This is why I actually don't believe Jenners is genuine. He's made many remarks that imply he's just doing it for attention and doesn't truly have felt he's been a women since his earliest childhood memories.

Let's say that about half of humanity has one of two possible types of brain structures: type A and type B; type A is almost always found in people with a vagina, and type B is almost always found in people with a penis. If someone who was born with a vagina, has the organs associated with giving birth, and has a hormonal balance and musculature roughly in line with other people who have the same organs; but the brain scan shows a type B structure (the type usually associated with people who have a penis), then how should that person's gender be classified? Should every other aspect be ignored in favour of the structure of the brain? If that were the case, to me it seems like the only steps that make sense would be to do something like add two new classifications, or to say that it's possible for either a male or female to have a "type A"-like or "type B"-like brain structure.

Not that I think scientific classification in this case is all that important anyway. Socially I don't think it matters much. And scientifically it's what we learn about the nature of people that's important; not so much how we name things.

ilfait posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

not__shawn__z posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Trump hasn't expressed anything about being female or having gender dysphasia in his entire life so it's 99% likely that if he suddenly just brought it up he's bulls***ting. Don't forget that trained professionals also officially confirm if someone is truly transgender or not because they give hormones, sex surgery etc.

But using the people who is voting yes' own logic. And I don't actually mean this at all so please don't take offense to it, lol, but this would be the response- you're a bigot. Of course he wasn't open about it. It's hard to be open about it. Who are you to tell him how he really feels?

Additionally as noted by this poll, most people think surgeries and hormones are irrelevant

Yeah, I despise leftist extremists. Unlike them I don't go by emotion and feelings, I go by science and logic. If the brain scan shows they're not what they say they are, then they're wrong. I definitely do believe there are plenty of "trans" people who aren't legitimate and are just using it for various reasons; attention, reputation, going through a phase etc. This is why I actually don't believe Jenners is genuine. He's made many remarks that imply he's just doing it for attention and doesn't truly have felt he's been a women since his earliest childhood memories.

Let's say that about half of humanity has one of two possible types of brain structures: type A and type B; type A is almost always found in people with a vagina, and type B is almost always found in people with a penis. If someone who was born with a vagina, has the organs associated with giving birth, and has a hormonal balance and musculature roughly in line with other people who have the same organs; but the brain scan shows a type B structure (the type usually associated with people who have a penis), then how should that person's gender be classified? Should every other aspect be ignored in favour of the structure of the brain? If that were the case, to me it seems like the only steps that make sense would be to do something like adding two new classifications, or saying that it's possible for either a male or female to have a "type A"-like or "type B"-like brain structure.

Their body is female, their brain is male. "Who" a person is, their personality, their consciousness is the brain. So as an individual they're male. Is that not logical?
The current system doesn't have a means to classify this type of stuff yet but that doesn't mean it's accurate. I mean, intersex people as a whole pretty much break the classification system as do other anomalies like conjoined individuals. The classification system is for general and broad purposes. And as you said, it could always change to be more accurate, perhaps pointing out there's a difference between the brain and the rest of the body.
---

They deserve their rights and to be called a she.

But they really aren't the same as actual women.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

ilfait posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

not__shawn__z posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Trump hasn't expressed anything about being female or having gender dysphasia in his entire life so it's 99% likely that if he suddenly just brought it up he's bulls***ting. Don't forget that trained professionals also officially confirm if someone is truly transgender or not because they give hormones, sex surgery etc.

But using the people who is voting yes' own logic. And I don't actually mean this at all so please don't take offense to it, lol, but this would be the response- you're a bigot. Of course he wasn't open about it. It's hard to be open about it. Who are you to tell him how he really feels?

Additionally as noted by this poll, most people think surgeries and hormones are irrelevant

Yeah, I despise leftist extremists. Unlike them I don't go by emotion and feelings, I go by science and logic. If the brain scan shows they're not what they say they are, then they're wrong. I definitely do believe there are plenty of "trans" people who aren't legitimate and are just using it for various reasons; attention, reputation, going through a phase etc. This is why I actually don't believe Jenners is genuine. He's made many remarks that imply he's just doing it for attention and doesn't truly have felt he's been a women since his earliest childhood memories.

Let's say that about half of humanity has one of two possible types of brain structures: type A and type B; type A is almost always found in people with a vagina, and type B is almost always found in people with a penis. If someone who was born with a vagina, has the organs associated with giving birth, and has a hormonal balance and musculature roughly in line with other people who have the same organs; but the brain scan shows a type B structure (the type usually associated with people who have a penis), then how should that person's gender be classified? Should every other aspect be ignored in favour of the structure of the brain? If that were the case, to me it seems like the only steps that make sense would be to do something like adding two new classifications, or saying that it's possible for either a male or female to have a "type A"-like or "type B"-like brain structure.

Their body is female, their brain is male. "Who" a person is, their personality, their consciousness is the brain. So as an individual they're male. Is that not logical?
The current system doesn't have a means to classify this type of stuff yet but that doesn't mean it's accurate. I mean, intersex people as a whole pretty much break the classification system as do other abnormalities like conjoined individuals. The classification system is for general and broad purposes. And as you said, it could always change to be more accurate, perhaps pointing out there's a difference between the brain and the rest of the body.

I mostly agree with you, though to say that the body is female and the brain is male isn't the only reasonable option. You could also say that females can have a brain structure more like one that's usually found in males. You could also say that when someone with a female body has a brain structure that's commonly male, then that person is something different--a gender with a different name. You could say that a person born with a female body and a "male brain" is a male, but I think that makes less sense.

It's not that who you are is less important than what you are metaphysically; who you are is far more important. But in scientific gender classification, I think that "what you are" is more important.

Conflict posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

hey guys *poke*

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

I'm not surprised that you don't know what "typically" means

in most cases; usually.
"the quality of work is typically very high"
with the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing.
adverb: typically
"typically masculine social roles"
in a way that is characteristic of a particular person or thing.
---

I keep hearing about gendered brains but am left wondering why they're mentioned if they're not used to imply something.
---

ilfait posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

ilfait posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

not__shawn__z posted...

But using the people who is voting yes' own logic. And I don't actually mean this at all so please don't take offense to it, lol, but this would be the response- you're a bigot. Of course he wasn't open about it. It's hard to be open about it. Who are you to tell him how he really feels?

Additionally as noted by this poll, most people think surgeries and hormones are irrelevant

Yeah, I despise leftist extremists. Unlike them I don't go by emotion and feelings, I go by science and logic. If the brain scan shows they're not what they say they are, then they're wrong. I definitely do believe there are plenty of "trans" people who aren't legitimate and are just using it for various reasons; attention, reputation, going through a phase etc. This is why I actually don't believe Jenners is genuine. He's made many remarks that imply he's just doing it for attention and doesn't truly have felt he's been a women since his earliest childhood memories.

Let's say that about half of humanity has one of two possible types of brain structures: type A and type B; type A is almost always found in people with a vagina, and type B is almost always found in people with a penis. If someone who was born with a vagina, has the organs associated with giving birth, and has a hormonal balance and musculature roughly in line with other people who have the same organs; but the brain scan shows a type B structure (the type usually associated with people who have a penis), then how should that person's gender be classified? Should every other aspect be ignored in favour of the structure of the brain? If that were the case, to me it seems like the only steps that make sense would be to do something like adding two new classifications, or saying that it's possible for either a male or female to have a "type A"-like or "type B"-like brain structure.

Their body is female, their brain is male. "Who" a person is, their personality, their consciousness is the brain. So as an individual they're male. Is that not logical?
The current system doesn't have a means to classify this type of stuff yet but that doesn't mean it's accurate. I mean, intersex people as a whole pretty much break the classification system as do other abnormalities like conjoined individuals. The classification system is for general and broad purposes. And as you said, it could always change to be more accurate, perhaps pointing out there's a difference between the brain and the rest of the body.

I mostly agree with you, though to say that the body is female and the brain is male isn't the only reasonable option. You could also say that females can have a brain structure more like one that's usually found in males. You could also say that when someone with a female body has a brain structure that's commonly male, then that person is something different--a gender with a different name. You could say that a person born with a female body and a "male brain" is a male, but I think that makes less sense.

It's not that who you are is less important than what you are metaphysically; who you are is far more important. But in scientific gender classification, I think that "what you are" is more important.

Very true. tbh, there is still a lot about the field of neurology that needs to be discovered so I guess we really can't say for certain until more information and research is carried out. We'll likely get the best handle of it if and when things like brain transplants start becoming possible (which probably won't happen in our lifetime but with the technological booms we've seen the past century who knows) so it's best for all of us to keep a more open mind until then.
---

MutantJohn posted...

I keep hearing about gendered brains but am left wondering why they're mentioned if they're not used to imply something.

Related to this, I don't mean to imply that gendered brains do exist. I've seen conflicting studies, and both are fairly new, but I'm arguing with GiftedACIII based on the supposition that brains are clearly gendered.

ilfait posted...

MutantJohn posted...

I keep hearing about gendered brains but am left wondering why they're mentioned if they're not used to imply something.

Related to this, I don't mean to imply that gendered brains do exist. I've seen conflicting studies, and both are fairly new, but I'm arguing with GiftedACIII based on the supposition that brains are clearly gendered.

MutantJohn is one of those people that put sociology and feelings over everything else. The reason he's so averse to it is because the results "might lead to sexism". He even once said biology is a quack science. He still believes in transpeople though... but because it only matters how they feel.
---

ilfait posted...

MutantJohn posted...

I keep hearing about gendered brains but am left wondering why they're mentioned if they're not used to imply something.

Related to this, I don't mean to imply that gendered brains do exist. I've seen conflicting studies, and both are fairly new, but I'm arguing with GiftedACIII based on the supposition that brains are clearly gendered.

I'm just curious about terms and definitions. It's fine to use the terms "male brain" and "female brain" but I'm more curious how these are purported to manifest in terms of behavior.

It's one thing to find a cause for sexual dysphoria and another to create wild assertions about human behavior.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

ilfait posted...

MutantJohn posted...

I keep hearing about gendered brains but am left wondering why they're mentioned if they're not used to imply something.

Related to this, I don't mean to imply that gendered brains do exist. I've seen conflicting studies, and both are fairly new, but I'm arguing with GiftedACIII based on the supposition that brains are clearly gendered.

MutantJohn is one of those people that put sociology and feelings over everything else. The reason he's so averse to it is because the results "might lead to sexism". He even once said biology is a quack science. He still believes in transpeople though... but because it only matters how they feel.

Aw, c'mon; that's the old MutantJohn. Older and wiser MutantJohn is chill, man.
---

Transwomen are not actual women they are men trying to be women.
---

I'm a transgender and even I voted "No". The whole reason I don't do the surgery is because I know that it would never truly give me the physical female body that I desire, and I don't want to mutilate myself for a half-assed attempt. Most of the trans that I know/am friends with feel the same way as I do, so this isn't a unique mindset restricted to me.

I project my true self in digital worlds, and though, at times, it's not sufficient enough for me, I deal with it and I've come to accept my condition and move on with my life. If it ever were possible in my life time (very unlikely) to perfectly transition into a physical female, then I'd go through with it... but we're too limited and I didn't fully understand my feelings when I was younger to take advantage of hormone therapy. Plus, in the 90's, it just wasn't a thing so I thought what I felt was absurd and kept it to myself (still do even now, honestly).
---

MutantJohn posted...

ilfait posted...

MutantJohn posted...

I keep hearing about gendered brains but am left wondering why they're mentioned if they're not used to imply something.

Related to this, I don't mean to imply that gendered brains do exist. I've seen conflicting studies, and both are fairly new, but I'm arguing with GiftedACIII based on the supposition that brains are clearly gendered.

I'm just curious about terms and definitions. It's fine to use the terms "male brain" and "female brain" but I'm more curious how these are purported to manifest in terms of behavior.

It's one thing to find a cause for sexual dysphoria and another to create wild assertions about human behavior.

According to the study that GiftedACIII linked earlier:

"Adjusting for age, on average, they found that women tended to have significantly thicker cortices than men. Thicker cortices have been associated with higher scores on a variety of cognitive and general intelligence tests. Meanwhile, men had higher brain volumes than women in every subcortical region they looked at, including the hippocampus (which plays broad roles in memory and spatial awareness), the amygdala (emotions, memory, and decision-making), striatum (learning, inhibition, and reward-processing), and thalamus (processing and relaying sensory information to other parts of the brain)."

I assume that visible structural differences would at least to some extent correlate to typical differences in male/female behaviours, like their approaches to relationships, play, social tendencies, etc.

But I think one thing that may make the brain a poor criteria for gender classification is that unlike the definite difference in an aspect of biology like, to have or not have ovaries, it relies too much on tendencies, probabilities, averages.

From the same study:

"Despite the studys consistent sex-linked patterns, the researchers also found considerable overlap between men and women in brain volume and cortical thickness, just as you might find in height. In other words, just by looking at the brain scan, or height, of someone plucked at random from the study, researchers would be hard pressed to say whether it came from a man or woman."

kinetika_ posted...

I'm a transgender and even I voted "No". The whole reason I don't do the surgery is because I know that it would never truly give me the physical female body that I desire, and I don't want to mutilate myself for a half-assed attempt. Most of the trans that I know/am friends with feel the same way as I do, so this isn't a unique mindset restricted to me.

I project my true self in digital worlds, and though, at times, it's not sufficient enough for me, I deal with it and I've come to accept my condition and move on with my life. If it ever were possible in my life time (very unlikely) to perfectly transition into a physical female, then I'd go through with it... but we're too limited and I didn't fully understand my feelings when I was younger to take advantage of hormone therapy. Plus, in the 90's, it just wasn't a thing so I thought what I felt was absurd and kept it to myself (still do even now, honestly).

Do you think that your body not reflecting your true self has anything to do with our traditional perceptions of what a male and a female is "supposed" to be? What I mean is, if being transgender were traditionally seen as just another uncommon but natural way of being--something like the fact that most of the time if you have blue eyes, you have light skin, but sometimes a dark-skinned person will also have blue eyes--instead of a mistake, or a mix-up, is it possible that your true self might then be who you currently are, both in body and mind?

Or do you think that no matter what common perception is and was, that you'd still feel as though you were born with the "wrong" parts? And do you suspect the way you feel about it is somewhat universal, or personal?

If this is too personal to talk about, feel free to ignore it.

There are no chicks with dicks just guys with tits.
---

countzander posted...

There are no chicks with dicks just guys with tits.

lmao
---

How are we defining "real women"?

For the purposes of the poll, you have to define it.

Dragonblade01 posted...

How are we defining "real women"?

of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
"a herd of female deer"
relating to or characteristic of women or female animals.
"a female audience"
synonyms:feminine, womanly, ladylike
"female attributes"

A lot of people ignore the first one.
---

ilfait posted...

For the purposes of the poll, you have to define it.

Then the poll is worthless.

Dragonblade01 posted...

ilfait posted...

For the purposes of the poll, you have to define it.

Then the poll is worthless.

It's the only way that the poll has a point. If everyone were forced to go by the "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
"a herd of female deer" definition, then what would be the purpose of a poll? Then it's an exercise in "click this one button".

not__shawn__z posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

not__shawn__z posted...

Waluigi7 posted...

You're right, it isn't inherently disrespectful.

But when somebody insists that you refer to them using 'she' instead of 'he' and you intentionally refer to them as 'he', then that is being disrespectful.

No. Again, I can insist you call me The Rock. If you call me The Rock, great. I cannot, regardless of my insistence, expect you to call me The Rock. I cannot take that as disrespect. Because I am not The Rock

If xhey respected you, xhi would call you The Rock as you wished.

Absolutely not. That is your subjective thinking. No reasonable and normal person would start referring to you as whatever you wanted to be referred to. And just because they don't want to, does not mean they respect you any less. I cannot expect my boss, who respects me, to be cool with referring to me as His Majesty. It wouldn't be reasonable, and him not complying cannot be logically considered as an act of disrespect

@Waluigi7 not sure where ya went

ilfait posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

ilfait posted...

For the purposes of the poll, you have to define it.

Then the poll is worthless.

It's the only way that the poll has a point. If everyone were forced to go by the "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
"a herd of female deer" definition, then what would be the purpose of a poll? Then it's an exercise in "click this one button".

What's the point of a poll if nobody agrees on the terms?

Dragonblade01 posted...

ilfait posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

ilfait posted...

For the purposes of the poll, you have to define it.

Then the poll is worthless.

It's the only way that the poll has a point. If everyone were forced to go by the "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
"a herd of female deer" definition, then what would be the purpose of a poll? Then it's an exercise in "click this one button".

What's the point of a poll if nobody agrees on the terms?

I can't speak for the TC, but I imagine the purpose of this poll is to find out how people perceive trans women. If you don't think there's any room for subjective interpretation of what a woman is, then click the option that matches your viewpoint and discuss it in the thread if you feel like it.

I mean honestly @Dragonblade01, how do you go about conversations in your daily life? Do you really need an explanation of woman? Do you think that if we lined up every day people, 90 men and 10 woman, you wouldnt be able to pick out the women immediately if asked?

How are we defining woman, you asked. How biology and most people would definitely it. By being a biological woman

ThePrinceFish posted...

Mentally ill males.

---