Women who’ve had their ovaries removed? 200k per year.
Women who’ve had their uteruses removed? 400k per year.
Women born without a uterus? 1 in 4500 or about 900k women in the world.
Women who are born without a uterus and ovaries? About 7% of those born without a uterus so 63k women worldwide.
But you know what the definition destroying counter evidence is? That if current estimates are accurate that about 1 in 100 people are trans. If trans people were rarer it would be easier to argue that they should just be an asterisk.
Edit: For my own curiosity I wanted to see if being trans would qualify as a rare disease and apparently the FDA’s threshold is 1 in 200k.
Let be very clear, I'm not advocating against trans people. On the contrary, I think all people who aren't hurting others are deserving of respect and dignity within the limits of reason and the law of "your reach ends where my nose begins."
But that doesn't entitle them or anyone else to unilaterally (and with a strong authoritarian bent, I might add) change our language or to proclaim "Trans women are women." I would counter, "No. Trans women are trans women, and that's OK."
1% certainly doesn't strike me as definition destroying counter evidence. Again, not sure what your source is.
If I say "all apples are apples" and you show me a pear, I'm not wrong.
Here’s a woman who had her ovaries removed due to a medical complication and a woman who was born without them. How are these not counterexamples?
Yes it’s true that all women have ovaries except the ones that don’t.
Who wrote that? Not me. That is a cynical attempt at zooming into a very specific feature as though it is defining. (Which the green apple vs. red apple fallacy actually helps demonstrate!) Basic common sense tells us that a woman is defined by many anatomical (and, consequently, behavioral) traits.
Let's look at the Wikipedia definition, which matches the definition that the vast majority of humanity understands and agrees with:
"...inherit a pair of X chromosomes.."
"...are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause..."
"...lack of a present, or functioning, SRY-gene on either one of the respective sex chromosomes..."
"...Female anatomy is distinguished from male anatomy by the female reproductive system, which includes the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, and vulva..."
"...a wider pelvis, broader hips, and larger breasts than an adult man..."
"...Women have significantly less facial and other body hair, have a higher body fat composition, and are on average shorter and less muscular than men..."
Conversely, we can say, quite clearly, that a person born with a penis, who then has the penis surgically refashioned into a "vagina", who has top surgery, and who undergoes significant hormone treatments clearly does not meet that definition.
This is a transparent, motivated attempt to erase the definition of woman.
Again, let me be CRYSTAL clear. Saying "trans woman != woman" is true and OK to say. It does NOT equate to saying trans women are bad and should be mistreated. To say, believe, or act on that is NOT OK.
Trans women are trans women, and that's OK.
So I don’t know why I’m bothering but here.
> clearly does not meet that definition.
Which is why the definition is being updated to include them. We discovered and are now socially recognizing a different kind of man and woman.
> Saying "trans woman != woman" is true
Your arguing something on a completely different plane than the actual discussion. It’s should we update the definition of men and women to include trans folks — why or why not? If I define good person as someone who doesn’t misgender trans people then you are NOT a good person and that’s okay to say. Do you see how meaningless that statement is?
> This is a transparent, motivated attempt to erase the definition of woman.
This is literally insane levels of conspiracy theory nonsense. There is no group of mustache twirling trans people who are out to erase the definition of man and woman. What end game are you possibly imagining for this made up group? Murhahaha we’ve updated the definition of men and women to include trans men and women and now… world domination?
> It does NOT equate to saying trans women are bad and should be mistreated.
Yes and that mistreatment is called “treating them in a manner different from a cisgender woman including but not limited to calling them something other than women.”
> Trans women are trans women, and that's OK.
If you care this belief has a name and is called third gendering if you want something to Google.
All I saw you use is an argument that the impossibility of perfectly distinguishing between a male and a female meant that the question is unanswerable.
I'm not only concerned about actual trans women, but primarily men just saying they're trans women when caught in inappropriate places, so that argument isn't totally addressing my concerns but if you were to try to convince me that trans women were entirely women I'd expect it to include an attempted proof that they exhibit female pattern sex criminality.
Here's a thought experiment. Let's say you're somewhere where nobody has heard of gender, with a mixed-sex group of people. At a small distance you see a male walking by in a garment that is usually worn by a female. One of the females with you says "I'm glad that the changing norms now let a man wear what was once seen as female clothing!".
1) Do you say "You don't know that they aren't a woman!"?
2) Who's more progressive, you or her?
3) Who, if either of you, is creating a third gender category?
Ah, but there is the problem. You've declared that the definition is changing. The majority of people are not on board with this, and yet you press ahead. This is where the authoritarianism of this movement emerges...
> If I define good person as someone who doesn’t misgender trans people then you are NOT a good person and that’s okay to say
There it is again. "I decided on a new definition. If you don't participate, you are a bad person." This is a cynical ploy to seize the moral high ground, but it is not actually accompanied by moral superiority.
> we’ve updated the definition of men and women to include trans men and women
Who is "we"? You belong to a tiny minority that has declared victory without the vast majority of English speakers consenting. Yes, changing the definition of "woman" hurts women.
> treating them in a manner different from a cisgender woman including but not limited to calling them something other than women.
You don't have the right to declare a new definition and then call other people bad for not agreeing. This, again, is the authoritarian problem with this movement. And, thus, it will fail.
You have a right to be treated with respect. You don't have a right to control or bulldoze other people. "Your reach ends where my nose beings."
"Trans woman" is the most apt descriptor of a trans woman. "Woman" is not. Trans women ARE different than biological women.
Well yeah because I’m a language descriptivist, not because I’m authoritarian. All words are subject to change at all times.
> There it is again. "I decided on a new definition. If you don't participate
Read that bit again. I’m pointing out the absurdity of that very statement. You say word should mean X, I say it should mean Y. The argument is not whether it does mean X or Y. That’s irrelevant and just leads us to taking past one another. The argument for trans women being women and meaning Y is the one that’s backed by the medical community.
> Who is "we"? You belong to a tiny minority that has declared victory.
Bold of you to assume I’m trans. I’m up in this thread because I do lgbt activism work and use the internet to workshop talking to people about lgbt issues.
Also trans people aren’t a tiny minority, 1 in 100 is small but not insignificant by any stretch.
> Yes, changing the definition of "woman" hurts women.
It most certainly doesn’t hurt me. Acknowledging that there are XX women and XY women changes absolutely nothing about the women’s issues I fight for. In fact trans women are marching right beside us on issues like abortion rights and access to birth control.
Genuinely curious, does changing the definition of man hurt men in your view?
> You don't have the right to declare a new definition
I’m not, misgendering trans people is mistreatment by the usual definition. What else would you call knowingly doing some that hurts someone else? And that hurt can be measured empirically, the biggest factor in the trans suicide rate is how accepted they are as their gender.
You can call fighting for the ability of trans folks to live their lives free of that harm authoritarian all you want but I can’t see how triggering a trans person’s dysphoria and trauma they were born with and had no choice or control over doesn’t make you a bad person if you do it on purpose.
> And, thus, it will fail.
Wishful thinking, I’m actually on the ground taking to people. The IRL opposition to trans people isn’t all that big and is vastly over represented on the internet and public discourse by politicians angling for clout. Your typical IRL conservative has no issue with trans people. Thanks to the success of the movement and a bunch of trans folks finally getting to come out it’s pretty rare for someone not to personally know anyone who’s trans. And that’s by far the biggest predictor of how accepting and supportive they are.
> Trans woman is the most apt descriptor of a trans woman. "Woman" is not.
If you’re not going to call them women then just call them men. It sounds less silly than “grape soda isn’t soda.”
Of course trans women are different from cis women. That’s why there’s different words for them. They’re both still women.
As am I. And modifying the definition of "woman" is not the act of a descriptivist. Maybe what you're saying is true if one lives in SF or Seattle, but over 1 billion people speak English. The vast majority of them do not use the words "woman/man" to include trans women/trans men. For example, in the Philippines, where 90+ million people speak English, the reality of and language for a third gender is widely accepted. But the inclusion of trans people in the definition of "man" and "woman" is not.
> I say it should mean Y
You say "should", not me. "Should" is not the word of a descriptivist. It is the word of a prescriptivist.
> The argument for trans women being women and meaning Y is the one that’s backed by the medical community.
For starters, if you're a descriptivist, then you don't believe that any one person or group decides what any word means. Instead, a descriptivist describes usage. What you're referring to is prescriptivism–i.e. that definitions are dictated to their users. Second, this is not settled even within the medical community.
> Bold of you to assume I’m trans
Where did I make that assumption? The tiny minority of which you are a member, and to which I refer, is the group of people that believe the word "women" includes trans women. Again, there are more than 1 billion English speakers in the world, and the vast majority do not share in this definition.
> misgendering trans people is mistreatment by the usual definition. What else would you call knowingly doing some that hurts someone else?
Describing physical reality with precision according to a shared vocabulary (aka "a language") is not immoral and it is not an act of violence. Thus, if someone's feelings are hurt by it, it is not wrong. Rather, perhaps we should think about why that person's feelings are injured by an accurate descriptor? Is it a personal problem? Is it a societal problem? Etc.
> I’m not (declaring a new definition)...You can call fighting for the ability of trans folks to live their lives free of that harm authoritarian
Advocating for trans people isn't the issue. That's great. Glad you're doing it. The issue is the desire to seize authority over something that doesn't belong to you: the English language. To do so is an authoritarian act. Again, there are over 1 billion English speakers, that vast majority of which do not agree with nor consent to this expanded definition of woman. This is not a descriptivist act. It is not a democratic act. It is an authoritarian act.
> Wishful thinking, I’m actually on the ground taking to people.
Sounds like you may be operating under significant selection bias. Also, you're conflating a resistance to the language you seek to change to dictate to "opposition to trans people." Those are not the same thing. I agree, most people don't have an opposition to trans people in principle. The resistance materializes as an effect of how and for what many trans activists advocate. Most of us agree that we should treat trans people with respect and dignity. However, we often do not agree with, for example, unilateral changes to our language or believing that health insurance should pay for reassignment surgeries and hormonal therapies.
The principle of "your reach ends where my nose begins" cuts both ways.
> If you’re not going to call them women then just call them men. It sounds less silly than “grape soda isn’t soda.”
This is a bad metaphor, similar to the green apples/red apples metaphor. A more apt metaphor would be "grape juice isn't soda, but it is a beverage". I.e. "a trans woman isn't a woman, but they are a human."
- I know that what trans folks experience with dysphoria isn't "hurt feelings" and is a medical issue more akin to triggering someone's PTSD.
- I view the absolute bare minimum of what is required for acceptance of trans women is using their names, pronouns, treating them as you would cisgender women in all situations not directly related to medical care where chromosomal differences are relevant, recognizing dysphoria as a medical condition, and providing them access to the medically necessary healthcare of medical transition in the same manner as any other medical treatment.
And if you oppose any of those things is opposing trans people since every single one is fundamentally necessary for trans people to exist in society. I would think you mad if you tried to argue that a law banning two people of the same sex from having sex was not opposing gay people and that it was enough to simply view them as people instead of monsters.
- I view fighting for the usage of the word man and woman that is consistent with the medical community (yes I know you disagree with that bit) as convincing people to include trans men and women when using those words so that the meaning changes, not telling people that they have to. You are under no obligation to accept trans women, but in my view calling them women is a prerequisite to that.
It's great that you're now not shunning them from polite society, locking them up in mental institutions, or lynching them but that alone doesn't constitute acceptance. I view what you're doing the same way I would view someone who said they "accepted black people" but were insistent that they were "black people" not "people."
The seriousness of the symptoms doesn't say what treatment is required, or even if treatment is needed at all.
> the absolute bare minimum of what is required for acceptance of trans women is using their names, pronouns, treating them as you would cisgender women in all situations
Up to the boundaries of women's single-sex rights of course. Sports, prisons, bathrooms, scholarships, etc.
What do you want us to do where their rights conflict?
> And if you oppose any of those things that is opposing trans people since every single one is fundamentally necessary for trans people to exist in society
Are all of those absolutely required, because that seems like a way to shoot for the moon and achieve nothing. I can see pronouns and social acceptance but that's about it. Sports is already returning to sex segregation and prisons and rape shelters are coming around. Is there no middle ground where we could serve trans people without giving up on everyone else's rights?
> If there was a treatment that could alter a trans person's brain chemistry so they would no longer feel dysphoria it would without question be deemed medically necessary and covered.
I would think so, but it's a terribly unpopular idea in the community.
> the usage of the word man and woman that is consistent with the medical community
The evidence based medical community that performs heart transplants and stuff, or the same psych community that supported recovered memories which led to the satanic sex panic scandal?
> You are under no obligation to accept trans women, but in my view calling them women is a prerequisite to that.
I've accepted transexual people for decades and now you're telling me that it counts for nothing unless I participate in removing women's rights on their behalf?
> you're now not shunning them from polite society, locking them up in mental institutions, or lynching them but that alone doesn't constitute acceptance
Yeah, it does. Lack of rejection is acceptance. It's all the catholics and scientologists get, it's all anyone can demand.
> they "accepted black people" but were insistent that they were "black people" not "people" because the overwhelming majority believed that "people" means humans of white skin.
You've agreed that trans aren't the sex they claim and it's that we should treat them like they are. So are you saying that black people aren't people, and we only treat them as such as a courtesy? This argument just comes across as stunningly racist and blind to the differences between race and sex.
In this case male people are like colonizers, going into and displacing women from their spaces. You're basically arguing for allowing Rachel Dolezal to claim blackness and race-based subsidies, because we're all just people.
While it’s clear me and the other fellow have strong disagreements they are coming to the table in earnest where you seem to be actively trying to misunderstand what I’m saying to concoct the most insane bad faith readings I couldn’t have even imagined.
Some of your arguments go a bit far, like racial analogies. That's what they imply - that black people aren't real people. Because men are not women.
You've said that you know it's not actually true that trans people are their desired sex but that we should say things because those things help people. Why not just leave the argument there, that we should be polite?
It feels like you're unreasonably polarizing this argument, by using unreasonable analogies and saying things like "every single one [of those accommodations] is fundamentally necessary for trans people to exist in society" you're drawing lines in the sand for other people's fight. What if only 75% of that is possible?
> coming to the table in earnest
This isn't like a 50/50, meet in the middle thing. You're trying to convince people to give up their sex-based rights and you're going to have to make the initial case. Why should I tell my mother, sister, wife, and daughter that I've decided other men can call themselves women and join them in their spaces? Do you feel you've met the burden of proof?
You talked about PTSD type pain, how do you think female rape victims feel when they're told to accept a male in their space, and punished when they talk about it? https://rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/rape-crisis-centre-in-b-c-en...
You should treat trans women as women because they are. But if that's not possible for you then you should treat trans women as women because it's mean to trigger their dysphoria.
I view people not recognizing trans women as women the same way racists of old didn't recognize black people as people.
> What if only 75% of that is possible?
Nonsense, everything I listed is totally in control of humans. Hell, what I listed is the reality in some places. The only thing that will ever stand in the way of getting to what I view as actual trans acceptance is people not wanting to. All of those things are fundamentally necessary for trans people because they all stem from two things -- recognizing trans women as women/trans men as men, and recognizing gender dysphoria as a medical condition. If you don't do that you're not actually accepting trans people's transness and what that actually means.
> I've decided other men can call themselves women and join them in their spaces
Because that's fundamentally not true and not how being trans works. Being trans isn't a choice. Your idea of what single-sex rights means assumes the thing we disagree about -- that trans women aren't women.
You do understand that that article is extremely transphobic right? That's why people are mad about it. The author is calling trans women mutilated cross-dressers pumped full of chemicals impersonating women for gods sake.
> Trans women aren’t women because [...] they’re women because they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man
You're essentially saying that they aren't, but because it upsets them we treat them as if it's true.
>> What if only 75% of that is possible?
> Nonsense, everything I listed is totally in control of humans.
Right, but you've got to convince everyone that they can safely do this, and should, etc. You've said that if they don't get all of this then none of it matters. I'm just wondering if you really mean to be an accelerationist like that, and risk them getting nothing. Like, if I'm not prepared to use pronouns you're telling me not to bother with the rest.
> trans women are women, trans women are female, trans women have XY chromosomes. Single sex rights for women include trans women.
Males can't be females. Trans women can still impregnate females and the vast majority (90%+) still have their penis and testicles. Single-sex spaces are to avoid large male-bodied people who are trying to have sex with you. You're proposing to totally ruin that.
Also, you have yet to address the fact that I look exactly like a male-presenting trans woman. How do you propose to keep me out of women's spaces when I can just say "I'm a woman too"?
> not recognizing trans women as women the same way racists of old didn't recognize black people as people
I'm not the only one who thinks that's racist af. I don't think you're gaining support when you use it.
> recognizing trans women as women/trans men as men, and recognizing gender dysphoria as a medical condition. If you don't do that you're not actually accepting trans people's transness and what that actually means.
I've never seen anyone attempt to prove it. Not the feelings part, that's internal, but the being female now. Without that being strongly factual the rest falls apart. If you want to take someone's safe spaces away by putting in the very people who abuse them - you should dot the Is and cross the Ts.
> Being trans isn't a choice.
Another thing that needs to be proven. It acts like a social contagion which is sorta the definition of a choice.
> Your idea of what single-sex rights means assumes the thing we disagree about -- that trans women aren't women.
Trans women can impregnate women. That's not what single sex means. And as the sports debacle shows, are just as big and strong as normal men.
Moreover, prison statistics show, per capita, that trans women are convicted of sex crimes at a much higher rate than non-trans identified males. This fits with crossdressing and flashing being the #1 and #2 indicator of a male going on to commit later sex crimes.
> The source of the "fact" on trans women criminality is so misunderstood that the author had to come out and tell people how wrong the conclusions they were taking from it was. https://medium.com/@notCursedE/do-trans-women-retain-male-pa...
> Do trans women ‘retain male pattern violence’? Obviously not.
Then how do you get trans women in prison for baby rape? There hasn't been a female case of that in Canada yet and we've got multiple trans women in jail for it so that alone blows them way out of the female criminality category.
> Tell the women in my life I've decided other men can call themselves women and join them in their spaces
> Not at all.
Yes. That's what you want, for me to come around and add my democratic weight to voting that woman means "female and trans woman". You want me to decide that the status quo is wrong. You want me to tell the women in my life that I've decided to broaden their category because it was inconvenient for other males.
>> article: Vancouver Rape Shelter rejects male counsellor
> You do understand that that article is extremely transphobic right? That's why people are mad about it.
I understand that they are mad but I do not give their feelings any weight. I see rape victims as needing 100% control over who they talk to. If I don't like my doctor or counsellor I can get a new one, so why can't they?
The shelter offered to let the trans woman be an optional counsellor, listed in the book for people to call, but they were sued because they didn't put them in the rotation and force victims into counseling with them. Nobody wanted to see them when it was optional which is why they wanted to force their way in.
If that trans woman was a woman in any way, wouldn't they have recognized the terror they were causing in women by forcing them to sit alone in a room with someone who resembles their rapist?
That's now the only rape shelter in Canada that's exclusively for females and the rest of the shelters are posting about problems with the males harassing, threatening, beating, and sexually molesting the females in shelters.
None of this is female-pattern criminality:
https://www.womenarehuman.com/male-transgender-boasts-of-har...
https://reduxx.info/violent-necrophiliac-transferred-to-wome...
https://4w.pub/violent-woman-killer-to-be-transferred-to-wom...
Pick whatever criteria makes you comfortable -- documented history of gender dysphoria, psych evals from multiple doctors, a minimum number of years being "out" and living socially transitioned. It's not like it's impossible to determine whether someone is trans or not. In most states that's literally what happens when someone goes to court to change their gender marker. You need doctor's sign off that you are trans and have finished your transition.
> Males can't be females.
We're in total agreement about this up to the definition of male and female. This is what I mean when I say it's not a choice.
> Trans women can still impregnate females
I really don't understand why you care so much about impregnation, you mention it multiple times. There are men who are infertile, hell there are trans men with vaginas. Neither should be allowed in women's spaces.
> Not the feelings part, that's internal, but the being female now. Without that being strongly factual the rest falls apart
Again I don't really disagree with you. We clearly just have two different readings of the science.
> It acts like a social contagion
You have the observation right but explanation wrong. The number of trans people is increasing, but it's because of a combination of it being socially acceptable to be trans and come out, and people who were suffering with gender dysphoria are now realizing that's what it is and getting help. See the graph of left handed people over time -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/l... -- wanna guess when we stopped forcing kids to be right handed?
> And as the sports debacle shows, are just as big and strong as normal men.
This is a yes and no situation. Yes, women with high T will be bigger and stronger. Which is why sports clubs have minimum times on HRT for trans women to compete. And if it turns out that the current requirements aren't enough we can make them stricter, we can have trans women to shed all muscle while on HRT and then build it back. Trans men ought to be the counterexample because they are bigger, stronger, and out-compete women.
> I don't think you're gaining support when you use it.
You're right, probably not but the parallels are uncanny, especially when it comes to the use of crime statistics. If you put yourself in the mindset of someone who believes that trans women are women and then look at what the opposition looks like it's remarkably like the era of Jim Crow and separate but equal.
> by putting in the very people who abuse them
Again, totally agree with you up to the definition. You're lumping a group of women in with the male abusers and then saying obviously we can't have them around. In your world, what do you do with trans men in this situation?
> I understand that they are mad but I do not give their feelings any weight. I see rape victims as needing 100% control over who they talk to.
I agree with you on this with no notes. If someone doesn't want to see anyone as a counselor they shouldn't have to. If someone being in the rotation means victims are forced to see them, trans or not, that's a problem. The thing I take issue with, and I think the women did as well, is the presumption that victims wouldn't want to see her.
> with someone who resembles their rapist
Ugh, this is always what it boils down to. You mentioned it earlier in the post when you said "large male-bodied." People get this idea in their heads that all trans women look like linebackers. It's no wonder so many trans women spend so much time, effort, and money on passing as cisgender, and in particular starving themselves to be smaller. If a rape victim, trans or not, is triggered because their counselor physically resembles their assailant, trans or not, then they're probably not a good fit.
> males harassing, threatening, beating, and sexually molesting the females in shelters.
That's horrible and exactly why female only shelters are needed. No woman, trans or not, should have to be the victim of that.
This discussion is so frustrating because I agree with you in almost everything.
You’ll notice I didn’t define the female sex as the ability to get pregnant, nor that all of them can or want, just that it’s reserved to the female sex.
You guys always do the « reverse argument trick » where you try to put words in the mouth of your victim. It’s more obvious than you think it is.
> Pour one out for all the women who’ve had oophorectomies due to medical complications or women born with vaginal agenesis and androgen insensitivity syndrome.
If you want to think of all the exceptions you cannot ever say anything. I’ll stick to the 90+% of humanity.
The fact is, having ovaries is reserved to people of the female sex, which once again doesn’t mean all females (sex) have ovaries because of all you say. Ok, except for that one rare syndrome where men can sometimes develop ovaries, but again, we can’t possibly consider all the cases every time we speak if it means we can’t properly talk about the vast majority of the world population.
Your trick is ignoring the stronger argument which is it’s very likely that a trans woman will get pregnant after a uterus transplant at some point during our lifetime.
> If you want to think of all the exceptions you cannot ever say anything
No you can’t say what you’re trying to force. I can say without worrying about any exceptions that the set of people who can get pregnant includes men, women, and non-binary people.
> we can’t possibly consider all the cases every time we speak if it means we can’t…
use silly biological arguments that aren’t even true for no purpose except to invalidate trans people who by current estimates are 1 in 100 people.
It seems that taking a uterus, a female organ, and putting it into a male and him "giving birth" would prove the difference between the sexes. Without that uterus he wasn't going anywhere.
> silly biological arguments
Yeah.
Look I completely agree with you. But people in this thread keep making pointless biological arguments with the motivated goal of invalidating trans people. And my hope that pointing out that the world is weirder than people assume at the biological level (like you can have a uterus where the cells are all XY) would make people realize that being trans is actually one of the less weird phenomenon that occurs in humans. Trans women aren’t women because maybe one day with a transplant they will be able to give birth, they’re women because they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man but it’s alleviated when treated as a woman.
It wound be easier to argue that this is just some kind of delusion if cis people didn’t also experience it when treated as the opposite gender and it happens about 1 in 100 people.
Not the goal of invalidating, but mainly because I wouldn't use valid/invalid language. When I disagree with a devout catholic I'm not invalidating their beliefs - even when I argue that their god probably doesn't exist.
My interests in identity-based arguments are the rights-erosion I see going on. Females need, and have fought doggedly to achieve, sex-based rights such as single-sex spaces, matching funding, etc.
How can those rights be respected and dangers avoided if men can declare themselves women? Even leaving aside "actual trans women", what about all the abusive non-trans males who'll use the loophole?
> Trans women aren’t women because [X], they’re women
They aren't though.
You seem to be saying "therefore it is imperative that we treat them as if they are the sex they claim" and that's another question, and perhaps worth debate, but what would the end be? Treat them the same all the way into women's prisons? (Trans women have a higher sex criminality than the average male prisoner by a factor of four, and most are still sexually intact and functional as males.)
I feel that this sort of breathless panic to protect trans people ignores that the proposed solution totally demolishes the single-sex protections that nearly half the planet enjoys, and that keep our children safe.
Perhaps we could revisit this with a goal of maintaining zero additional risk to women over the status quo, but otherwise it seems like it's a non-starter because it has to come at the expense of women.
> they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man but it’s alleviated when treated as a woman.
There definitely are some people who chafe at the gender expectations they perceive others (rightly or wrongly) having for them. Like a girl who doesn't like dresses and being proper or whatever. I believe the solution is to remove these expectations, not to tell that girl that the source of her angst is that she's a boy in a girl's boy, but to actually help her understand the issues of growing up. She can't actually be a boy but she can be happy as a girl.
How is this not like anorexia, where normal teen issues contagiously coalesced into common symptoms across a large area? Their underlying issues were real, but the expression (that they were fat and the solution was to lose weight) was manufactured collectively by our society and was near impossible to beat in an individual. Anorexia remains incredibly rare outside of American media influence.
Now that same angst seems to be channeled into other externally manufactured solutions, such as being in the wrong body. Despite claims of indigenous third-gender, trans is a modern western phenomenon. A product of social contagion.
In both cases the correct answer seems to be to discuss and treat the underlying issues and conditions before assuming that someone's body is broken and needs sexual modification and lifelong medicalization.
Harvesting the uterus of a woman and hosting it inside a man does not make him a member of a female sex.
Even if a womb was lab-grown somehow, rather than poached, it's highly unlikely his body would be compatible with pregnancy. And there would be massive ethical concerns in performing this experiment, given that this is an attempt to artificially create and grow a new human life in a body fundamentally unsuited to this task.
The moment a trans women bears a child this will break down and humanity is really close to this.
Also congrats to all the people with XX chromosomes who are infertile and are now men.
> if your sex is female, you have ovaries, period
Pour one out for all the women who’ve had oophorectomies due to medical complications or women born with vaginal agenesis and androgen insensitivity syndrome.
Also congrats to the people with XY chromosomes with Persistent Müllerian Duct Syndrome who are now women!