discourselover3000

[discourselover3000]

Being trans is not a choice. It's an inate part of who someone is. Therefore every single trans adult was once a trans kid. They may not have had the language to describe it, or to communicate it with adults. They may not have had the introspection skills necessary to even realise that they were experiencing something known as gender dysphoria. But that does not change the fact that they were trans kids.

In the rare cases where a trans child actually does have both the language and introspection skills necessary to communicate with adults in their life that they are trans, the course of action recommended by medical professionals is, quite literally, to let kids be kids. The recommended course of action is to follow the child's lead. To let them explore their identity and presentation in a safe environment. Not to force a label on them. Not to tell them the answer one way or the other. Just to simply let them exist and play and enjoy their childhood. Maybe it's a phase they'll grow out of. Maybe it's not. It doesn't matter because nothing done at this point is permanent. It's literally just calling a child a different name or pronouns if they want that.

For older kids, there's one more intervention which might be done; GnRH agonists, aka puberty blockers. This too serves the sole purpose of letting kids be kids. These medications simply allows puberty to be delayed by a few years to allow an adolescent with gender dysphoria time to mature enough to make permanent decisions about their body. This is almost identical to these medications' other use in minors, delaying puberty in children with precocious puberty until they are mentally prepared for the effects of puberty. There are minimal side effects when these medications are used short term. The biggest risk factor, bone density, normalised after treatment is ceased. Once treatment has ceased one of two things will happen. Either the young adult determines that they do want to continue on this course, and hrt will be started. Or the young adult determines that they do not, at which point their natural puberty will commence as normal.

Regardless, the ultimate point is, yes, there absolutely are trans kids. We know this because there are trans adults that were once kids. Same way as there are gay kids, because every single gay adult was once a gay kid. Trans kids do not have the trans label forced on them, the general best practice is to leave them to it and allow them to explore their identity and presentation at their own pace.

[discourselover3000]

Except it's far easier and more socially acceptable for a predatory man to pose as an ICE agent than it is for a predatory man to pose as a trans woman. Like, one of these things requires going against everything society tells men to be. And one of these things requires conforming to the most basic societal ideals for white men.

One of these things requires posing as a minority that's 4 times as likely to be the victim of a violent crime than the general population. One of these things requires posing as one of the most powerful professions in the US. One of these things could potentially requires years of work (growing out hair, waiting for hrt changes, waiting for surgery, etc) and thousands of dollars just to get to the point where you might get away with "invading women's spaces" without issue. One of these things requires getting a few bits of protective clothing and sticking "ICE" on your vest.

Let's be real here, rapists don't rape out of some kind of passion or desire or love. It's about power and control. So of course a government entity that's been given free reign to do whatever the fuck it wants (especially to people of colour) would be an incredibly appealing disguise for a potential rapist. You'd be hard pushed to find a profession with more power in today's world.

[discourselover3000]

Nope. Gametes are just one of the aspects that go into the definition of sex. While the gametes you produce are binary, not every human produces gametes.

Also yes, the majority of people do have XX or XY chromosomes, and those align with their observable sexual characteristics. But not everyone does. The majority of people have hair that is some shade of brown or blonde. That doesn't mean ginger does not exist as a natural hair colour. The majority of people have blue or brown eyes. That doesn't mean green and hazel do not exist as natural variations of eye colour.

Around 1.7% of the population is believed to be intersex (though this is likely higher because a lot of intersex variations are difficult to detect). Less than 2% of the world's population is ginger. Around 2% of the population has green eyes. If you can recognise that the statement "hair colour is either brown or blonde" is untrue due to the existence of ginger hair, and that the statement "eye colour is either blue or brown" is untrue due to the existence of green eyes, then you can recognise that the statement "sex is either male or female" is also untrue due to the existence of intersex people.

[discourselover3000]

You said it yourself. There are several definitions of sex in the field of biology. The specific definition a biologist will use depends on what they're actually studying. Some of these definitions are on spectra. Some have discreet categories. Some genuinely are binaries.

The definition of sex we as a society usually use when talking about humans is a combination of several different aspects of biology. And thus, is somewhat socially constructed. For example, when talking about humans we often assume chromosomes = genitals = gonads = male/female. However, that isn't true. Sex doesn't actually work like that. Therefore, this combination definition that we usually use is a social construct.

That doesn't mean that all definitions of sex are socially constructed. At least, no more than language itself is a social construct. It simply means that a easy binary sex is socially constructed.

[discourselover3000]

We're kinda going in circles here but the modern use of pronouns is not based in sex. (Which, as an aside, is kinda socially constructed too. There are a lot of different traits that just get thrown under the label "sex", such as genitalia, gonads, internal organs, hormone balance, etc. While those are all very real things, the idea that they all boil down to two binary categories of human is socially constructed). Pronouns are tied to the method of social categorisation known as gender.

From my own experience as a pretty androgynous looking person, and from my observations of how the world tends to interact with my friends who do not conform to the stereotypes associated with their "sex" (whether this be perceived sex or actual sex at birth, since those are not always aligned), it's far more common for strangers to use the pronouns associated with gendered stereotypes based on presentation than it is for strangers to use pronouns based on perceived sex. I know a 6'4" trans woman who gets she/her or they/them 90% of the time. And that's in a pretty socially conservative part of the UK. I know a trans man called Sabrina with F cups who gets he/him 80% of the time, and they/them the remaining 20. The majority of people use pronouns in a gendered way, not a sexed way.

The reason James wants to use he/him pronouns is kinda irrelevant. Maybe it is because of some internalised misogyny. Maybe it's because he has gender dysphoria (as in the diagnosable medical condition) and being called he helps alleviate it. Maybe he just got bored and wanted to try something new. Maybe he's actually a detrans man, and he realised being a trans woman wasn't for him and so went back to being a man (I never specified his specific identity. Just his name and pronouns). The actual reason doesn't matter. It doesn't hurt anyone for James to use he/him pronouns. It makes him happier. So what actual reason do you have to not respect that? Language is socially constructed, pronouns don't actually mean anything tangible. They have connotations, sure, but why does that matter?

I do agree that using pronouns in a gendered way isn't gender abolition. I'm not a gender abolitionist. I suggested you use neutral pronouns, such as they/them, for everyone regardless of gender/sex. That doesn't have any connotations whatsoever (which he/him and she/her both do, even if you think they shouldn't). Using "sex-based" pronouns doesn't do anything to accomplish gender abolition because those pronouns still have certain connotations. All it does is piss people off for no real reason. Which is pretty much the definition of being a dick.

Of course it's your right to be a dick if you wanna be a dick. But that doesn't change the fact you're being a dick.

[discourselover3000]

Actually, pronouns are more closely tied to gender (as in, the socially constructed roles assigned to various individuals, usually [but not always] based on sex) than they are to sex. Specifically, they're typically tied to perceived gender.

This is mostly blatantly obvious in individuals who present in a fashion stereotypically associated with one gender, but have sexual characteristics that are typically associated with another. For example, an individual who presents in a stereotypically very feminine way (eg, long hair, makeup, dress, etc), but who has clearly been through a testosterone based puberty. The vast majority of people would default to she/her pronouns for this individual (or their language's equivalent), or neutral ones such as they/them. Because this individual is presenting in a way that is more closely associated with the gender of "woman" than the gender of "man", even if their sexual characteristics appear male.

A similar phenomenon can be observed in individuals who present in a stereotypically masculine way (eg, short hair, t-shirt and trousers, little to no makeup, etc) but do not show signs of a testosterone based puberty. Especially if they also don't have any immediately obvious signs of an estrogen based puberty. The vast majority of people will default to either neutral pronouns (such as they/them) or masculine ones.

Regardless of how much of gender you believe is socially constructed, or how much of a gender abolitionist you are, it remains true that gender is still something that exists in our current society today. And pronouns are one of the many parts of our language that are closely tied to gender.

And if there's no difference in vibe between he/him and she/her, why not respect what someone wants to be called? It's not like it's gonna harm you (or anyone else) in any way shape or form to call James he instead of she. And it'd definitely make James feel happier and more respected. Or why not stop using gendered pronouns all together? We can do that really easily in English. It might piss some people off, but it'd go a long way towards abolishing gender if that's something important to you.

[discourselover3000]

On the fundamental level, all trans people are really doing when they socially transition is change their name and pronouns. And what are pronouns? Just a substitute for a name, really.

So how is that an issue? Is someone saying "I want to be called James now. Also please use he/him pronouns for me" really denying any fundamental truths of reality? Is that really any different from Robert saying "yeah call me Leo now"?

[discourselover3000]

See, a lot of trans people also believe in gender abolition. The main difference is the approach taken.

From my observations, the terf brand of gender abolition is essentially attempting to switch from gender being a form of social categorisation to "biological sex" being a form of social categorisation (usually defined by taking a binary approach, and shoving intersex people into one of two boxes the best they can)

The trans brand of gender abolition usually takes more of a "just throw the whole thing out" approach. No need for any social categorisation, everyone just exists. Part of this approach also tends to involve playing around a lot with the current social rules surrounding gender and gender roles we have, such as pairing long hair and skirts with a full beard. It can also involve playing around with names, pronouns, titles, identity labels, etc. After all, if gender is a social construct, why not have fun with it? But the key thing here is sex should not be used to categories humans either.

The reason so many trans people have such an issue with the terf brand of gender abolition is because of that focus on a binary, immutable sex. What we as a society think of as sex is actually a combination of several different related but slightly different traits (eg, gonads, genitals, breast tissue, facial hair, chromosomes just to name a few). Any trans person who undergoes any form of medical transition will have sexual characteristics that no longer fit perfectly into the male or female box. So any movement that attempts to force people into one of two boxes will inherently go against the best interests of trans people.

This is also one of the reasons why the terf movement is harmful to intersex people. These are individuals who's natural sexual characteristics don't fit perfectly into the male or female box. So a movement that tries to force them into one of two boxes will inherently go against the best interests of intersex people too.

The comment is from 7 years ago and idk if this person uses tumblr anymore 💔 but this is exactly what I’ve been thinking too.

[discourselover3000]

I'm being so for real, I genuinely do not get it. Because you have not explained it. Is sex not a performance of some description? Is sexual gratification not some form of entertainment? What is the actual difference here between a modeling agency selling lingerie models and a brothel selling prostitutes (in a hypothetical world where every single sex worker willingly went into the sex industry and is protected. Obviously in the real world we currently live in sex work is a lot riskier than modeling.)

In both cases, the worker's body is a major part of the commodity. In the modeling case, the product is selling underwear. And the attractiveness of the model's body is the thing that is being used to sell the underwear. Is that not selling the body as a commodity?

In the sex work case, the product is of course sexual gratification. And the worker provides a service to achieve that, some form of sexual contact. Is the way the worker's body looks part of the product? Yeah, but it's not the entire product.

At no point have you explained what it is about sex that makes it any different to some other service you could provide with your body. It's not like anything is used up when you have sex with someone. It's not like having sex with someone gives them an entitlement to do anything else with your body other than the sex act you agreed to. So what exactly is the issue here?

*sees anti sex work sentiment*

*calls it terf bullshit*

These people keep telling us every way but out loud what being trans really is about, because what does sex work have to do with being transgender? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[discourselover3000]

Human bodies aren't alcohol, weed, or any other drugs. Just in case you were confused.

You are correct. I did say it wasn't a perfect comparison. While there are some similarities between the drug industry and sex industry, there are key differences too.

The main comparison here is the industries (drug industry and sex industry). Both industries are quite underground due to the legal status of drug use and sex work. This means there's no government oversight on the way the industries are run, leaving the door wide open for abusive and dangerous behaviour. The biggest difference is, in the drug industry the users tend to be the biggest victims of the industry. In the sex industry, it's the workers who are the primary victim. That difference doesn't change the fact prohibition makes the problems associated with the industries worse. It doesn't change the fact that properly done legalisation would minimise the danger. Minimise the abuse.

The other major difference is that in the sex industry you're paying for a service. In the drug industry you're paying for a product. Again, this difference doesn't change the fact prohibition doesn't work and increases the dangers associated with the industry.

[discourselover3000]

Well, all your previous responses seem to indicate to me that you view sexual gratification as some weird thing that can't be the product of a service. After all, you seem to have no problems with sports, modeling or acting, which also involve people's bodies being a commodity. If that's not your belief then please articulately explain exactly what the difference actually is. Because you are yet to do so.

Banning rape and murder doesn't stop rape and murder happening. And making rape or murder legal would do nothing to help the victims or rape or murder. Banning prostitution doesn't stop prostitution happening. But making it legal, with proper legislation, could do a LOT to help sex workers.

Let's look at weed as an example. Banning weed outright doesn't stop people smoking weed. But since it's illegal, weed smokers must go to an underground industry in order to get weed. This increased demand for weed and other illicit drugs, results in an increase in underground criminal behaviour associated with drug smuggling. The weed produced may also be very low quality, and can make sick or be laced with other substances or something. All around, it leads to more harm, with very little benefit.

When weed is legalised, the government gives very specific venues a license to sell weed. They can enforce whatever requirements they want on the purchase of weed, such as minimum quality requirements and age verification. If those requirements are not met, the venues license will be revoked. The legal avenue for weed consumption cuts off demand for the underground weed industry. This significant reduces the negative behaviours associated with weed, and improves society for everyone.

In the case of legalising and legislating for prostitution, the government can again set whatever requirements they want in order to give venues a license to be brothels. These requirements can ensure protection for sex workers. And if the requirements are not met, the venue will have their license revoked. With a fully legal avenue to seek out sex work, demand for the current sex industry (with its current standards) will fall, resulting in a safer environment for all sex workers.

This may seem a little counterintuitive at first, but legalisation with proper legislation really is the best way to minimise the harm caused by the sex industry.

*sees anti sex work sentiment*

*calls it terf bullshit*

These people keep telling us every way but out loud what being trans really is about, because what does sex work have to do with being transgender? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[discourselover3000]

It is already illegal in many places to own and operate a brothle. Sex work and brothels still exist in those places. Banning it doesn't eliminate it. Harsher punishments don't eliminate it. No matter what laws you put in place, there will always be a demand for sex work. And if there is a demand, there will be supply. When an industry is very underground, which is what happens when everything surrounding an industry is banned, there is no legal oversight on how an industry is operated. And the types of people who want to own and operate a very illegal underground business are not the types of people that care in the slightest about the wellbeing of their workers or their customers.

It's been shown time and time again that prohibition does not work. Banning alcohol doesn't stop people getting drunk. It just encourages unsafe distillery and unsafe drinking practices. Banning drugs doesn't stop people selling or doing drugs. It just allows drug dealers to sell unsafe product and face no additional legal repercussions (after all, you're doing time if you get caught selling drugs no matter what. So what's the point in putting in extra time effort and money in making sure you're not selling something laced with fentanyl?). It just causes more overdoses and more unsafe drug use.

There are so many ways having a fully legal system for sex work could be used to protect sex workers. The government could enforce proper licensing on brothels, similar to how many do for alcohol sale. These licenses could have requirements for the workers' protection, such as mandatory std screening on a regular basis, mandatory security to protect workers, mandatory condom use, mandatory contracts for all users, mandatory trafficking prevention measures, etc. There could be mandatory regulations for room safety features like panic buttons and things. There could be regulation on maximum working hours to ensure workers get adequate breaks. You could even have regulation for mental health support. You could do so much to ensure the safety of the workers.

If you have a safe and legal way to operate a brothel, then you can simultaneously crack down on illegal brothels. Introduce harsh punishments for operating unlicensed sex work venues. Potentially introduce punishments for using unlicensed venues too. Suddenly it's not profitable to run a scummy abusive brothel. There's less demand for them because there's an alternative. That reduces demand for the sex workers that're forced into it. That're trafficked and stuck and abused and exploited.

No matter what you do there will be a demand for sex work. The best way to protect sex workers is to ensure that the majority of demand is for consenting sex workers who are operating in safe conditions. How else can you do that other than legalisation and legislation?

And where do you draw the line between labour produced by a body and a body producing labour? Sure, professional athletes are providing entertainment as the product. Arguably, so are sex workers. Models are chosen and payed solely based on the appearance of their bodies, so is owning a modelling agency morally wrong? After all, the body is the commodity of a model.

What about actors? Yes, they produce an entertaining product at the end. That's the product. But actors' bodies play a huge role in why they are chosen for a particular role. That's a huge part of their job.

Even your distinction between stripping and other forms of dancing raises questions. After all, it's significantly harder to pole dance when you're wearing clothes, because the friction of skin against the pole plays a huge role in maintaining control. So where's the line between stripping (not ok according to you) and normal dancing (which is apparently fine)? What is the actual tangible difference? Either way the end product is some form of entertainment.

*sees anti sex work sentiment*

*calls it terf bullshit*

These people keep telling us every way but out loud what being trans really is about, because what does sex work have to do with being transgender? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[discourselover3000]

Personally I'd say the reason you can't buy or rent an organ is because you can't live without most organs. Even when there's not, such as with kidney donation, there are significant long term health risks associated with them.

With lower risk things, like blood and plasma donation, many places actually do pay you to do it. And the main motivation for not paying blood donors is to prevent them from lying on intake forms, not because it's unethical to pay for part of someone's body.

Under this frame work, commercial surrogacy is significantly more unethical than sex work. There are significant long term health risks that are inherent to pregnancy. The health risks associated with sex aren't inherent, and can easily be mitigated by practicing safe sex. In a world where sex work was treated like any other employment, safe sex practices would be very easy to enforce.

Quite simply, forcing an industry more underground leads to more exploitation occuring within that industry. This is neatly demonstrated by the war on drugs. And though it's not an identical industry, heavier criminalisation does lead to more exploitation in the sex industry too. I'm sure there are some sex buyers who would be disueded from it if they faced harsher punishments if caught. But a lot wouldn't be. And the kind of man who doesn't care if he gets life in jail for hiring a prostitute is NOT the kind of man who would react well to a sex worker saying "no, you need to wear a condom."

Reducing demand for sex work also wouldn't necessarily decrease the motivation for pimps to get into the industry. After all, they can just up prices to account for the additional legal risk they're taking. If you listen to actual sex workers, most of them say stuff along these lines. They need better legal protections. They need destigmatisation. This is why this particular brand of feminism is called "swerf". It doesn't actually protect sex workers, it does the opposite. It forces their industry further underground, makes it harder to speak out against the exploitative side of the industry, and puts sex workers in far more danger.

There are also plenty of other scenarios where people are paid for their bodies, and the labour is performed by their bodies. For example, athletes. Some sports can be incredibly dangerous. The body is usually the one performing the labour. And the only product is entertainment. Do you believe every single person who watches professional sports should be punished? Should every football club manager be locked up for life? After all, it's a body performing the labour. And bodies shouldn't be rented or sold, right?

*sees anti sex work sentiment*

*calls it terf bullshit*

These people keep telling us every way but out loud what being trans really is about, because what does sex work have to do with being transgender? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[discourselover3000]

Tumblr user autisticexpression2 uses the tag "terf bullshit" as a filter to quickly sort through all their posts where they are disagreeing with radfems. Since we've established there's significant overlap between terfs and swerfs, it makes more sense to just use the "terf bullshit" tag, rather than make a whole new one just to disagree with a slightly different brand of radfem. Especially when the odds are, the swerf you're talking to is also a terf. This is a very common way to use Tumblr tags, and I fail to see how it's a problem.

My personal stance on sex work is actually kinda irrelevant here. You implied that trans allies' concern with sex workers is because there's something inherently sexual about being trans. I simply corrected you, and explained the actual reason.

But anyway, the biggest issue with the swerf brand of feminism is that it's far more concerned with shaming and punishing users of the sex industry, rather than being about actually protecting sex workers. It's like someone claiming to be against drugs to protect addicts, then campaigning to keep drugs illegal and give drug dealers the death penalty. All that does is harm the very people you're claiming you want to protect.

Do I like the sex work industry? No, of course not. It's exploitative as fuck. But the main goal should be to protect sex workers. And protecting sex workers requires decriminalisation, legalisation and destigmatisation. Killing every man that enters a brothel does nothing to protect sex workers. Making it illegal to pay for sex does nothing to protect sex workers. Punishing brothel owners does nothing to protect sex workers. Legalisation and normalisation would allow sex workers access to regular employment protections. It'd do far more to actually protect them than forcing the industry even further underground.

And, on a personal note, why is sex put on such a pedestal? Why is it different to any other form of work? This isn't me saying it isn't different, I'm simply asking what is it that makes it different. What is it about sex that makes it some sacred thing you can't buy? You can pay someone to clean for you. You can pay someone to pick crops for you. You can pay someone to cook for you. You can pay someone to move things round a wearhouse for you. You can even pay someone to do something really dangerous for you, like fix electrical pylons or build a skyscraper. You can pay someone to do basically anything a human can do. So what is it about sex specifically that makes it wrong to pay someone to do? Can you clearly, articulatly explain the exact reason it's different? I'm genuinely curious here.

*sees anti sex work sentiment*

*calls it terf bullshit*

These people keep telling us every way but out loud what being trans really is about, because what does sex work have to do with being transgender? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[discourselover3000]

Quite simple really. Trans people (especially trans women) are often excluded from typical employment due to discrimination. Both historically, and to this day. This means they are often forced to turn to sex work as a means of survival. There is quite literally no other choice. As a result, trans women are more likely to be sex workers than the general population. Therefore, trans women will be disproportionately affected by sex work related issues.

Also the Venn diagram between swerfs and terfs is basically a damn circle, so it's safe to say some swerf bullshit is probably some terf bullshit too.

*sees anti sex work sentiment*

*calls it terf bullshit*

These people keep telling us every way but out loud what being trans really is about, because what does sex work have to do with being transgender? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[discourselover3000]

Yeah this dude is straight up a nazi actually. Blocked and reported him.

inshallah jk rowling loses her fortune and all her hateful deeds are returned to her x10

[discourselover3000]

Setting aside the heinous transphobia here, your argument appears to be that trans people only got positive media attention in the past because trans healthcare was massively profitable. But somehow it no longer is so the media turned on trans people.

But how does that make sense? How is that logical? What could've possibly changed in the past 5 years to make trans healthcare unprofitable? Because all logic indicates trans healthcare would actually be more profitable now than it was 5-10 years ago.

1. There has been an increase in people identifying as trans in the past decade or so, likely due to increased social acceptance

2. This means there has been an increase in the demand for trans healthcare.

3. There's been nothing to stimulate an increase in professionals working within trans healthcare. Therefore supply has stayed consistent.

4. Basic economics time. If demand increases, but supply stays the same, the price of a product increases. In a for-profit healthcare system, that means the cost for the patient increases. But there's no increase in the cost of treating trans patients, because nothing has really changed on the supply front. Therefore, the profit magin would increase.

If this was some big pharma conspiracy to make money off trans people, this whole media shitstorm and culture war would be counterproductive. Stiring up controversy like this reduces the number of people accessing trans healthcare, therefore it would cut into the billions you believe the pharmaceutical industry was making off of trans people. You claim that the negative cultural shift in attitudes towards trans people is because profits dried up. But the only thing that could cause profits to dry up in this world you're building is the negative media attention. The logic does not add up.

The truth is, the individuals with power and wealth in this world benefit from the working class being divided. They stoke culture wars to give the people someone to be mad at that isn't them. They use fear and anger to control the masses. Trans people are a perfect target because they make up a relatively small percentage of the population. Small enough that alienating trans people won't cost those in charge any power. But not so small the masses won't care. Trans people are also a good target because they're weird. Most people can't imagine wanting to change their gender or sexual characteristics. They find trans people a little weird and off-putting. And it's incredibly easy to turn that feeling into anger.

Trans people aren't the only target of these culture wars of course. For example, immigrants are targeted too. Especially non-white immigrants. And you'll notice pretty similar language is used to target immigrants as the language used to target trans people. They're a threat to safety. A threat to culture. Of course it's not 1:1. But if you can recognise that the media saying "immigrants are coming over and taking your job" is propaganda to divide the working class and distract from the real enemy, you can understand that perhaps "transwomen are taking medals from innocent women in sports" may be doing a similar thing. And maybe the switchup in narrative is because wealth inequality is growing and the 1% need to point the angry working class at a target that isn't them so they can cling to their power, and is not because of some big pharma conspiracy.

You are not immune to propaganda. And anyone telling you that you're right to hate a specific group of people likely has ulterior motives for making you hate that group.

inshallah jk rowling loses her fortune and all her hateful deeds are returned to her x10