Tarnstellung
No bio...
User ID: 553
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Korkunova. I conceded that Petras doesn't pass perfectly.
Yes but – are you telling me you can't tell a boy and a girl apart unless they have breasts? Six-year-old boys and girls look like an androgynous mass to you?
Hairstyle and clothing is a major confounding factor. If a six-year-old boy and girl had the exact same hairstyle and outfit – which never happens because there are clearly defined boy and girl styles – do you think you could tell them apart? How?
This is clearly a heavily filtered and colour-corrected photo, and Korkunova is wearing a baggy sweater which hides the breadth of their shoulders.
You can look her up to find more photos. Or look at her Instagram (apparently she's in Paris, which is good to hear).
Edit: Just saw your edit. Are you honestly telling me, after looking at various photos of her, that she looks like a man or like she used to be a man?
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Very confused by the claim that it's impossible to distinguish male and female people until after they've gone through puberty.
Secondary sexual characteristics don't develop until puberty.
Afraid not, clocked them instantly.
I would say it depends on the photo. Sometimes her jaw seems unusually broad, sometimes she passes perfectly. You have to admit in many photos she passes.
How about Diana Korkunova? She was well-known in Russia for being openly trans years ago, though Putin outlawed being trans recently so I don't know what's going on with her right now.
Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.
With all due respect, I don't think you're quite as well-informed about this topic as you think you are.
My claim that:
The average trans woman who transitions late is weaker than the average cis man, though I don't know if she's as weak as a cis woman.
is consistent with that. I never specified how much weaker she is than the average cis men, though for the sake of honesty, I will say I expected the difference to be greater. Note also that your study (have you read or skimmed the whole thing or just the abstract?) notes that the muscle mass continues decreasing after one year.
The study does not address my claim that:
The average trans woman who transitions early is as weak as a cis woman.
In fact, they note:
Tack et al. [72] was not included in the table since some of the participants had not completed full puberty at treatment initiation.
Meaning they believe the conclusion would have been different if the participants had started their transitions earlier.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
You don't consider any of these people creepy? Or how about some of these.
The average trans person is not creepy. There are cis women who commit all sorts of crime, too, including sexual assault of women.
I would love to see one of these trans-identified males who is visually indistingushable from an actual woman I keep hearing so much about.
Kim Petras? She started hormones at 12, so she never went through male puberty that would give her masculine features.
Because, being physically weaker, female people are vastly more vulnerable to rape and sexual assault than male people.
Testosterone blockers and estrogen decrease muscle mass, and, if started at an early age, prevent masculine bone structure. The average trans woman who transitions late is weaker than the average cis man, though I don't know if she's as weak as a cis woman. The average trans woman who transitions early is as weak as a cis woman.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Because trans women are not men, creepy or otherwise. I want to prevent men from looking at them, too. They'll have breasts, and many men will find them interesting to look at even if they have a penis, and some don't even have a penis and are visually indistinguishable from cis women. Why do you only care about cis women's privacy?
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
By "original poster", I meant @SnapDragon who is not trans.
Frankly, I doubt it's ever going to be relevant since I've known a trans man and they were fooling nobody.
And there are trans men out there who do pass. What about them?
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
This is fundamentally just a really bad way to judge whether a treatment works, one that we rightly dismiss for other treatments. There are also countless anecdotal reports of people who recover from cancer after faith-healing. And unlike spontaneous remission of cancer, which is rare, regression to the mean in mental health is the norm. "My mental health got so bad that I sought out X treatment, after which I got better" is the default result.
It's not just mental health being vaguely "bad". It's a specific condition, gender dysphoria, that is directly alleviated by altering the person's body.
"The trial doesn't look good but maybe it works in a subgroup" is the sort of dubious cope you see all the time. At least the p-hackers saying "efficacy was shown in middle-aged hispanic women" have some sort of evidence, saying "okay but assuming the treatment works we just need to do a better job of diagnosing the people it'll work on" is even worse.
I've long thought gender dysphoria was overdiagnosed, so this isn't a "cope" I came up with on the spot.
Because it calls into doubt both the advisability of the current standard of care and the theoretical framework the treatment is based on.
Indeed it does, but it does not imply that no one benefits from transitioning.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Nearly every major company, from banks to tech giants to consumer brands, performs the annual pride month ritual of slapping the rainbow flag on their social media, homepages, and marketing. Pro-LGBT content is ambient, institutionally enforced, and aggressively pushed into the public square whether you’re looking for it or not. Just try offering the mildest pushback, “I don’t care about this, keep it in your bedroom, I don’t want it in my face constantly”, and brace yourself for a barrage of HR scare words.
So just ignore it? You claimed you were being forced to actively participate. Now you're down to "it exists and and I am aware of it".
As for Brokeback Mountain, let's say it bombed. The entire cultural apparatus would have blamed “bigoted audiences” for failing to show up enthusiastically enough for this raw emotional (homosexual) experience, and the failure would be clear proof that society is still full of deplorables who need re-education.
Now you're just making things up.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Well, it is obvious and uncontroversial that sex is an objective fact which can be trivially verified and falsified, which "gender identity" is not.
Testing chromosomes is not trivial. A hundred years ago, Imane Khelif would have been considered a weird woman. No one would to think to classify her as male because she doesn't menstruate. And what about people who have a set of chromosomes other than XX or XY? What about people with mosaicism?
Hell, it can't even be defined in a non-circular manner, although countless people have tried.
How about defining gender such that "my gender is 'woman'" means "I want to be treated, in most social situations, as you would treat the average person with XX chromosomes (however you refer to such a person)"?
A hundred years ago, she'd have been seen as a weird female. No one would have concluded she's actually male because she doesn't menstruate. She has a vagina! Or something that looks exactly like a vagina, if you want to nitpick. And what about people who have a set of chromosomes other than XX or XY? What about people with mosaicism?
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
The original post said:
Guess I’m as bad as a TERF then. If you make no attempt to present as a woman before going to the woman’s bathroom or locker room, obviously you might make people uncomfortable and they wouldn’t be out of bounds in asking you to leave.
Yes! This makes you as bad as a TERF! Your common sense here is - and I want to emphasize that this is not hyperbole or exaggeration - against the law in California. You cannot ask a man not to use the women's shower, as this constitutes discrimination against their self-declared gender. The relevant law is the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which includes "gender identity and gender expression" as protected categories.
Which implies that if someone does make a sincere attempt to present as a woman, they should be allowed to use the women's toilet. I agree that there should be standards to prevent bad actors and we shouldn't just take people at their word. But the original post was presenting this as a mainstream anti-trans opinion when it is, in fact, fringe, and most anti-trans activists want to, as you described, ban trans people from using their preferred toilets regardless of how well they pass, how much effort they've put in, or how sincere they are.
The original poster was pointing out that saying, "look, we understand your desire to behave like / be considered as the opposite sex, and don't wish to give you shit over it, but we both know that biologically this is not true and we need you to use the toilets associated with your biological sex" is considered just as TERFy as "y'all are freaks and perverts, take that dress off".
In what way is "you're allowed to pretend you're a different gender, but we'll still treat you as your birth gender" better than "you're not allowed to be your preferred gender"? Yes, that is just as TERF-y.
You wade in going 'people are being BANNED' as if this is some terrible deprivation of liberty, and I genuinely don't know if you use this language because the actual requirements are so trivial and so uncontroversial that you need to punch it up a bit, or because you have worked yourself up so much about the issue that you unconsciously act as if trans people are being made to wait on the pavement until their bladders explode.
Women are being forced to use men's toilets and men are being forced to use women's toilets, or even being banned from using public toilets completely. This is obviously a bad thing.
You didn't address the question of trans men, specifically, if they should be allowed to use women's facilities if it makes women uncomfortable because they look like men.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
That ruling is bullshit caused by the UK government's inability to ever tell women no, and I do not support it in any way.
So what would your preferred policy be on the question of trans men?
As for the rest, trans people are permitted to use the toilets concordant with their sex, as are we all. You know this is what I meant. You may disapprove of my invisible rider that this is a good thing, but saying that trans people are being banned from using the toilet is straight up 100% rubbish and you know it. If you would like to argue that forcing trans people to use the toilet associated with their sex is evil, please go ahead and do so.
You should have been able to infer from context that that was what I meant. The person I was originally responding to suggested anti-trans people just want reasonable minimum standards for trans people to use their preferred toilets (which I would support), but that's false: they want to ban trans people from using their preferred toilets completely.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
How do you expect me to not pay attention and also put on performative enthusiasm for pride parades and pride month every year? If your sexual preferences and gender identity should not matter, why can't I just ignore you? If they should matter, why should I not get upset about pinkwashing legacy straight-male oriented media? I am fine with you living your life as you please, but why do I have to celebrate your perceived identity and fetishes? Why are you looking around the room to see who stops clapping first? Why are you expecting me to watch Brokeback Mountain as a media literacy test? Because it's cinematically artful? The raw emotional acting? Or because it's an important progressive conversation? To me, it's just Oscar bait gayslop. I'd rather watch a poor man's Fast & Furious for 12 hours. Everyone gets aggressive if you breach their red lines.
This is a strawman. The vast majority of cishet people don't care about pride and don't participate in any way, and they receive zero pushback unless they go looking for it in the depths of Tumblr. Who, exactly, expects you to watch Brokeback Mountain?
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
My flippant response was meant to highlight that you're just assuming that your viewpoint on the central topic this entire debate is about is correct and framing it as obvious and uncontroversial.
"Gender identity" is an unfalsifiable concept, and basing public policy on unfalsifiable claims individuals make about their subjective inner experiences is a bad idea.
Indeed, which is why I believe there should be some minimum standards for trans people to be allowed to use their preferred facilities beyond just stating they're trans.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
I made a mistake in my previous comment. It was meant to read:
Segregated locker rooms are still necessary to prevent men from looking at women, as discussed in my previous comment. Using criminal prosecution or the possibility thereof to prevent this is unrealistic because it is something most men are inclined to do if given the opportunity, unlike indecent exposure, which only a small number of perverts do and which is widely condemned.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
No, it's not the same as everyone else. They're the only group being banned from using the toilets concordant with their gender.
And if they knew trans men existed, they'd want to exclude them from both men's (because "they're women") and women's (because they look like men) spaces. This is not hypothetical. Regarding last year's landmark UK Supreme Court ruling:
This judgment means that trans men can be excluded from men’s single-sex spaces. But there may also be cases where they are excluded from women’s spaces too, despite being considered women under the ruling.
The court found that it might be proportionate to exclude a trans man from a women’s single-sex service such as counselling for survivors of sexual abuse where “reasonable objection is taken to their presence … because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance…”.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Do I have to spell it out for you? Can you not infer from context that I meant banning trans people completely from using toilets or doing other sex-segregated activities concordant with their gender?
Conservative politicians are demanding that trans people use the toilets concordant with their sex, just like everyone else.
Trans people are demanding that they be allowed to use the toilets concordant with their gender, just like everyone else.
Trans people are not forbidden from using toilets. No conservative politician is demanding that trans people be denied access to toilets of any kind.
If they knew trans men existed, they'd want to exclude them from both men's (because "they're women") and women's (because they look like men) spaces. This is not hypothetical. Regarding last year's landmark UK Supreme Court ruling:
This judgment means that trans men can be excluded from men’s single-sex spaces. But there may also be cases where they are excluded from women’s spaces too, despite being considered women under the ruling.
The court found that it might be proportionate to exclude a trans man from a women’s single-sex service such as counselling for survivors of sexual abuse where “reasonable objection is taken to their presence … because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance…”.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
It being a crime is meant to be a deterrent, i.e., it serves to prevent it from happening and not just to punish people when it does.
Locker rooms are still necessary to prevent men from looking at women, as discussed in my previous comment. Using criminal prosecution or the possibility thereof to prevent this is unrealistic because it is something most men are inclined to do if given the opportunity, unlike indecent exposure, which only a small number of perverts do and which is widely condemned.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Clearly you care about the words' meanings, and I would say that the use of such strong words does imply that you care a lot. Accusing your political opponents of "destroying" or "demolishing" anything is clearly very charged and implies that you think the destruction is a very bad thing. It is totally unlike using the word "demolish" in its neutral, literal meaning.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Indecent exposure is a crime.
Indeed, so we already have the means to prevent it. If a particular trans person is a pervert, prosecute them. Don't throw all trans people, most of whom are not perverts, under the bus. If a trans women isn't deliberately drawing attention from other women in the locker room, she is doing nothing wrong.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
I really hate this specific breed of whataboutism that so many trans activists practise, when literally any criticism of any component of the trans activist agenda is met with derisive accusations that their interlocutor thinks this issue is the most important issue facing the entire planet!!!!1!
Where, exactly, did I say that the demand that the words "male" and "female" be substituted with "AMAB" and "AFAB" is "the great political issue of our time"? Why do you insist on repeatedly putting words in my mouth and attributing things to me I never said, beliefs I never endorsed?
"Destruction" and "demolition" are very strong words.
"People here" including Khelif themself.
She says she has an SRY gene. She doesn't say she is a man. You may consider the two equivalent, but evidently she does not, so no, she didn't say she is a man.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Read the entire sentence. They're banning trans people completely from using toilets or doing other sex-segregated activities. Let's set aside sports and consider only toilets. In what way are cis women harmed by sharing toilets with passing trans women? Note that women's toilets don't have urinals, only stalls. Users will never see other people's genitals. If the trans woman passes, other users won't even know she is trans. On the other hand, sharing the toilet with a passing trans man might actually be unpleasant.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
Algeria is relatively secular by MENA standards, and by no means "theocratic".
Strange, given Khelif has admitted it.
My bad, I haven't kept up with the news and it's not mentioned in the lead section of her Wikipedia article (it's buried at the bottom of the article).
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
At least one British man was convicted for misgendering, although his conviction was overturned on appeal. Something similar happened to a British woman, who was convicted for calling a trans-identified male a man, a conviction that was likewise overturned.
To the best of my knowledge no one has actually been sent to prison for misgendering, but at least two people have been arrested and held in jail cells for misgendering.
Both cases are from several years ago and, as you said, both were overturned, so no further prosecution will be brought for similar cases. Note that overzealous prosecution for tweets under the Communications Act 2003 that later gets overturned is nothing new and doesn't even have to involve culture war topics.
Which amounts to destruction. No one's sex is "assigned" at birth, like you just arbitrarily bestowed a sex on them but another one would have done just as well. Sexes are observed at birth. The claim that a doctor simply "assigns" them on a whim does, in fact, amount to a fundamental demolition of what the word "sex" means.
Everyone knows that "AFAB" is just a euphemism for "born female". Do you campaign against euphemisms in general or is it this one specific pair of euphemisms that you consider the great political issue of our time? I myself think euphemisms are stupid and would prefer just "female at birth", but I recognize that they're harmless in the grand scheme of things.
The case of Imane Khelif is instructive. We have people here claiming she is a man. Yet she has a vagina and from birth she was assumed to be female. Would you not agree that, in her case, "assigned" rather than "observed" is the correct term to use?
the replacement of commonly used anatomical terms with ghastly, dehumanising substitutes like "front hole", "chestfeeding", "birthing person" and "menstruators"...
"Front hole" and "chestfeeding" are terms trans people use for themselves and are not meant to replace terms used for cis women. "Birthing person" and "menstruator" are medical terms, not intended for general use or to replace any existing terms, created to be very specific. They are similar to the term "men who have sex with men" ("MSM"), widely used in medicine because it describes exactly what is meant and avoids unnecessary controversy over whether they are gay or bi or whatever else. No one identifies as a "man who has sex with men" and the term is not meant to be used outside medicine.
Have you ever seen boys dressed like girls with girls' hairstyles or girls dressed like boys with boys' hairstyles?
More options
Context Copy link