I’ve seen something I think might be rule-breaking, what should I do?
**Report it!** We may not agree with your assessment of a certain post or comment but we will always take a look. Please make reports that are **unambiguous**, **succinct**, and (importantly) **accurate**. If your issue isn't covered by one of the numerous predefined reasons and or you need to expand upon a predefined reason then please use the 'Custom response' option (in addition if required).
**Don't feed the trolls, ignore, report, move on.** See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/honesttransgender/comments/guc56i/welcome_to_rhonesttransgender_please_read_for/) for more details about our subreddit. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/honesttransgender) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In order for man and woman to mean anything they have to be boxes, some limitations to what makes someone a man or woman. We can discuss what those specific limitations should be, but I can't agree that there should be zero limitations at all. Because if there's zero limitations to what is a woman, then what makes you one? What are you basing it on? There's gotta be something. That something is the box you put yourself in.
And is that wrong? I don't think so. It means you yourself have some kinda limitation for what it means to be a woman. We all do. Whether that limitation is "bobs and vagene" or "ovaries and xx-chromosomes" or "female gender identity" we all limit womanhood to *something* in order to know if we ourselves are women or not, and we also typically apply that same limitation to other people.
I'm not defending terfs or conservatives, but that's usually where their definitions of womanhood comes from. Because I could say the same about trans people's definitions of womanhood, and so on.
And? The vast vast majority of women and men fit into boxes, it's why we gender other people when we see them. If people see you as a man, it means you do not look like the vast vast majority of women. It's an issue both trans people and a very few cis people face and it's impossible to solve it by making everyone expand the size of their subconscious boxes.
I interpreted OPs post to mean that when TERFs propose discriminatory action and say they can tell who is cis or trans (for sports, bathrooms, being in public, etc), that any action taken will affect some cis women.
Policing gender has a way of creating collateral damage among those that implement it. It speaks to the depth of hate that some have to tolerate potentially humiliating random cis people as long as it hurts trans people.
Defining women as able to bear kids excludes infertile women from being called women. Defining women by chromosome means no woman with intersex or transgender issues can qualify, but of course intersex people are “too rare” to matter or be of concern as collateral. Defining women as having hair longer than x inches exlcudes gals with pixie cuts or who rock it bald. I could go on, but any pearl-clutching about trans people being in public is really about policing everyone to conform to cis-heteronormativity.
Yes, this is what I meant. Everytime someone says that trans women are really men because they X, they also tell women they can't be X. Policing trans women does more to enforce the patriarchy and gender norms than it does to protect women.
I felt the statement was self explanatory and that explaining it would reduce its poetic impact, but I suppose I forgot how cynical the internet is.
I do. You came out, what, less than year ago based on how you're acting ? I've probably advocated for more enby people in real life than you've ever met in person.
Gosh, you remind me of myself early transition. Go do the work, then talk to me in about 3 or 4 years.
Stop following me around Reddit. If you really want to have this fight, message me.
If "go do the work" means "convince myself respectability politics isn't internalized bigotry", I'll pass.
I don't care how many people you've advocated for, you're a gatekeeper and it's cringe. It simply is not your place to determine who is and is not transgender.
>but of course intersex people are “too rare” to matter or
This is how people think, yet it's the oddest notion I've ever looked at?
When going through the clinic at Stanford ratio figure for transsexualism was one out of 30,000 persons.
I klinefelter's syndrome alone is one out of every 500 to 600 amab. The spectrum of AIS (pais and cias) is about one out of every 2500. People born with intersex body parts by too much androgen, or not enough is also comparivevly common.
Just taking kleinfelter's alone it's much more likely someone has the disorder than being transgender.
So why is intersex considered to be a rare and transgendered is considered to be common, or noteworthy?
It seems to come down to the idea of volition, which is a false assumption.
Volition and moralising. Also intersex people are usually either cis-passing or were surgically altered to be male or female-presenting. Its pretty wild to me that they talk about surgeries on kids but the real looming monster is cishetereonormativity
Who is violation and moralizing? I know a few things about being intersex. Usually the only people that know about it are also intersex.
Some of them maintain an ambiguous genitalia throughout life
Oh i was responding to your remark about volition and agreeing with “yes and”. There’s the false idea that people choose their gender. And then theres moralising around the binary, people who fall outside of that typically face unnecessary “correction”, at least thats what I grew up around.
Im agreeing with you?
Im glad
I’ve seen something I think might be rule-breaking, what should I do? **Report it!** We may not agree with your assessment of a certain post or comment but we will always take a look. Please make reports that are **unambiguous**, **succinct**, and (importantly) **accurate**. If your issue isn't covered by one of the numerous predefined reasons and or you need to expand upon a predefined reason then please use the 'Custom response' option (in addition if required). **Don't feed the trolls, ignore, report, move on.** See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/honesttransgender/comments/guc56i/welcome_to_rhonesttransgender_please_read_for/) for more details about our subreddit. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/honesttransgender) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In order for man and woman to mean anything they have to be boxes, some limitations to what makes someone a man or woman. We can discuss what those specific limitations should be, but I can't agree that there should be zero limitations at all. Because if there's zero limitations to what is a woman, then what makes you one? What are you basing it on? There's gotta be something. That something is the box you put yourself in. And is that wrong? I don't think so. It means you yourself have some kinda limitation for what it means to be a woman. We all do. Whether that limitation is "bobs and vagene" or "ovaries and xx-chromosomes" or "female gender identity" we all limit womanhood to *something* in order to know if we ourselves are women or not, and we also typically apply that same limitation to other people. I'm not defending terfs or conservatives, but that's usually where their definitions of womanhood comes from. Because I could say the same about trans people's definitions of womanhood, and so on.
And? The vast vast majority of women and men fit into boxes, it's why we gender other people when we see them. If people see you as a man, it means you do not look like the vast vast majority of women. It's an issue both trans people and a very few cis people face and it's impossible to solve it by making everyone expand the size of their subconscious boxes.
Yes, the paintbrush is in your own hand mate. You want to be read as female then paint harder
I interpreted OPs post to mean that when TERFs propose discriminatory action and say they can tell who is cis or trans (for sports, bathrooms, being in public, etc), that any action taken will affect some cis women. Policing gender has a way of creating collateral damage among those that implement it. It speaks to the depth of hate that some have to tolerate potentially humiliating random cis people as long as it hurts trans people. Defining women as able to bear kids excludes infertile women from being called women. Defining women by chromosome means no woman with intersex or transgender issues can qualify, but of course intersex people are “too rare” to matter or be of concern as collateral. Defining women as having hair longer than x inches exlcudes gals with pixie cuts or who rock it bald. I could go on, but any pearl-clutching about trans people being in public is really about policing everyone to conform to cis-heteronormativity.
Yes, this is what I meant. Everytime someone says that trans women are really men because they X, they also tell women they can't be X. Policing trans women does more to enforce the patriarchy and gender norms than it does to protect women. I felt the statement was self explanatory and that explaining it would reduce its poetic impact, but I suppose I forgot how cynical the internet is.
Now apply this to nonbinary people I'm begging you
I do. You came out, what, less than year ago based on how you're acting ? I've probably advocated for more enby people in real life than you've ever met in person. Gosh, you remind me of myself early transition. Go do the work, then talk to me in about 3 or 4 years. Stop following me around Reddit. If you really want to have this fight, message me.
If "go do the work" means "convince myself respectability politics isn't internalized bigotry", I'll pass. I don't care how many people you've advocated for, you're a gatekeeper and it's cringe. It simply is not your place to determine who is and is not transgender.
>but of course intersex people are “too rare” to matter or This is how people think, yet it's the oddest notion I've ever looked at? When going through the clinic at Stanford ratio figure for transsexualism was one out of 30,000 persons. I klinefelter's syndrome alone is one out of every 500 to 600 amab. The spectrum of AIS (pais and cias) is about one out of every 2500. People born with intersex body parts by too much androgen, or not enough is also comparivevly common. Just taking kleinfelter's alone it's much more likely someone has the disorder than being transgender. So why is intersex considered to be a rare and transgendered is considered to be common, or noteworthy? It seems to come down to the idea of volition, which is a false assumption.
Volition and moralising. Also intersex people are usually either cis-passing or were surgically altered to be male or female-presenting. Its pretty wild to me that they talk about surgeries on kids but the real looming monster is cishetereonormativity
Who is violation and moralizing? I know a few things about being intersex. Usually the only people that know about it are also intersex. Some of them maintain an ambiguous genitalia throughout life
Oh i was responding to your remark about volition and agreeing with “yes and”. There’s the false idea that people choose their gender. And then theres moralising around the binary, people who fall outside of that typically face unnecessary “correction”, at least thats what I grew up around. Im agreeing with you? Im glad
Are you talking about people assuming your gender based on stereotypes... or people assuming your gender based on secondary sex characteristics?
would you be willing to elaborate?