-
Hey folks, I've gotten a bit burned out after running this site for over 20 years (geez) so I'm looking for anyone that wants to be an admin on StP and help run the technical side of things. If you're interested, contact me!
The Pronouns Thread
- Thread starter EmmaAintDead
- Start date
- Status
Literally no non-trans posters have done anything like say "what being transgender is like."*
And this thread isn't about "Do trans folks have a right to exist and be trans?" Everyone, trans and "cis" alike, agrees that the answer is "of course they do".
What this thread is about is "How reasonable is it for trans folks to throw an ing-bing when folks 'misgender' them by using gender-neutral pronouns?"
And of course the insistence by some trans folks that non-trans people, far from "shutting up", MUST speak about trans folks IN THE WAYS YOU DICTATE.
All the angry and militant trans posters seem clear on the idea that my freedom of speech includes your right to react to what i say however you choose to, but seem less clear on the idea that that applies to them too.
----------
*Maybe @ScarletMountain has done this with their idiot "tragedy of the stomach" posts, but they are a hippie idiot who posts the same nonsense about diet and breath on every topic, from guns to trans rights. No one else has though, and i don't think any one takes anything they say as anything other than the hair-farmer babble it is.
"Life pro tip" to @ScarletMountain - maybe change your forum pic to one where you don't look really unhealthy? Might lend more credibility to your posts about your superior diet and breathing if you actually looked as healthy as the average poster here?
Last edited:
salxtina
Hobo
So there's a fundamental disagreement here about what the point of sharing this information is. One purpose people can come to the conversation with is to educate people about what it's like to live in a way that's been marginalized by dominant, abusive forms of power, give trans people a chance to connect and share accurate information about themselves, foster a subcultural space that's more respectful, and do harm-reduction.
The other purpose is to show up going, "oh this is such fun theoretical material to have arguments about," wank about how you imagine yourself to be "less feeling and more intellectual," pretend that you're being edgy by using the same slurs as anyone's 60-year-old christian uncle in the suburbs, and waste the time and energy of people who are here to do harm-reduction in good faith by having pointless arguments about things that don't effect you.
So I shorthanded 'same' for 'same side of.' "Sinister"?? Sure, if that's what pisses you off more, that's how you should read it. But don't pretend you haven't seen the idiotic screeds from person after person "theorizing" trans-ness as 'confusion,' 'fake,' etc - it's all right there. My final question, primarily, was to the moderators, as to whether there was any limit at which they'd stop letting non-impacted people derail this with irrelevant pontificating at trans people.
The other purpose is to show up going, "oh this is such fun theoretical material to have arguments about," wank about how you imagine yourself to be "less feeling and more intellectual," pretend that you're being edgy by using the same slurs as anyone's 60-year-old christian uncle in the suburbs, and waste the time and energy of people who are here to do harm-reduction in good faith by having pointless arguments about things that don't effect you.
So I shorthanded 'same' for 'same side of.' "Sinister"?? Sure, if that's what pisses you off more, that's how you should read it. But don't pretend you haven't seen the idiotic screeds from person after person "theorizing" trans-ness as 'confusion,' 'fake,' etc - it's all right there. My final question, primarily, was to the moderators, as to whether there was any limit at which they'd stop letting non-impacted people derail this with irrelevant pontificating at trans people.
Maybe i'm just oversensitive about being an old crock, but that almost sounds like it might be directed to the only person who is 60 years old participating here: me.
Just like your last post about how horrible "academic debate" is sounded kinda like it might be some kind of veiled attack on the only person posting here who has admitted to being over-educated: me. And how "no one is such a sheltered normie they don't know what actual police do"- could that be a veiled attack on the only person (me) who has used the verb "to police" (which means "to control")?
Thank you for sharing your fantasies about my life and background; for a reality check, see, among other things i've posted here my posts about my life as a teenage dirtbag. I have been a countercultural weirdo getting in trouble, getting guns pulled on me, and getting the shit beat out of me, for being who i am for a lot longer than you have been alive, comrade. I was a career criminal doing multiple felonies daily for more than 20 years. Then i slowed down to a couple felonies a week until i was 50, and hardly ever commit felonies any more (maybe a dozen this year max).
So: Which "slurs" have i used exactly?
The only slur toward trans folks that i have noticed here was by someone who clearly had no idea "tranny" was pejorative, referring to some trans folks they had had sex with. If they are an example of your enemies, hmmmm.
Maybe better to direct your anger at the trans OP, who created this thread to make a space for a discussion among non-trans and trans folks alike, the discussion that makes you so angry?
As to saying you "used shorthand" in saying "cis" means "same": No actually, you were incorrect, not "using shorthand" (whatever that means). "Cis" literally means "not trans", not "same side of". "This side of" is not the same as "same side of"- "this" and "same" do not mean the same thing.
Why it is better to say "cis" than "not trans", other than saving five letters and a space in typing, is unclear. If you imagine your error "pissed me off", you are delusional and reading a lot into what i wrote that just isn't there.
Last edited:
Lol, you obviously don't get out of your bubble much. Ever heard of this cool thing called a "metaphor."
benton
Vagabond
feralautistic: you are welcome as far as I'm concerned (if my vote counts for anything). I don't give a fuck if you travel or not. I didn't start traveling until I was 35.
It's 2019 and we're alive on planet earth. Fucking do it all. Go big or go home!
As far as being educated versus being ignorant, I accomplish that by reading literally thousands of books and doing lots of thinking. When I speak on a topic, you can be assured that I have read at least a couple of books on the subject, and I love getting viewpoints from other readers and thinkers because at the end of the day, I'm not all that smart
It's 2019 and we're alive on planet earth. Fucking do it all. Go big or go home!
As far as being educated versus being ignorant, I accomplish that by reading literally thousands of books and doing lots of thinking. When I speak on a topic, you can be assured that I have read at least a couple of books on the subject, and I love getting viewpoints from other readers and thinkers because at the end of the day, I'm not all that smart
I wonder if you might be willing to unpack this a bit for me, and perhaps others?
My understanding of what "trans" means is a person with gender identity opposite to the person's initial male/female "assignment", aka "biological sex". It seems to me that being "trans" thus very much affirms the "gender binary", but crosses the dividing line (thus the use of the term "trans" meaning "across") to the opposite gender.
"Femme" i understand to be short for, or derived from, "feminine", the antonym of "masculine".
Again, this categorization seems to affirm the masculine/feminine"gender binary".
So what do you mean by saying you are "trans, femme, and nonbinary"?
I am certainly not saying that you identifying yourself in this way is somehow wrong or invalid. I am merely saying that it is confusing to me, and i would like to understand what you mean by saying this.
I would have thought that being "nonbinary" would mean rejecting the idea that there are only two genders, or that every person or behavior must be classified as masculine or feminine.
Thank you very much in advance if you (or anyone else) would be willing to educate me here.
everyone's identity / relationship to labels is unique but i can at least clarify that trans includes or can include nonbinary. it's not like every trans person agrees with me, there's been a lot of fighting about it. speaking from my own perspective the trans people who would exclude nonbinary people are essentialist fuckwads. however, some nonbinary people don't consider themselves trans, and i wouldn't force the label on them.
anyway, trans is a slightly difficult term to define, but here's my best attempt: a trans person is someone who rejects their assigned sex, and chooses to call themselves trans. it doesn't necessarily mean they identify with a binary gender.
as far as "cis" goes.... i don't like grouping people by a term they dislike. but i'm going to in this case. cis people, whether i call them that or not, are a coherent group and i have to identify that group to talk about trans issues. i think someone threw out "biological male or female" as an alternative, but that has the same issue as calling cis people normal. also, i can't quite grasp how i'd use that in a sentence where i want to refer to people who identify with their assigned sex at birth.
i suspect the deeper issue behind the terminology is that cis people don't want to be talked about as a group of people among other groups. the culture we're raised in tells us that cis people are the only people. when you hear about trans people, it's something that's tacked on to your worldview, and so we're considered to be a departure from normal people. calling people who identify with their assigned sex "cis" instead of "normal" is a challenge to that, and i understand it can be upsetting, but i'm not willing to accept that cis people are the default.
and i guess i'm continuing my explanation of trans politics & ontology, because if i don't i know what the first reply is going to be.... yes, the majority of the population is cis, i'm aware. i don't think that means that our culture got it spot on and figured out all the characteristics that normally correspond to each set of genitals. i think it means that people tend to embrace what they're conditioned to believe is true. especially when that truth is violently enforced... interestingly, the proportion of trans people is growing just as it's starting to become socially acceptable.
my point is that gender (as well as sex but thats another argument) is in the culture, not in our bodies. the system of two genders that we're familiar with isn't some objective fact. it's the reality of our current culture, but keep in mind that european culture attempted and still attempts to destroy all alternative systems of gender
anyway, trans is a slightly difficult term to define, but here's my best attempt: a trans person is someone who rejects their assigned sex, and chooses to call themselves trans. it doesn't necessarily mean they identify with a binary gender.
as far as "cis" goes.... i don't like grouping people by a term they dislike. but i'm going to in this case. cis people, whether i call them that or not, are a coherent group and i have to identify that group to talk about trans issues. i think someone threw out "biological male or female" as an alternative, but that has the same issue as calling cis people normal. also, i can't quite grasp how i'd use that in a sentence where i want to refer to people who identify with their assigned sex at birth.
i suspect the deeper issue behind the terminology is that cis people don't want to be talked about as a group of people among other groups. the culture we're raised in tells us that cis people are the only people. when you hear about trans people, it's something that's tacked on to your worldview, and so we're considered to be a departure from normal people. calling people who identify with their assigned sex "cis" instead of "normal" is a challenge to that, and i understand it can be upsetting, but i'm not willing to accept that cis people are the default.
and i guess i'm continuing my explanation of trans politics & ontology, because if i don't i know what the first reply is going to be.... yes, the majority of the population is cis, i'm aware. i don't think that means that our culture got it spot on and figured out all the characteristics that normally correspond to each set of genitals. i think it means that people tend to embrace what they're conditioned to believe is true. especially when that truth is violently enforced... interestingly, the proportion of trans people is growing just as it's starting to become socially acceptable.
my point is that gender (as well as sex but thats another argument) is in the culture, not in our bodies. the system of two genders that we're familiar with isn't some objective fact. it's the reality of our current culture, but keep in mind that european culture attempted and still attempts to destroy all alternative systems of gender
Non-binary can mean that you associate with more than one gender and that you can identify as different genders at different times or as multiple genders at the same time. Or that you identify with no gender at all. I can't speak for the OP but I would consider Trans/femme/non-binary to mean does not associate with gender assigned at birth, identifies as femme more than not, but also identifies as other genders at various times. Keep in mind non-binary gender goes way beyond "male and female" and includes all (18 I think now) recognized genders and any new ones that my have emerged. Simple as pie.
@feralautistic Thank you for the thoughtful and helpful post.
I still do not see why the immediately clear "non trans" isn't a better way to refer to people who are not trans, rather than using a term many are unfamiliar with. I get the ideological point of not defining "not trans" as a "default state", and marking the previously unmarked category of "not trans".
Gender is a cultural formation, sure. Most things are. it is not hard to convince an anthropologist of this, since that is the basic insight of anthropology.
But it isn't a cultural formaton created out of nowhere. The gender binary comes from the fact that there are two and only two biological sexes, and that only females can get pregnant or bear children, and that males, are on average stronger and more prone to violence than biological females.
Yes, i am aware that not all females are able to get pregnant and/or bear children, and not all males are stronger or more violent than all females. Yes, i am also aware that a fraction of a percent of people are intersex.
None of this biology stuff has anything to do with how anyone wants to live their life, have sex, or present themselves to others, of course.
I wonder if you did not mean to define "trans" as "someone who rejects their assigned gender"? I don't think it is possible to reject one's sex as determined (not, actually, assigned) at birth.
Sex, as i'm certain you know, is a biological fact, not a cultural formation like gender. It is reflected externally in genitals (and other things after puberty), and males and females have different chromosomes.
A newborn's sex is not some idle opinion from the physician who delivered that child- it is an objective fact.
I still do not see why the immediately clear "non trans" isn't a better way to refer to people who are not trans, rather than using a term many are unfamiliar with. I get the ideological point of not defining "not trans" as a "default state", and marking the previously unmarked category of "not trans".
Gender is a cultural formation, sure. Most things are. it is not hard to convince an anthropologist of this, since that is the basic insight of anthropology.
But it isn't a cultural formaton created out of nowhere. The gender binary comes from the fact that there are two and only two biological sexes, and that only females can get pregnant or bear children, and that males, are on average stronger and more prone to violence than biological females.
Yes, i am aware that not all females are able to get pregnant and/or bear children, and not all males are stronger or more violent than all females. Yes, i am also aware that a fraction of a percent of people are intersex.
None of this biology stuff has anything to do with how anyone wants to live their life, have sex, or present themselves to others, of course.
I wonder if you did not mean to define "trans" as "someone who rejects their assigned gender"? I don't think it is possible to reject one's sex as determined (not, actually, assigned) at birth.
Sex, as i'm certain you know, is a biological fact, not a cultural formation like gender. It is reflected externally in genitals (and other things after puberty), and males and females have different chromosomes.
A newborn's sex is not some idle opinion from the physician who delivered that child- it is an objective fact.
Don't got heaps of time right now butll respond a bit before this thread may get shut down. Thanks every ONE for sharing. My posts are not intent to be offensive but to point out things and share.
OK slank firstly I'm not a hippy but if you call me that, fine, no big deal. I agree an get that if someone wants to be called something it's not an issue, it's like a nickname. However when iv spoken to trans people that I've known, two, iv mostly just called them by there birth names and they seem ok with this to. The issues come when it effects society or aspects of society in larger ways, all things grow and evolve over time.. Examples..
There has been a trans mma fighter, fallen fox who was/is a man who just one day said he identifies as a woman so they allowed him to go into the octagon and beat the shit outta women... It's funny how even tho trans n feminists claim to be trying to help each other things like this can happen.
And now in some schools lgbt classes are taught, not a one time visit type thing where someone comes in an explains there story, but like classes, there's videos on YouTube. So when lgbt went from a support group to going into schools to try install there ideology into the minds of other people's young children they most certainly crossed a line and became just another cult. Similar things have happened when Christians/Catholics took children from other cultures to "educate" them about there ways which to them where only right. Parents both religious and non religious have removed children from schools because of this, now some may say they are bigots ect.. some may be, and some may just not want the children to become people who may harm themselves, have a hard time or commit suicide. Schools are run by the state so now we know who's behind this too.
If some one in the street went up to young kids to talk to them about sex and stuff they crossed a line... Just let kids be kids most of us at that age where just running around an playing in dirt. If parents want to teach there own kids things fine.
Imagine if all this got to some out of control level and someone kills and cannabilises/eats someone and then they r like "no sorry guys I identify as a tiger" then everyone is like "oh.. Well that's ok guys, his a tiger" that's a stretch but still, the same mentality amplified.
Like I said the states behind this and they get these groups to fight amongst themselves an divide people. Feminist hate men mgtow men hate women, men and women should be a team, the only reason there's a gender pay gap Btw, is cause on average men work more hours an on average men work more dangerous jobs.
After doing a bit a research from wikipedia: "Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and the and there sex assigned at birth people who experience gender dysphoria are typically trans gender"
And of you click the link into it, it says there can be a difference apparently from someone who feels distress and someone who doesn't but from Crocs video the woman there seemed distressed to when she said "I don't feel safe in my body".... but at the same time that's modern western psychology tho.. Which isn't very deep And western medicine is mostly just about making money off people too.
Also according to Matt Derrick the owner of the site this is a place for everyone, but there's a mod here SlankyLanky saying "stop with the hippy talk"and it's ok? Imagine if he had said "stop with the trans or lgbt talk" instead. Even Older then dirt keeps telling ScarletMoutain to shut up, when his just sharing n making good points. Everything is energy, nothing is really "solid or physical" it's all energy vibrating at a certain frequency. Even Nikola Tesla said "If you wish to understand the universe think in terms of energy, vibration and frequency" he wasn't a hippy he was a scientist.
To Emma or anyone else who didn't really grasph the concept of natural law.
Human belief is is completely irrelevant when it comes to natural law, just as it is irrelevant in relation to any of the other laws of nature such as gravity, momentum, thermodynamics or electromagnetism. Similar to such other workings of nature the workings of natural law require no belief in order for them to be discovered and known.
Thanks humans.
OK slank firstly I'm not a hippy but if you call me that, fine, no big deal. I agree an get that if someone wants to be called something it's not an issue, it's like a nickname. However when iv spoken to trans people that I've known, two, iv mostly just called them by there birth names and they seem ok with this to. The issues come when it effects society or aspects of society in larger ways, all things grow and evolve over time.. Examples..
There has been a trans mma fighter, fallen fox who was/is a man who just one day said he identifies as a woman so they allowed him to go into the octagon and beat the shit outta women... It's funny how even tho trans n feminists claim to be trying to help each other things like this can happen.
And now in some schools lgbt classes are taught, not a one time visit type thing where someone comes in an explains there story, but like classes, there's videos on YouTube. So when lgbt went from a support group to going into schools to try install there ideology into the minds of other people's young children they most certainly crossed a line and became just another cult. Similar things have happened when Christians/Catholics took children from other cultures to "educate" them about there ways which to them where only right. Parents both religious and non religious have removed children from schools because of this, now some may say they are bigots ect.. some may be, and some may just not want the children to become people who may harm themselves, have a hard time or commit suicide. Schools are run by the state so now we know who's behind this too.
If some one in the street went up to young kids to talk to them about sex and stuff they crossed a line... Just let kids be kids most of us at that age where just running around an playing in dirt. If parents want to teach there own kids things fine.
Imagine if all this got to some out of control level and someone kills and cannabilises/eats someone and then they r like "no sorry guys I identify as a tiger" then everyone is like "oh.. Well that's ok guys, his a tiger" that's a stretch but still, the same mentality amplified.
Like I said the states behind this and they get these groups to fight amongst themselves an divide people. Feminist hate men mgtow men hate women, men and women should be a team, the only reason there's a gender pay gap Btw, is cause on average men work more hours an on average men work more dangerous jobs.
After doing a bit a research from wikipedia: "Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and the and there sex assigned at birth people who experience gender dysphoria are typically trans gender"
And of you click the link into it, it says there can be a difference apparently from someone who feels distress and someone who doesn't but from Crocs video the woman there seemed distressed to when she said "I don't feel safe in my body".... but at the same time that's modern western psychology tho.. Which isn't very deep And western medicine is mostly just about making money off people too.
Also according to Matt Derrick the owner of the site this is a place for everyone, but there's a mod here SlankyLanky saying "stop with the hippy talk"and it's ok? Imagine if he had said "stop with the trans or lgbt talk" instead. Even Older then dirt keeps telling ScarletMoutain to shut up, when his just sharing n making good points. Everything is energy, nothing is really "solid or physical" it's all energy vibrating at a certain frequency. Even Nikola Tesla said "If you wish to understand the universe think in terms of energy, vibration and frequency" he wasn't a hippy he was a scientist.
To Emma or anyone else who didn't really grasph the concept of natural law.
Human belief is is completely irrelevant when it comes to natural law, just as it is irrelevant in relation to any of the other laws of nature such as gravity, momentum, thermodynamics or electromagnetism. Similar to such other workings of nature the workings of natural law require no belief in order for them to be discovered and known.
Thanks humans.
I don't have either the time or the patience to part by part tell you how fucked and wrong you are. If my experience with stp has taught me anything it's that I'm sure there's somebody willing to point out every bullshit thing you just typed with some well thought out on point response, but that ain't me. Yer fucked, that nonsense I just read is some fox news shit for real dude.
@WyldLyfe as lenient as the staff has been in this thread for the purpose of being educational for people who may not be as in the know about trans people, don't for a second think that this is a welcoming place for yer bigoted attitude. You seem to have no questions or inquiries but instead have some real shifty views on trans people. Hate speech will not be tolerated.
Ive kept tabs on this thread, and read a lot of it, but not all, as there are a lot of long winded posts. Ive had no desire to post mainly bc I think its mostly easy to be decent to ppl, especially if theyre decent to you and others. Wanna be friends?
But Wildlyfe does bring up an interesting wrinkle in the emergence of the trans community by mentioning the M to F MMA fighter.
Its a bit off topic of pronouns but I think still fits here.
I'm a huge sports fan in general, but absolutely love tennis. In the 70s and early 80s there was a M to F tennis player. Renee Richards. The Tennis Association banned her, said she couldnt play womens tennis, she sued, she won, she got to play and did really well in some Majors in her mid 40s. Later in her life she was quoted as saying if she had been younger no genetic woman would have been able to come close to her on the tennis court.
Which is spot on true.
So thats the question Im posing.
As trans ppl become more prevalent and integrated into our mainstream is it fair for the governing bodies of sports to restrict M to Fs against genitic females when theres a clear advantage for them?
A friend and I were also discussing whats right about the public toilet debate and who's rights belong where; as in is it right for a 6'1 non pass trans person to use the womens room and possibly frighten some younger girls that dont understand, or is it right for that person to use the mens room despite identifying as a woman. The vast majority of parks, stadiums, etc are still only set up w mens and womens.
Or is that all still to far down the road... And we should just focus on the semantics and being nice part?
But Wildlyfe does bring up an interesting wrinkle in the emergence of the trans community by mentioning the M to F MMA fighter.
Its a bit off topic of pronouns but I think still fits here.
I'm a huge sports fan in general, but absolutely love tennis. In the 70s and early 80s there was a M to F tennis player. Renee Richards. The Tennis Association banned her, said she couldnt play womens tennis, she sued, she won, she got to play and did really well in some Majors in her mid 40s. Later in her life she was quoted as saying if she had been younger no genetic woman would have been able to come close to her on the tennis court.
Which is spot on true.
So thats the question Im posing.
As trans ppl become more prevalent and integrated into our mainstream is it fair for the governing bodies of sports to restrict M to Fs against genitic females when theres a clear advantage for them?
A friend and I were also discussing whats right about the public toilet debate and who's rights belong where; as in is it right for a 6'1 non pass trans person to use the womens room and possibly frighten some younger girls that dont understand, or is it right for that person to use the mens room despite identifying as a woman. The vast majority of parks, stadiums, etc are still only set up w mens and womens.
Or is that all still to far down the road... And we should just focus on the semantics and being nice part?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 7,211
- Age
- 47
- Homebase
- Dick City California
- Website
- youtu.be
@WyldLyfe Ahh yes the Fallon Fox argument, you must watch a lot of JRE podcast. Let me guess; biologically born males have stronger frames/muscles/broader shoulders/larger fists therefore it's unfair they're allowed to fight women just because they identify as women themselves now.. is that the argument? Ashley Evans-Smith beat that ass tho! Doesn't that sort of make it a moot point?
Also, what just happened? It seemed like we were on a nice pace here, people were being respectful and learning new ways of looking at things. Shit was pretty harmonious, you could almost taste the progress and then all of a sudden we're back in the 50's again in one post.
Also, what just happened? It seemed like we were on a nice pace here, people were being respectful and learning new ways of looking at things. Shit was pretty harmonious, you could almost taste the progress and then all of a sudden we're back in the 50's again in one post.
EmmaAintDead
Pro-Crime /// Anti-Peace
I'm trans and there's no way in fuck I could beat any MMA fighter in a fight under any circumstances. The question asker is not trans, and there's no way in fuck he could beat any MMA fighter in a fight. The great equalizer in competition is discipline. Not genitals.
Also, bathrooms are for making your peeps and poops. If you don't want to be bothered while pissing at the Red Sox game, don't start talking to or about anyone else who is also there to piss. If you can't handle pooping around other people, hold it til you get home.
Edit:
Genuinely, the bathroom thing confuses me to no end. We're all here to do our shame. If you think your child will get confused, then talk to your child. If you, a full grown adult, are going to get angry about who goes poop where, you have some serious re-evaluation of priorities to consider. Piss and let piss.
Also, bathrooms are for making your peeps and poops. If you don't want to be bothered while pissing at the Red Sox game, don't start talking to or about anyone else who is also there to piss. If you can't handle pooping around other people, hold it til you get home.
Edit:
Genuinely, the bathroom thing confuses me to no end. We're all here to do our shame. If you think your child will get confused, then talk to your child. If you, a full grown adult, are going to get angry about who goes poop where, you have some serious re-evaluation of priorities to consider. Piss and let piss.
@EmmaAintDead you neglected to touch on the chance of someone eating somebody making a smudge and getting away with it because they identify as a caca loving tiger...since that's apparently a real concern.
benton
Vagabond
This seems like a good time to address the "t-word": TESTOSTERONE.
I have seen mention in this thread and other places the idea that I am a boy/man because when I was born, a doctor observed my genitals and declared "it's a boy!" and by implication I was socialized to behave as a male in society because of this declaration when perhaps if left to my own devices I would have behaved differently. This is my understanding of the idea and may not be wholly correct. I certainly acknowledge the reality in which some behavior is shaped and influenced to varying degrees by the people around us and society at large.
As an aside, not everyone is born in a hospital. Especially if we are talking worldwide and not just the US.
As a biological male who identifies strongly as male and always has, I would assert that the much greater reason for this than a doctor looking at my junk and saying some words is the fact that I was flooded with testosterone in the womb and when I went thru puberty my testicles began producing large amounts of testosterone, and this hasn't stopped even to this day at the age of 44 (yes I've had my levels checked).
When humans compete with one another, many factors contribute to who ends up being victorious. It is my assertion that the most relevant factor in competition is testosterone. We can talk about society and environment and how expectations shape behavior and all of that. What we can't do is point to a biological female world chess champion, or a biological female who is the best poker player in the world (there are certainly many top biological female chess players and poker players, of course).
We are not going to see a biological female world chess champion, and we are not going to see a biological female become the best in the world at poker. (In fact, in the history of the World Series of Poker I think a woman has only made the Main Event final table once, and the WSOP ME Champ isn't necessarily considered the best player in the world).
There will never be a biological female Bobby Fischer or Garry Kasparov because biological females cannot produce enough testosterone to defeat top biological male players. This is not my opinion - it is the reality.
I've also heard a few different places that someone's friend who is trans and is taking testosterone "has more testosterone than a biological male." Yeah, the weak girly men perhaps.
There is no crossover in testosterone levels between biological males and biological females. Assuming everyone is healthy with respect to their endocrine systems, the biological males who make the least testosterone will have exponentially higher levels than the biological females who make the most testosterone.
Testosterone levels for biological males are wide: something like between 250 ng/dl and 1000 ng/dl. A biological female who supplements testosterone to produce levels at the upper end of the normal biological male range is going to experience harmful side effects. Whereas biological males at the upper end will not because their bodies are naturally producing large amounts of testosterone.
So a biological female can take all the testosterone she wants and she will never have as much in her bloodstream on a consistent basis as I do, and the high levels are good for my health and bad for hers.
P.S. I think saying "biological males are stronger than biological females" is not specific enough. There are absolutely ways in which biological females are stronger than biological males. For example, there was a 250 mile footrace and a biological female won the race by 10 hours. Also, I am not a scientist but it is my understanding that biological females have stronger blood-brain barriers than biological males.
I have seen mention in this thread and other places the idea that I am a boy/man because when I was born, a doctor observed my genitals and declared "it's a boy!" and by implication I was socialized to behave as a male in society because of this declaration when perhaps if left to my own devices I would have behaved differently. This is my understanding of the idea and may not be wholly correct. I certainly acknowledge the reality in which some behavior is shaped and influenced to varying degrees by the people around us and society at large.
As an aside, not everyone is born in a hospital. Especially if we are talking worldwide and not just the US.
As a biological male who identifies strongly as male and always has, I would assert that the much greater reason for this than a doctor looking at my junk and saying some words is the fact that I was flooded with testosterone in the womb and when I went thru puberty my testicles began producing large amounts of testosterone, and this hasn't stopped even to this day at the age of 44 (yes I've had my levels checked).
When humans compete with one another, many factors contribute to who ends up being victorious. It is my assertion that the most relevant factor in competition is testosterone. We can talk about society and environment and how expectations shape behavior and all of that. What we can't do is point to a biological female world chess champion, or a biological female who is the best poker player in the world (there are certainly many top biological female chess players and poker players, of course).
We are not going to see a biological female world chess champion, and we are not going to see a biological female become the best in the world at poker. (In fact, in the history of the World Series of Poker I think a woman has only made the Main Event final table once, and the WSOP ME Champ isn't necessarily considered the best player in the world).
There will never be a biological female Bobby Fischer or Garry Kasparov because biological females cannot produce enough testosterone to defeat top biological male players. This is not my opinion - it is the reality.
I've also heard a few different places that someone's friend who is trans and is taking testosterone "has more testosterone than a biological male." Yeah, the weak girly men perhaps.
There is no crossover in testosterone levels between biological males and biological females. Assuming everyone is healthy with respect to their endocrine systems, the biological males who make the least testosterone will have exponentially higher levels than the biological females who make the most testosterone.
Testosterone levels for biological males are wide: something like between 250 ng/dl and 1000 ng/dl. A biological female who supplements testosterone to produce levels at the upper end of the normal biological male range is going to experience harmful side effects. Whereas biological males at the upper end will not because their bodies are naturally producing large amounts of testosterone.
So a biological female can take all the testosterone she wants and she will never have as much in her bloodstream on a consistent basis as I do, and the high levels are good for my health and bad for hers.
P.S. I think saying "biological males are stronger than biological females" is not specific enough. There are absolutely ways in which biological females are stronger than biological males. For example, there was a 250 mile footrace and a biological female won the race by 10 hours. Also, I am not a scientist but it is my understanding that biological females have stronger blood-brain barriers than biological males.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
