No title available
Love Begins
Misplaced Lens Cap
JBB: An Artblog!
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
d e v o n
tannertan36
Cosimo Galluzzi
titsay
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Monterey Bay Aquarium
ellievsbear
roma★
occasionally subtle
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
🪼
tumblr dot com
we're not kids anymore.
Claire Keane
ojovivo
seen from United Kingdom
seen from France
seen from France
seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Morocco
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Romania
seen from Côte d’Ivoire
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
@terflies
if your immediate reaction to queer identity you've never heard of before or don't understand is to take it in bad faith, you are not the "good queer" that you think you are. you are not the progressive you think you are. this is behavior carried over from cisheteronormative society. you don't have to do that to other queers- queerphobic society already does that for us.
can you imagine if someone told you your hair is a social construct but your haircut is innate
can you imagine if someone told you hair was innate but eyes are a social construct?
No I couldn’t I would be like “how are your eyes a social construct”
Well so would I, and likewise hair.
Ok, so haircuts are innate?
…No.
Ok??? So then what are you trying to say?
If in your analogy gender is a haircut while sex is hair, in my analogy gender is eyes.
Other than that…what were you trying to say?
So you’re saying eyes are naturally occurring as is gender.
But how does your analogy reflect that? Like what is the relation to hair and eyes that makes that point?
Gender isn’t the cutting and styling of sex—that eyes and hair aren’t directly related was more or less my point.
yeah you don’t literally cut the abstract noun gender, that’s why it’s an analogy…
Btw this is bar none my favorite conversation that’s ever happened on any of my posts
A classic
“gender isn’t the cutting and styling of sex”
Mmmmkay…
What is gender-affirming surgery, @terflies? Like, explain it briefly. I think you’ll find an awful lot of cutting involved.
Gender-affirming surgery (if one chooses to call it that) is not gender.
Brain Sex Sources Cited
Garcia-Falgueras A Swaab DF. 2008. A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. Brain. 131:3132–3146.
Jiang-Ning Zhou. A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Graduate School Neurosciences Amsterdam. 1995
Burke, S. Hypothalamic response to the chemo-signal androstadienone in gender dysphoric children and adolescents. Front. Endocrinol., 28 May 2014
Berglund H. Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous Steroids. Cerebral Cortex. 2007
Luders, E. Increased Cortical Thickness in Male-to-Female Transsexualism. J Behav Brain Sci. 2012
Nawata H. Regional cerebral blood flow changes in female to male gender identity disorder. The Authors. Journal compilation. 2010
Simon, L. Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study. 2013
Hahn, A. Structural Connectivity Networks of Transgender People. Cerebral Cortex. 2014
Thanks, but this isn’t really how you should source an academic argument. If this was just a bibliography for further reading on brain sex, fine, but you are trying to support a specific argument, yes? That “trans brains follow the patterns of the opposite sex”, or “[brain sex] can be observed clinically, and in transsexuals, it’s been observed to be that of the opposite biological sex”.
When supporting an argument, it should be clear and unambiguous what each source is being referenced for, and this should be something explicitly stated in the source. Sources should not be cited for something not explicitly stated, even if it’s implicit or corollary. Cite the source for what it does say (and/or any data), then justify this inference yourself (or whatever argument you want to make from it).
For example, male-to-female subjects have been found to have uncinate nucleus INAH3 subdivision volumes statistically dissimilar to those of [cis] male subjects but consistent with those of [cis] female subjects, supporting the hypothesis that modifications in brain structure are the basis of gender-identity disorder [sic] (Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab, 2008).
Citing sources inappropriately, even if not intentionally dishonest, leaves it to your audience to work out their relevance (or lack thereof) to your argument. Essentially, they have to make your argument for you before they can respond (whether they would agree or disagree), and they’re well within their rights to dismiss it instead.
Many studies have found sex-atypical (i.e. gender-typical) trends in specific neurological traits, but none argues that trans people’s brains “follow the patterns of the opposite sex” (i.e. same gender, for binary-gendered, trans people), nor can they make such a conclusion. (Regardless of the studies’ merits or issues.) Establishing a meaningful “brain sex”, or even just gendered patterns in neurology, requires a comprehensive analysis of multiple neurological features across a broad population, with attention to etiology, reproducibility, and confounding factors.
Long(er) term research is always needed, but these are literally peer-reviewed scientific studies. Who are you trying to fool when you call them “opinion pieces”? Or when you take for granted the conclusion gender isn’t real or identifiable when that is what some of these studies (and many like them) are investigating? You’re dismissing evidence out-of-hand just because it doesn’t match your forgone conclusion. This is as wrong and unscientific as you can get.
you’ll find that a lot of these brain studies are not telling you what you think that you want to be told. for example anxiety disorders or a similar kind of mental health issue could be what’s behind supposedly gender affirming hypothalamus shrinkage or something. That’s no indication of a supposed womanbrain.
What do you think I want to be told? I’m not supposing “womanbrain” exists—Zach and Peter are.
sorry for my thought crime of thinking the definition of woman being "anyone who identifies as a woman" in order to be inclusive is horrendously stupid because it cant be implemented into law due to the fact it tells us nothing about who is actually included in woman as a class and because it does nothing to help address the hardships, discrimination, and suffering women face due to our sex. it will keep happening because im absolutely right.
A number of protected characteristics are based on self-identity, like race, disability, etc. Prescriptive definitions are not required for protection to be included in law, or to address hardships, discrimination, and suffering people face sue to their race or disability.
Of course, defining ‘woman’ independent of sex in no way prevents us from explicitly recognising where sex does affect (or systems and attitudes towards sex affect) people’s lives.
race and disability are biological realities and while they may not be immediately apparent (invisibile disabilities, white passing POC) we can DEFINE them. they are not facing the level of attack to their structure as a category that womanhood is. we are seeing female inmates being raped and impregnated by other female inmates this is something that shouldn’t be occurring. if there was a phenomenon of people doing blackface in order to take advantage of equity or other opportunities meant for black people there would be an uproar
btw what is a woman? what is female? no circular definitions please, im willing to talk about this
That we can define them doesn’t mean we should—or, more to the point, that the government or the law should—let alone that we must define them in strict terms in order to address systemic issues concerning them (as evidenced by the fact that we don’t, yet we can).
Accepting anyone who (honestly!) identifies as a woman as a woman is not an “attack to their structure as a category”. Even ignoring trans people, it is a more accurate extensive definition than any attempt to prescriptively define [women] based on sex.
How do you tell who “(honestly!)” identifies as a woman?
Same way you with anyone in the overwhelming majority of your day-to-day interactions: trust them unless they give you specific reason not to.
the government (speaking about the U.S. government here but it applies to others as well) trying to legally define race has been historically Really Fucking Bad for POC, especially Indigenous and black people. I'm currently struggling with the government's narrow definition of "disabled" preventing me from getting the help I need to live independently away from an environment that is worsening my symptoms. We're already seeing the government try to define intersex women out of womanhood, there was just a ruling in Kansas that classified women with Turner's Syndrome as not fully women and may force them to use separate bathrooms. I don't trust the government to define any marginalized group and I don't trust anyone who thinks they should.
sorry for my thought crime of thinking the definition of woman being "anyone who identifies as a woman" in order to be inclusive is horrendously stupid because it cant be implemented into law due to the fact it tells us nothing about who is actually included in woman as a class and because it does nothing to help address the hardships, discrimination, and suffering women face due to our sex. it will keep happening because im absolutely right.
A number of protected characteristics are based on self-identity, like race, disability, etc. Prescriptive definitions are not required for protection to be included in law, or to address hardships, discrimination, and suffering people face sue to their race or disability.
Of course, defining ‘woman’ independent of sex in no way prevents us from explicitly recognising where sex does affect (or systems and attitudes towards sex affect) people’s lives.
race and disability are biological realities and while they may not be immediately apparent (invisibile disabilities, white passing POC) we can DEFINE them. they are not facing the level of attack to their structure as a category that womanhood is. we are seeing female inmates being raped and impregnated by other female inmates this is something that shouldn’t be occurring. if there was a phenomenon of people doing blackface in order to take advantage of equity or other opportunities meant for black people there would be an uproar
btw what is a woman? what is female? no circular definitions please, im willing to talk about this
That we can define them doesn’t mean we should—or, more to the point, that the government or the law should—let alone that we must define them in strict terms in order to address systemic issues concerning them (as evidenced by the fact that we don’t, yet we can).
Accepting anyone who (honestly!) identifies as a woman as a woman is not an “attack to their structure as a category”. Even ignoring trans people, it is a more accurate extensive definition than any attempt to prescriptively define [women] based on sex.
How do you tell who “(honestly!)” identifies as a woman?
Same way you with anyone in the overwhelming majority of your day-to-day interactions: trust them unless they give you specific reason not to.
sorry for my thought crime of thinking the definition of woman being "anyone who identifies as a woman" in order to be inclusive is horrendously stupid because it cant be implemented into law due to the fact it tells us nothing about who is actually included in woman as a class and because it does nothing to help address the hardships, discrimination, and suffering women face due to our sex. it will keep happening because im absolutely right.
A number of protected characteristics are based on self-identity, like race, disability, etc. Prescriptive definitions are not required for protection to be included in law, or to address hardships, discrimination, and suffering people face sue to their race or disability.
Of course, defining ‘woman’ independent of sex in no way prevents us from explicitly recognising where sex does affect (or systems and attitudes towards sex affect) people’s lives.
race and disability are biological realities and while they may not be immediately apparent (invisibile disabilities, white passing POC) we can DEFINE them. they are not facing the level of attack to their structure as a category that womanhood is. we are seeing female inmates being raped and impregnated by other female inmates this is something that shouldn’t be occurring. if there was a phenomenon of people doing blackface in order to take advantage of equity or other opportunities meant for black people there would be an uproar
btw what is a woman? what is female? no circular definitions please, im willing to talk about this
That we can define them doesn’t mean we should—or, more to the point, that the government or the law should—let alone that we must define them in strict terms in order to address systemic issues concerning them (as evidenced by the fact that we don’t, yet we can).
Accepting anyone who (honestly!) identifies as a woman as a woman is not an “attack to their structure as a category”. Even ignoring trans people, it is a more accurate extensive definition than any attempt to prescriptively define [women] based on sex.
if biological sex were not immediately and accurately discernible for nearly all human beings, sexism would not exist (no one would know who to oppress or privilege on the basis of their sex) and neither would transphobic violence (no one could be targeted based on their performance of the gender role of the opposite sex)
Good news! Biological sex isn’t immediately and accurately discernible for nearly all human being. I guess sexism is over?
Or sexism often relies on presumption of biological sex and/or reproductive ability from ambiguous traits, as well as the connection of a binary concept of gender to a binary concept of sex.
if biological sex wasn’t immediately and accurately discernible for most human beings, there would be no such thing as needing to “pass” as a gender and no need for medical transition in order to pass. “”misgendering”” would also never happen because people would not be able to tell your birth sex and therefore could not “misgender” you.
if biological sex wasn’t immediately and accurately discernible for most human beings, gender dysphoria would not exist.
sexism does not rely on presumption of gender. medical transition is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history and sexism dates back to the earliest days of human society. sexism relies on the fact that women are USUALLY smaller/weaker than men and USUALLY have a child bearing capacity - both facts that make us vulnerable and both facts that have had us under the control of men since the dawn of time. it is not a random hatred of femininity or feminine people. hope this helps!
If biological sex was immediately and accurately discernible for nearly all human beings, passing would not be possible. There would be no fearmongering or hateful rhetoric around trans people “deceiving” people.
Your misunderstanding of gender dysphoria, and what I said about sexism, is moot.
as i said, medical transition is recent and sexism has been forever. even after transitioning you can face advantages or disadvantages based on your SEX and not how you’re perceived (for example a lot of medical conditions that are specific to women are under-treated and under-researched and abortion rights affect anyone who has a uterus)
the reason it is immediately discernible for MOST PEOPLE (!!!!) is because most people on this earth aren’t transitioned.
this is not to say that trans people never pass (they can) but they are a minority, an exception, and aren’t somehow evidence that sex based discrimination doesn’t exist. you don’t stop experiencing sexism once you pass anyway if roe v wade has taught the trans community anything. i pass as a man but i still face misogyny.
i experience gender dysphoria. i have a diagnosis of it and it’s been in my records since i was around 11. if you couldn’t tell what sex someone was by looking at them, i never would’ve experienced the desire to look like a man because a man wouldn’t look like anything. i never would’ve gotten on testosterone to try to alleviate it.
These are straw man arguments, though.
I never said sex didn’t matter for medicine—though it matters with more complexity than a simple male/female binary allows—or that discrimination on the basis of sex doesn’t exist.
why do i always read your username as terf flies
flies > terfs
sorry for my thought crime of thinking the definition of woman being "anyone who identifies as a woman" in order to be inclusive is horrendously stupid because it cant be implemented into law due to the fact it tells us nothing about who is actually included in woman as a class and because it does nothing to help address the hardships, discrimination, and suffering women face due to our sex. it will keep happening because im absolutely right.
A number of protected characteristics are based on self-identity, like race, disability, etc. Prescriptive definitions are not required for protection to be included in law, or to address hardships, discrimination, and suffering people face sue to their race or disability.
Of course, defining ‘woman’ independent of sex in no way prevents us from explicitly recognising where sex does affect (or systems and attitudes towards sex affect) people’s lives.
if biological sex were not immediately and accurately discernible for nearly all human beings, sexism would not exist (no one would know who to oppress or privilege on the basis of their sex) and neither would transphobic violence (no one could be targeted based on their performance of the gender role of the opposite sex)
Good news! Biological sex isn’t immediately and accurately discernible for nearly all human being. I guess sexism is over?
Or sexism often relies on presumption of biological sex and/or reproductive ability from ambiguous traits, as well as the connection of a binary concept of gender to a binary concept of sex.
if biological sex wasn’t immediately and accurately discernible for most human beings, there would be no such thing as needing to “pass” as a gender and no need for medical transition in order to pass. “”misgendering”” would also never happen because people would not be able to tell your birth sex and therefore could not “misgender” you.
if biological sex wasn’t immediately and accurately discernible for most human beings, gender dysphoria would not exist.
sexism does not rely on presumption of gender. medical transition is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history and sexism dates back to the earliest days of human society. sexism relies on the fact that women are USUALLY smaller/weaker than men and USUALLY have a child bearing capacity - both facts that make us vulnerable and both facts that have had us under the control of men since the dawn of time. it is not a random hatred of femininity or feminine people. hope this helps!
If biological sex was immediately and accurately discernible for nearly all human beings, passing would not be possible. There would be no fearmongering or hateful rhetoric around trans people “deceiving” people.
Your misunderstanding of gender dysphoria, and what I said about sexism, is moot.
What are your thoughts on South Park?
🗑
Have you seen the recent stuff against trans men people are peddling. If not i think it'll fit your blog given how much of it is trying to weaponize trans women against us and dismiss our oppression. And no surprise terf rhetoric is at the front as well.
Something specific to point me in the direction of?
There’s a lot to read into [LGB]Alliance’s new branding.
Straight pride!
LGB in a nice, rigid box.
We still care more about denigrating trans people than supporting LGB people.
Who needs science when we have straw arguments?
Tell me how a woman sucking girldick is lesbian sex or a man eating pussy out is gay, quickly
LGB is a rigid box and it’s always be.
You are same sex attracted or you are not. They are no other options.
where is OP getting straight pride from??
These comments are just sad.
They are, but also "LGB is a rigid box and always has been" genuinely made me laugh, so... it's a really stupid way to spell "I know no queer history whatsoever."
"You're either gay or you're not" tell me the B is only there to be used as a talking point on top of everything else without outright saying it.
Bi people are same sex attracted y’all are funny
That’s the same biphobia.
i keep reading your url as “ter flies/terf flies”
Yeah, that happens a lot. 😉
How is transmedicalism transphobic?
Transmedicalism is the belief that being trans is inherently a medical disorder, and that all trans people experience Gender Dysphoria (some going as far as to say GD causes someone to be trans).
This has a number of issues:
‘-medicalism’ is something of a misnomer. While transmeds claim their position is medically accurate, it runs counter to medical consensus and evidence.
That consensus being: being trans is not a medical disorder, but benign variation. It is, essentially, just being a certain gender. What is a medical condition is what can be associated with it: Gender Dysphoria.
The idea that GD causes someone to be trans is logically absurd: how distress around incongruence between one’s gender and one’s sex and/or assigned gender cause that same incongruence? The aetiology of being trans is unknown, but it must come first.
The actual-medical-condition Gender Dysphoria is not a necessary consequence of being trans. It’s likely, in a society that is transphobic and which associates gender with sex, but there’s no evidence or convincing rationale that it must be experienced if someone is trans, let alone that that experience must be clinically significant.
The end result is that transmedicalism says to people with X gender, but not Gender Dysphoria, “no, you’re a Y” in the same way vanilla transphobia says everyone of X gender is Y. It has different rules, but it’s transphobic for the same reasons. It rejects someone’s authority over their own self.
Transmedicalism harms other trans people, too. It encourages respect for trans people’s gender being conditional. It can make things worse for people questioning or exploring their gender even if they do experience GD—it’s not always easy to identify in introspection. Narrative of “transtrenders” aligns with mainstream transphobia of “social contagion”.
And that’s just the theory. In practice, some transmedicalists are among the most awful, viciously transphobic people I’ve encountered online, with outright cruelty to “transtrenders” and “tucutes”.
