OMG so we're now back to you telling me I disagree with the article I posted. I thought we'd already covered that a couple of pages back. But to clarify I don't disagree with that article I've already explained why I don't so I'm not going to do it again.

Well then why did you bring up stereotypes again like as if I wasnt talking about the stereotypical brain differences! You went backwards in the discussion, not me.

I'm really on the fence with self-ID, I haven't quite made my mind up on that yet. I worry that as well as it potentially causing problems for women it could also cause problems for transsexuals as it might blur the lines between transsexual women and predatory men (in the eyes of some people). But then I agree that it would be better if such traumatic surgery wasn't seen as being as much of a necessity for trans people, and surgery isn't something that actually makes someone trans. So I don't know really its a complicated one.

I know you didn't but I knew it was in relation to my comment which is why I asked you to expand, you then confirmed it but afterward chastised me for it :/
If it was nothing to do with me then why hold my comment up as an example?

I look forward to your thread, I can't wait for your explanation of how some members and the female moderators discriminate on the forum.

I am not convinced about the female brain stuff tbh Jamie but I do agree with you that it is clear that the desire/need to be a sex you weren't born into is a mental health issue. Where we differ strongly is that, while I'm not unsympathetic to the problem, I am also not convinced cosmetically removing or restructuring people's sexual organs is an appropriate 'cure/treatment'. It doesn't suddenly make you sexually attractive to straight men, change a male body shape etc (same really for a trans man and I hear the penis doesn't look good either). I've read that suicide rates after surgery are high and this leads me to conclude it isn't the magical shangrila people convince themselves it will be. Many of the problems of not being the sex you desire to be are still there and I think more counselling might be more helpful than surgery.

However the biggest aversion I have to the whole subject is how people who are mostly in fact men are suddenly telling us we must fully accept trans people as the same as us women. Have even invented a conversational word for us as cis women, trying to blur the lines. You don't need to invent a word in conversation to make it easier, you can say woman and trans woman, there you are sorted.

This isn't a feeling against a trans person it is a fight for our identity.

I don't think your brain makes you a man or a woman as in the sense you're talking about, I think your sex followed by how you're treated because of your sex and your life experiences because of your sex is what makes you a man or a woman. Does that answer your question? It's what I've been saying from the start though

It might be sarcastic but it's also relevant. You mentioned stereotypes as though they're the only possible feminine/masculine features a person or a brain can have.

So... a feminine brain going beyond laughably stereotypical female thinking/behaviour is an apt comment to make.

Maybe Anne has a male brain?... She couldn't see the issues most women see in relation to career progression :/

"Cis" is not blurring the lines at all. It's giving you exactly what you want... The distinction.

Distinction between a born woman and a transwoman.

Like we are all humans. But there's a distinction between man/ woman. Within those groups there's a distinction between cis man/transman and cis woman/transwoman.

Your aversion to labels, whilst wanting trans people to keep labels in order to not ever dare be seen in the same light as yourself is quite a dichotomy.

Great post Jaxie :thumbs:

You were the one who reduced it to "liking shoes" I actually didn't list any kind of stereotypes

That does answer my question. That does contradict your article by quite a hefty margin though.

Perhaps. I'd argue your reasoning is irrelevant, but she may have a more male brain. I dont know much about her tbh.

It might help if you identify what these gender specific 'features' are...

You don't need to list them. I used an example of a stereotype.

Shoes is a feminine stereotype, yes?

Therefore a perfectly valid example.

You do seem determined to tell me I disagree with that article :laugh: I don't but thanks

My reasoning is irrelevant.... What are you basing your reasoning on then?

Have you considered something I haven't, what is it?

I'm saying I find it offensive, you can identify with it as much as you like.

..yeah it is complex, Jamie...it’s funny..(..non related but kind of..)...over years, ive has many chats with friends on ‘would you ever consider cosmetic surgery in the future’....and I’ve often said...goddamn YES, absolutely..:laugh:..but having gone through many surgeries in my life, I would never consider any surgery that wasn’t essential...if there was an alternative ‘method’, I mean...and self identification would be something that would give this../..this ‘non surgical’ procedure that would surely be progress...with the dangers and risks of any surgery...the stress on the body and recovery time etc...it shouldn’t be something that would be the only way to bring ‘recognition’...and obviously the cost as well, it feeling more available as a choice to people with higher incomes who could ‘afford’....I think for some it has been available on NHS...but then, that topic is quite controversial as well...so yeah, very complex...but there are reasons why I’m in agreement with self-identification...but I’ve also taken on board very much, so many things that Vicky has said of ‘being open to abuse’...

Anne's struggles to see issues in career progression stem from being in a big job on telly earning thousands and not having to really worry about fighting her way through a male dominated field.

That literally comes from her lucky and comfortable position. Not a possible male brain. Although I suppose she could have one.

The surgery isn't a cure, but the way in which it acts as a treatment is that it helps alleviate the trans persons dysphoria. It leads to them generally being more accepted as the opposite sex and helps them view themselves as that sex. But yes it shouldn't be viewed by anyone as a cure (and I think trans people are aware of this from the many consultations they have prior to surgery). I think it's more seen as a cure by non-trans people, as a lot of people will only accept someone as trans if they've had surgery.


On the 'cis' thing, I really do struggle to understand why it's seen as offensive tbh Jaxie. You say that trans women aren't the same as women, but that's actually what the word 'cis' represents. If that word (or any similar wording that means the same thing) wasn't used, there would be no differentiation between you and a transsexual woman. Yes we could say 'woman' and 'trans woman', but then a lot of people do view trans women as women so at times of the word 'woman' being used it might be confusing as to who is being referred to. So it only exists as a word to enable the conversations to take place in a coherent way which surely is needed in such complex topics as this. It's not placing any kind of label onto you, and is no different to what people mean when they say things like 'real women'.
I've tried to limit using 'cis' during conversations like this, actually since the last time the two of us discussed the word coincidentally :laugh: because I'm aware from that how some people take it and I haven't wanted the conversation to be distracted with a discussion about semantics, so I've used phrasing like 'biological woman', 'non-trans woman' etc etc, and I've never been pulled up on that being offensive, it's just meant that people have known who I'm referring to, making the differentiation, and that's exactly the same as what the word 'cis' does. It really isn't meant as a label in any way.


edited to add: if we were to just use woman and transwoman, it denies anyone the opinion that transwomen are also women. Whether or not you agree that they are, surely people are entitled to that opinion? So as long as that opinion does exist there has to be a way of easily differentiating between the two, and that's all the word 'cis' is meant for. A conversational aid, nothing more.

Currently, surgery is not a requirement for a GRC.

It would be barbaric if we made a law that said that someone had to have surgery.

You only have to be diagnosed with sex dysphoria, and to have 'lived as' the opposite sex for 2 years. The second part I reckon could be removed tbh, as 'lived as' does come down to stereotypes. You also need top pay a small fee, but this is waived if you are low income.

This is why I disagree with self-ID. I don't see whats wrong with having to have a diagnosis to say that yes, you do have dysphoria rather than it being a whim. And transactivists think this is a bad thing, really? I think it is necessary 'gatekeeping' to keep women as safe as possible, whilst also allowing transsexual people a bit more peace of mind. Make the GRC a 'anyone can get one' type deal, and it will be seen as a total joke.

But don't you think we could have had a better discussion if you'd have just raised your point without trying to mock mine?

Mock? I made my point using a pretty mild joke. I didn't mock you at all. :/

Women and trans women are not the same, can never be the same thing. In your head you are adding on words to define the difference. All you need to define the difference is the word trans.

In fact in your dogged support of trans women by insisting they are the same and applying extra words to define a woman you are being incredibly sexist towards women.