Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by tabby in Should I identify as queer? by lachsarb

2

tabby wrote

I don't even know what "biological genders" means. I'm talking about sexes, not genders.

You can generally, with exceptions (I can hear the "Gotcha!" now), tell what sex someone is just by looking by:

  • amount and location of hair growth;
  • height;
  • muscle mass;
  • voice pitch;
  • hip width;
  • facial bone structure;
  • fat distribution.

If this isn't the case, then what else does "passing" mean if not being perceived as the opposite sex due to changing some or all of the above characteristics by using hormones, medications, cosmetics, prosthetics, voice training, hair removal, and/or surgery?

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

tabby wrote

What dogwhistle? That I think trans women are male, and trans men are female? I've made my thoughts on that abundantly clear. That's not a dogwhistle; that's a regular human whistle.

−4

CivilizationsEnd wrote

You are upholding centuries old white supremacist falsehoods that essentialize the diversity of human bodies. Please consider touching grass and decolonizing your remaining brain cells

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

tabby wrote (edited )

I don't understand how what I said could be construed as transphobic at all. All I contend is that there are two sexes, male and female (and a small percentage of intersex people), that sex can't be changed, and that trans men and trans women change gender but not sex. (It is their gender that is trans to their sex; otherwise, it makes no sense to even talk about cis and trans.) That some trans men and trans women find it upsetting that this is the case doesn't make it transphobic.

−5

Fool wrote (edited )

That some trans men and trans women find it upsetting that this is the case doesn't make it transphobic.

Well yeah, it kinda does. It's an oversimplification of a complex issue with a complete disregard for those effected.

Maybe "phobic" is not the exact word for it, but it is the common usage of the word.

What you have said is offensive and dismissive. So if you don't understand how that's transphobic, you might need to take a good look at yourself and where your values are coming from.

3

lachsarb OP wrote (edited )

"biological genders," is peak TERF-ery, but, sure.

I never said gender is biological. I said sex is biological, which it is by definition. And yes, TERFs have tried coopting gender abolition so they can instead rely on sex to invalidate trans people, which I disagree with.

For a moment, though do tell me how you're supposed to know if someone is "biologically" male/female without looking at genitals.

You can't know for sure. That's because "biological sex" -while revolving around biology- is essentially just a social construct.

I also know quite a LOT of heterosexual people that DO INDEED obsess over genitals and use that as the basis for disregarding the existence and validity of trans people.

Probably because they're transphobic.

I very seriously doubt that OP only cares about "what's hidden under the clothing".

So by definition I might be considered bi, even though I'm only interested in people who are biologically female or maybe intersex

I literally just said I'm only sexually interested in people who have vulvas. Again I ask, do you have to want to fuck someone in order to care about them?

1