• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.
What do you think of an idea that trans people should date other trans people? I mean, in non exclusionary way. Sure, there are cis people who understand us and our needs, but I have had amazing connections with other trans people.
 
What do you think of an idea that trans people should date other trans people? I mean, in non exclusionary way. Sure, there are cis people who understand us and our needs, but I have had amazing connections with other trans people.

Sure! I'm in a few Facebook groups and Discord servers with "transbian" in the group name. I certainly think it makes for a richer relationship - of any sort really - if "what we had to go through" is vaguely similar. I've seen the same thing among friends that are veterans or people of color.
 
Bashing doctors for "arbitrary declaration" regarding a new born's sex has any traction within the trans community? Is basic biology an enemy to the trans movement? Should a doctor bear shame on misgendering a future trans?
 
There is nothing 'basic' about biology.
 
Last edited:
Would then... so most (I guess) binary trans folks aim to adjust their sex to their gender, while nonbinary trans folks would not aim for that, as there is really no option, as there is no "neither" option in this case... right?

(obligatory I'm not trans disclaimer, don't take what I say as authoritative)

Like others have said, there's not really any one single way to be non-binary or trans. If what you're meaning by "adjust sex to gender" is getting various surgeries, I know non-binary folk who have and non-binary folk who haven't gotten surgeries, and the same is true of the binary trans folk I know. It really all depends on the person.

(in this case I also do think that the "trans" label is maybe not the best choice, as coming from chemistry, it denotes really only 2 opposing options; and while there are 2, these 2 options do not align with the other case, making this confusing; also there isn't really a cis option in this case either)

The same words can mean different things in different contexts and a word that originally meant one thing can change in meaning over time if people find a different meaning of the word more useful. In this case trans/cis mean one thing in chemistry and a different thing in biology.

I'm sure you can think of plenty of other examples where a word means one thing when used in a scientific discipline by scientists and a different thing when used by a layperson.
 
The last few posts reminded me that the real purpose of this thread was to ask questions rather than simply offer my own analysis/opinions.

I agree with you that the "separate category" position is often used/raised by people attempting to take a "middle" or compromise stance, to appear "fair-and-balanced" or something along those lines. My question is do you regard that as a development that is indicative of progress in people's attitudes towards the rights and status of trans people? Do you think the fact that a non-insignificant segment of people are now talking about trans-sports, trans-bathrooms etc., as a "compromise" shows positive development in actual attitudes, or do you regard it as nothing more than a reframing of the norms of speech?

I guess another way of asking it, is do you think people's negative attitudes towards trans people and trans rights are mostly staying the same, and they are just searching for more polite/PC/socially acceptable ways to express that opposition? Or are these "compromise" positions indicative of genuine progress in public percetion?

I think people's perceptions are changing, but as with so many other issues having to do with the rights of oppressed peoples, the debates, the thinking, and the "change" are happening in the mind of the oppressor group, and largely absent our input. In other words, they are conversations cis people are having with other cis people where they determine amongst themselves what an appropriate degree of oppression might be. I think the most galling example of this that I've seen recently was an online cis socialists, in a stream with a panel of other cis socialists about whether or not this cis socialist's cis friend was transphobic, said "who's to say what the appropriate level of medical gatekeeping is." As a trans person, it's an utterly buckwild thing to say, and I think if there had been any trans people present on the panel they would certainly have lost their horsehocky at him over it. Just the casualness with which a cis person feels perfectly at ease to dispassionately discuss the terms of our oppression and suffering, with no regard for how it affects us, the historical context of medical gatekeeping, or the realities of the trans relationship to the medical institution. And the thing about it is that he's casual about it because he views this as a reasonable thing to do. He is positioning himself as the "reasonable socialist" a person not craven to the extremism of the rabid trans activist or the reactionary chud. And because none of this affects him, he has no reason to think that anybody would find such a position unreasonable. But of course to us it is every bit as unreasonable as a man opining on an appropriate education or class restriction on extending the franchise to women, or an able-bodied people discussing appropriate levels of work or housing discrimination for disabled people, and so on.

The thing that gets me about these "compromise" positions is that they aren't actually compromises. They're formalizations of discrimination which had previously been ad-hoc. And moreover, whichever side offers them, they don't feel to me like serious proposals borne out of a genuine desire to understand or help us. If they were, the people offering them would quickly recognize them for the perverse exercises in degradation that they are. Rather, again, they feel like virtue signals in the truest sense of the word. They feel like an easy way for a particular type of liberal or progressive to signal to their cis peers that they are one of the serious, "reasonable" ones, unlike those shrieking, hysterical TRAs who are all-or-nothing. In this, we are simply props in their image laundering. They don't actually care about us, except as abstractions to be debated. Concessions to be offered in the name of "progress". In the end the one red-line that can never be transgressed for them is that we must remain under the boot of cis people. Our rights must always be subject to cis consent and approbation. And as long as that remains the core value of these "cis allies" then they cannot be viewed as true allies, and their values cannot be seen as earnestly progressive. It's a hamster wheel of progress.

Our cause - our true cause, is our liberation from patriarchy. And much as the feminists articulated at the start of the 2nd wave, you cannot fight for liberation while also holding the preservation of the oppressive order as sacrosanct.

@schlaufuchs - I went back and read your response to someone else and I think you answered my last question(s) despite the answer not quoting/tagging me. You certainly aren't obligated to answer the same question/issue multiple times as opposed to me just reading your responses to others.

About the separate bathrooms:

More to the general point of my question...About the separate sports categories:

So based on that, I think your answer to my last question is that you think its the former, rather than the latter. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and you care to.

Essentially, yes.

That makes me think about another related question. Do you feel a similar way about the inclusion of trans characters in fictional media/entertainment? More specifically, do you think that the inclusion of trans characters is done mostly for shallow purposes, PC, virtue signaling, tokenism and similar? Or do you think that it shows positive progress in public perception? I realize it may not be an either-or proposition, so if its some combination, or something else entirely, I would like to hear your thoughts.

It's a mixed bag. Most "trans rep" we get is a) performed by cis people, and b) written and directed by cis people. This results in a lot of hackneyed performances that just end up portraying a lot of the cis bugbears and predilections about trans people. The obsessive fixations on our "transformation," and our suffering, alongside the subconscious portrayal of us as deceivers, as artificial, as simulacra of womanhood. Serano has a good section in Whipping Girl about this:

pg. 41 said:
In virtually all depictions of trans women, whether real or fictional, "deceptive" or "pathetic," the underlying assumption is that the trans woman wants to achieve a stereotypically feminine appearance and gender role. The possibility that trans women are even capable of making a distinction between identifying as female nd wanting to cultivate a hyperfeminine image is never raised. In fact, the media often dwells on the specifics of the feminization process, showing trans women putting on their feminine exteriors. It's telling that TV< film, and news producers tend not to be satisfied with merely showing trans women wearing feminine clothes and makeup. Rather, it is their intent to capture trans women in the act of putting on lipstick, dresses, and high heels, thereby giving the audience the impression that the trans woman's femaleness is an artificial mask or costume.

pg. 43 said:
Mass media images of "biological males" dressing and acting in a feminine manner could potentially challenge mainstream notions of gender, but the way they are generally presented in these feminization scenes ensures that this never happens. The media neutralizes the potential threat that trans femininities pose to the category of "woman" by playing to the audience's subconscious belief that femininity itself is artificial. After all, while most people assume that women are naturally feminine, they also (rather hypocritically) required them to spend an hour or two each day putting on their faces and getting all dressed up in order to meet societal standards for femininity (unlike men, whose masculinity is presumed to come directly from who he is and what he does). In fact, it's the assumption that femininity is inherently "contrived," "frivolous," and "manipulative" that allows masculinity to always come off as "natural," "practical," and "sincere" by comparison. Thus, the media is able to depict trans women donning feminine attire and accessories without ever giving the impression that they achieve "true" femaleness in the process. Further, by focusing on the most feminine artifices, the media evokes the idea that trans women are living out some sort of sexual fetish. This sexualization of trans women's motives for transitioning not only belittles trans women's female identities, but encourages the objectification of women as a whole."

pg. 45 said:
When audiences watch scenes of trans women putting on skirts and makeup, they are not necessarily seeing a reflection of the values of those trans women; they are witnessing TV, film, and new producers' obsessions with all objects commonly associated with female sexuality. In other words, the media's and audience's fascination with the feminization of trans women is a by-product of their sexualization of all women.

Since the release of Whipping Girl, there have been some more depictions of trans women played by trans women. The women depicted, at least in my experience, have always invariably been conventionally attractive women portraying hyperfeminine or unambiguously feminine roles. I think of Hari Nef's performance in The Barbie Movie. As a trans woman, it is indeed powerful to hear a man say to her, a trans woman, "you are beautiful," with full sincerity, with no qualifiers, and which is not immediately undercut by some joke either at her femininity, or his sincerity, sexuality, or intelligence/discernment. But her performance is the definition of tokenness. She has a couple meaningless lines, her transness is never mentioned or factors in the story or her character. The role could have gone to a cis woman and nothing about the movie or her character would have changed. I'm happy she got the role, but it feels empty.

I'm sure I don't have to explain the frustrations of representation of the oppressed only ever seeming to be either vapid tokennism or media ostensibly about our suffering which ultimately tells the story of how one member of the oppressor group saw our humanity and helped us in some superficial way. It's tiresome. What I want is trans media: media written by trans people, directed by trans people, about trans people, for a trans audience. There's a big account on twitter - Mia Moore, who is a screenwriter and director who has been trying to get her scripts picked up in hollywood for a couple years now. She recently self-financed one of her scripts - Again, Again. The story is about a couple, where one of the two has been stuck in a Groundhog Day-style time loop for the last 10 years and has just come out of it, and how the couple move forward in the wake of one of them having lived and experienced 10 years that the other had not. That's a trans story. The anguish of lost time. Of watching everybody living full and happy lives while you're stuck in a time loop. The terror, the longing, the jealousy of never being able to recover that lost time. It eats at you. It affects the way you relate to yourself and others. That's the sort of thing I want to see

Meanwhile, I will skim the thread to see if you've already answered this one too.

On a related note. Have you seen Euphoria on NETFLIX HBOMax? If so, would you please share your thoughts on the character Jules?

I haven't seen Euphoria.

I go to a Catholic school, and I was wondering, what could I source from the Bible that would be pro-trans? Almost everyone there’s conservative and doesn’t like trans people.

Wadday'all trans folk think the role of non-binary folks should play in the wider trans/gender non-conforming movement?

As far as I'm concerned, enbies are my niblings, every bit as trans as I am, and fully welcome in any trans spaces

What do you think of an idea that trans people should date other trans people? I mean, in non exclusionary way. Sure, there are cis people who understand us and our needs, but I have had amazing connections with other trans people.

Absolutely trans people should date other trans people. If anything it's the most typical relationship that I have encountered. It's nice being with someone who can understand you, who can advocate for you, for whom you don't have to carry a lot of mental load dealing with your transness. I mean if you can find a cis person who does that, great! go off! But more often than not it's gonna be another trans person.

Bashing doctors for "arbitrary declaration" regarding a new born's sex has any traction within the trans community?

A doctor made a pronouncement on who I as a person will be for all time. That pronouncement turned out to be completely wrong, and now I have to spend the rest of my life dealing with the consequences of that dispassionate, incorrect assessment.

I'm not "bashing" anybody. The doc has basically one singular piece of evidence to go off and 5 minutes to make their decision. It's an unenviable task. But it's also a ridiculous one that we should probably stop doing, or at least one we should stop attaching a ton of weighty implications to, which are extremely difficult and costly to amend should it turn out to have been done incorrectly.

Is basic biology an enemy to the trans movement?

Inasmuch as a fetishization of "basic" biology imposes blinders on laypeople who refuse to change their perspective when that perspective turns out to be inaccurate, yeah. Basic biology works fine in a wide array of circumstances in which a layperson is likely to find themself. However, much like with "basic" physics, there are some rare examples where basic biology can lead one astray, requiring a person to take in new information and revise their understanding of biology to better accommodate that anomalous data. Trans people and transness is one such rare example.

So basic biology is an enemy to the trans movement insofar as we are trying to teach you intermediate biology and yet you still doggedly cling to that basic biology you learned when you were 11. You need to let go and open your mind to new information. That's the essence of science.

Should a doctor bear shame on misgendering a future trans?

No, but perhaps we shouldn't require a doctor open themselves to the possibility of misgendering a person on the basis of what is in reality, very very little information.
 
You have infinitely more patience than i, @schlaufuchs.

A doctor made a pronouncement on who I as a person will be for all time. That pronouncement turned out to be completely wrong, and now I have to spend the rest of my life dealing with the consequences of that dispassionate, incorrect assessment.

I'm not "bashing" anybody. The doc has basically one singular piece of evidence to go off and 5 minutes to make their decision. It's an unenviable task. But it's also a ridiculous one that we should probably stop doing, or at least one we should stop attaching a ton of weighty implications to, which are extremely difficult and costly to amend should it turn out to have been done incorrectly.

In particular it has some pretty nasty implications for intersex people, something routinely ignored by cis people but i've seen raised time and time again by transadvocates

No, but perhaps we shouldn't require a doctor open themselves to the possibility of misgendering a person on the basis of what is in reality, very very little information.

What really threw me of that frankly unhinged statement you're replying to is the use of "a future trans"
 
Since the release of Whipping Girl, there have been some more depictions of trans women played by trans women. The women depicted, at least in my experience, have always invariably been conventionally attractive women portraying hyperfeminine or unambiguously feminine roles. I think of Hari Nef's performance in The Barbie Movie. As a trans woman, it is indeed powerful to hear a man say to her, a trans woman, "you are beautiful," with full sincerity, with no qualifiers, and which is not immediately undercut by some joke either at her femininity, or his sincerity, sexuality, or intelligence/discernment.
Can you talk a little more about this? Are you speaking about a cis man specifically when you say this? If so, why is it particularly significant to you to have a cis man genuinely view a trans woman as beautiful? I have so many thoughts, but this seems like a perfect time to listen rather than speculate.
But her performance is the definition of tokenness. She has a couple meaningless lines, her transness is never mentioned or factors in the story or her character. The role could have gone to a cis woman and nothing about the movie or her character would have changed. I'm happy she got the role, but it feels empty.

I'm sure I don't have to explain the frustrations of representation of the oppressed only ever seeming to be either vapid tokennism or media ostensibly about our suffering which ultimately tells the story of how one member of the oppressor group saw our humanity and helped us in some superficial way. It's tiresome.
Of course I get this. On that note, do you see any value in trans actors playing roles that essentially ignore their transness? Can they play such a role without it feeling like tokenism to you? Or do you feel that if their transness is not addressed or acknowledged somehow in the role/character, that they are then simply tokens? For example, if trans woman actor is playing a woman where the matter of whether she is cis or trans never comes up, can that serve to advance the legitimacy in popular perception of trans womens' identity?
What I want is trans media: media written by trans people, directed by trans people, about trans people, for a trans audience.
This I also get and I guess you probably know I can empathize, via analogy at least, with this sentiment. Do you see any role for the cis producers of media in the presentation of trans actors and characters? What I'm specifically thinking about, is what you've identified as the suffering-narrative/focus. Do you think that an oppressed group's entry into popular perception generally first flows through stories/characters that focus on the suffering narrative, in order to capture the popular imagination, sympathy, interest... as opposed to the indifference that oppressed people generally receive, which in turn, serves to enable their continued oppression?

In other words... do you see any value in leaning hard into presenting the suffering of trans women in popular media, precisely to raise the awareness that can then lead to greater sensitivity and mainstream acceptance? Or do you see some other path towards the same goal? Or something else that I am missing?
 
How should a doctor pronounce a new born baby born with male reproductive organs?
This intermediate biology, what does it encompass? Is it rooted in scientifically, proven and observed biology?

I have learned some stuff from this thread. But I have to point out that I believe exceptions are proof to a rule, not that the rule or the science behind is flawed because of an exception. Intersex humans, as in individuals born with both male and female genitalia, do not disprove that the human animal is divided in two genders: male and female. Trans humans choose to align with one or another gender when they choose to get sexual reassignment, there is nor third genitalia for you to choose.
 
I have learned some stuff from this thread. But I have to point out that I believe exceptions are proof to a rule, not that the rule or the science behind is flawed because of an exception. Intersex humans, as in individuals born with both male and female genitalia, do not disprove that the human animal is divided in two genders: male and female. Trans humans choose to align with one or another gender when they choose to get sexual reassignment, there is nor third genitalia for you to choose.
is General Relativity proof of Newton’s laws?
 
How should a doctor pronounce a new born baby born with male reproductive organs?
This intermediate biology, what does it encompass? Is it rooted in scientifically, proven and observed biology?

I have learned some stuff from this thread. But I have to point out that I believe exceptions are proof to a rule, not that the rule or the science behind is flawed because of an exception. Intersex humans, as in individuals born with both male and female genitalia, do not disprove that the human animal is divided in two genders: male and female. Trans humans choose to align with one or another gender when they choose to get sexual reassignment, there is nor third genitalia for you to choose.

You seem like you're building up to something. What is it?
 
How should a doctor pronounce a new born baby born with male reproductive organs?
This intermediate biology, what does it encompass? Is it rooted in scientifically, proven and observed biology?
Moderator Action: This isn't really a question about trans people. What doctors call new borns is not relevant to the questions related to trans people. This is not a thread to argue about trans people; it is a thread for people to learn about the experience or cope with its issues. Move along please.
 
Last edited:
Intersex humans, as in individuals born with both male and female genitalia, do not disprove that the human animal is divided in two genders: male and female. Trans humans choose to align with one or another gender when they choose to get sexual reassignment, there is nor third genitalia for you to choose.

Sex =/= gender, they're different things
 
You're right, fixed. Did you watch it? Any thoughts on Jules?
The thing I like about her is how, eventually, she's like "huh I think I've been trying to be hyperfeminine because that's what is expected of me and I want to stop and actually explore my gender for myself."

I feel like they don't do much with that, unfortunately. She does change her presentation, we're told she starts wearing a binder, even, but the consequences of it are not explored. How she feels about it, what she does, how people around her react, etc.
 
<Cave Johnson Voice> I'm gonna tell my engineers to invent a hundred new genitalia by tomorrow, using nothing but moon dust, a few types of mystery goo, and the combustible lemons they already invented to burn life's house down! </Cave Johnson Voice>
 
Trans humans choose to align with one or another gender when they choose to get sexual reassignment, there is nor third genitalia for you to choose.
FYI, there are procedures such as phallus-preserving vaginoplasties and vagina-preserving phalloplasties that don't actually align with this notion that sex reassignment surgeries always result in one or the other of the binary sexes. It turns out it's possible to get a surgery that provides the patient with a genital they didn't previously have without destroying/removing/repurposing the existing one. Images and even videos of the results aren't too hard to find either.
I for one am excited for people to do to genitals what neopronouns did to pronouns.
 
FYI, there are procedures such as phallus-preserving vaginoplasties and vagina-preserving phalloplasties that don't actually align with this notion that sex reassignment surgeries always result in one or the other of the binary sexes. It turns out it's possible to get a surgery that provides the patient with a genital they didn't previously have without destroying/removing/repurposing the existing one. Images and even videos of the results aren't too hard to find either.
I for one am excited for people to do to genitals what neopronouns did to pronouns.
Oh that’s really based and cool
 
Top Bottom