#straw arguments

[terflies]

Mostly a rhetorical question, but What Is The Deal with transmeds explaining “tucute ideology” to “tucutes”? Do they really think “we” don’t know our own “ideology”. After I specifically said that there isn’t really such thing as “tucute ideology” except the creation of transmeds criticising “tucutes”, @robbjstark wrote:

yes, for wanting transitions to be de-medicalized, for perpetuating the idea that you don’t need dysphoria or any sort of discomfort with your birth sex to be trans (i.e., saying being trans is a choice), glamorizing being trans, which appeals to particularly insecure people who want a sense of belonging or escape and misguidedly believe they are trans without any sort of medical diagnoses, then wind up with dysphoria after transitioning because they didn’t NEED to

this fucks actual trans people over, because it makes detransitioning seem normal and reinforces the stereotype that trans people don’t need treatments because they’ll just regret it later, you know, on top of all the other fucking stigma and discrimination we have to deal with.

imagine valuing “inclusivity” over the lives of trans people

I’m used to straw arguments but this is a weird extreme to take it to, and a particularly egregious example.

Tucutes: We don’t do what you say we do, or believe what you say we believe.

Transmeds: Yes you do, let me explain.

[terflies]

“they” being The Trans, if I never hear this lie again it will be too soon. Even if genuinely believed, it is a malicious ignorance.

[terflies]

—

Don’t know, @littleprinny, and neither do I care to because I’m not interested in doing those things. I’m not contradicting myself, just your idea of me.

[terflies]

When will anti-trans types stop making twee figures like this that

Define ‘gender’ differently from the trans people they’re criticising, and

Propose things trans people are actively (or even passively) working towards, despite their criticism?

This example is from “Sex and Gender Intro”, which interestingly defines ‘woman’ not just as a social class (which you might call ‘gender’) but inextricably tied to sex and gender role:

“Being a woman is not so much a matter of having female biology, as it is a matter of being read as a person who has that biology, and being treated accordingly. What it means to be a member of the social class ‘woman’ is that one is read by others as female, and is treated in accordance with the gendered rules that prescribe feminine passivity and submission to members of the female sex class.”

[terflies]

After @menalez said “both [I and @terfslying​] know nothing on a predator in their community while running blogs about how such predators are just a lie made up to make their community look a certain way, as if it’s just baseless claims whenever a predator is called out.” I responded that she was “still just manipulating shit people are saying, pretending trans people and allies are in one big community”. This is her response, which seems to be doing exactly what I just criticised for.

The “trans community” isn’t like a club we all attend. We don’t all know each other. I don’t believe I know any trans people in Canada (or at least, I don’t know that any of the trans people I know online are Canadian). Yaniv was (and still is) a complete unknown to me before (and outside) of the deplorable behaviour she's been criticised for, and more that she’s been accused of.

I don’t think, and never suggested, that anyone outed as a predator shouldn’t be called out for it. My position is, still, that it is unreasonable—and transphobic—to expect any and all trans people to condemn her on demand—her, not any other (accused) sexual predator, simply for being trans—regardless of how much or little they know of her, what she’s done, or any evidence in question. Manipulating the words of trans people and allies into defending Yaniv, when in reality they have done no such thing, is both blatantly transphobic and counter-productive to holding Yaniv accountable, as she is used as a proxy to attack trans people as a whole.

[terflies]

I asked for one (1) source explicitly supporting transmedicalism and all I got was...this.

[terflies]

From @wildwomanradfem, I think the misrepresentation of “intersectional feminism” is fairly obvious. What struck me, instead, was how (as much as they’re often criticised for not being intersectional) this figure explicitly frames radical feminism as contrary to intersectional feminism!

[terflies]

On Transmedicalism, and its Lack of Support from Brain Sex.

Says @the-defiant-pupil​, before blocking me:

All of your conclusions are wrong because you don’t understand transexuality. I’m tired of constantly typing this out so I’m just going to copypaste this:

Transexuality is caused by the wrong brain sex (which is the biological shape of one’s brain). All human brains have a map of the body - it tells the brain how many limbs it has, how many fingers and toes, how many eyes, where your nose and mouth are, et cetera. It also tells it about other parts of your body such as what primary and secondary sex characteristics you should have. In 99.4% of the population, there’s no problem here.

In 0.6% however since the wrong brain sex developed, the brain expects the sex characteristics of the other gender. For example, a FtM expects a penis, testicles, broad shoulders, a deep voice, more body hair, et cetera. However when the brain realizes it doesn’t have these things, it gets distressed and causes a disconnect - this is what gender dysphoria is. This means that being trans and having gender dysphoria goes hand-in-hand: you can’t have one without the other.

Additionally the sources that don’t specifically mention trans people are about brain sex as a whole. They are provided because tucutes do not believe in the proven scientific fact that brain sex exists. Therefore the sources are provided in order to prove the fact that brain sex exists to begin with. That’s where the studies proving the wrong brain sex is what causes transexuality then come in.

Blocking me is fair enough, but this blog is about dishonesty so here we go:

Transsexuality is possibly caused by a wrong brain sex. Science has yet to reach a consensus on this or on brain sex (or brain gender) in general. It’s a controversial topic, and presenting this as “proven scientific fact” is a outright lie—even some of the sources @the-defiant-pupil​ cites in (alleged) support of transmedicalism admit that brain sex/gender and the aetiology of being trans are far from conclusively known.

Even assuming brain sex is real, determines gender, and causes someone to be trans, whether this “disconnect” (which is not, by any medical definition, dysphoria) causes distress (which is dysphoria) directly and in all cases is precisely the point of contention. It is dishonest to conclude this a priori to support the claim “you can’t have one without the other”. That is precisely the claim transmedicalism must prove.

Notwithstanding that brain sex is not conclusively proven or understood, the evidence and arguments for and against the notion (or somewhere in between) are not denied by “tucutes” or non-dysphoric, trans people, nor does this group have a homogenous opinion on the matter at all.

That the “wrong brain sex is what causes transsexuality” is a moot point unless that gender dysphoria is a necessary consequence of having the “wrong” brain sex can be demonstrated.

This argument is either utterly dishonest or scientifically illiterate. Not only does it present brain sex as a proxy for a causation between being trans and gender dysphoria (the actual point of contention) but it mischaracterises the opposition to transmedicalism (“tucutes”) as opposed to this proxy.

No amount of evidence for a biological basis of gender can support transmedicalism (“dysphoria is a necessary consequent of being trans”) without establishing a necessary connection between biological basis and dysphoria.