Why or why not is a male to female transexual woman a real woman? Watch

SabrineCrystal
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
I`d like you guys to help me in this: I know many people who think a MtF transexual person is not a real woman because they were not born female, they think that men are people who are born male and woman is a person who is born female. Simple as that.

I talked to a medic last year and he told me that he thinks that a transexual woman and I made a comparison between a transexual and a woman with CAIS(Complete androgen insesnitivity syndrome) and I asked him if he thought that a woman with CAIS is a real woman even if they have XY chromossomes and don't have a womb and cannot menstruate and get pregnant at all and he answered me that CAIS women are obviously female in all aspects. I also think that girls with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are females because they were born female. But the key difference is that a woman with CAIS is born a woman with a fully functional vagina and vulva. But the transexual woman had a sex resignation surgery to become that way. He also told me that a MtF transexual person is a woman in medically, legally and socially aspects.

I would not say that a transexual can`t be considered a real woman because they can`t have kids because there are many women who can`t get pregnant at all even with medical treatments, such as women with CAIS as I told above. I also believe that it is quite difficult to spot a transgender woman just by looking since everyone is different and there are women who have male features such as Adam Apple and facial hair.

Is it even possible for a transexual woman to have a vulva and vagina that looks and function in a way that is indistinguishable from a woman who were born female?
0
reply
itscourtchicks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
“Is it even possible for a transexual woman to have a vulva and vagina that looks and function in a way that is indistinguishable from a woman who were born female?“

Indistinguishable, I’m not sure - you would need someone who has undergone sex reassignment surgery to say (if they’re comfortable). But with the progress in these types of surgeries and the new techniques being used, there have been many successful surgeries where the new “female” parts function as well as it would be for a born woman - in terms of sexually and for urination. They don’t however (as far as I’m aware) create a new vagina as such for the person.

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/SRS.html
^this provides some better understanding I think. But just to warn, there are some graphic images of what post surgery looks like.
There are good videos on YouTube about what happens during surgery, but I won’t post the link to one as it’s too graphic for some (live surgery of genitals).
Last edited by itscourtchicks; 1 month ago
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
It’s just a matter of semantics, isn’t it? It depends on what you mean by “real woman”, and how you choose to define and use this phrase.

In my choice of parlance, such a person would not be described as a “real woman”. This is in order to be consistent with the way I speak about everything else. For example, if you attached wings to a car (which were only cosmetic, and didn’t actually allow it to fly), most people, myself included, would not start calling it a “real aeroplane”. At best, it is a car that kind of looks like an aeroplane. This manner of speech also allows the verbal distinction to be made between this modified car, and the vehicle that is universally understood to be a “real aeroplane”.

Similarly, my use of the phrase “real woman” would refer to any adult human female. That is, someone possessing the biological features that typically confer the functionality of carrying offspring and giving birth - irrespective of any superficial, cosmetic modifications that have since occurred.
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by SabrineCrystal)
I`d like you guys to help me in this: I know many people who think a MtF transexual person is not a real woman because they were not born female, they think that men are people who are born male and woman is a person who is born female. Simple as that.

I talked to a medic last year and he told me that he thinks that a transexual woman and I made a comparison between a transexual and a woman with CAIS(Complete androgen insesnitivity syndrome) and I asked him if he thought that a woman with CAIS is a real woman even if they have XY chromossomes and don't have a womb and cannot menstruate and get pregnant at all and he answered me that CAIS women are obviously female in all aspects. I also think that girls with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are females because they were born female. But the key difference is that a woman with CAIS is born a woman with a fully functional vagina and vulva. But the transexual woman had a sex resignation surgery to become that way. He also told me that a MtF transexual person is a woman in medically, legally and socially aspects.

I would not say that a transexual can`t be considered a real woman because they can`t have kids because there are many women who can`t get pregnant at all even with medical treatments, such as women with CAIS as I told above. I also believe that it is quite difficult to spot a transgender woman just by looking since everyone is different and there are women who have male features such as Adam Apple and facial hair.

Is it even possible for a transexual woman to have a vulva and vagina that looks and function in a way that is indistinguishable from a woman who were born female?
Most people simply don't buy into the idea of having a bit of a nip tuck can transform you into another gender

male to female transexuals often still dominate womens sports and take all the records/trophies due to retaining the advantages that come with a male physique.

I'd say give it another 50 or 100 years and near enough every womens olympic record out there is going to have a male to female transexual holding it.

I'll give you it though that on the outside some can be quite convincing these days in looking like a woman. Earlier this year I was in a class with a male to female transexual and I did not twig until she actually spoke.

I would regard a "male to female" as a transexual woman
Last edited by ANM775; 1 month ago
3
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Similarly, my use of the phrase “real woman” would refer to any adult human female. That is, someone possessing the biological features that typically confer the functionality of carrying offspring and giving birth - irrespective of any superficial, cosmetic modifications that have since occurred.
But if said "real woman" was attracted to women, dressed as a man, spoke like a man, took on a male gender identity and was not visually identifiable as a woman, how would you classify this individual?

But more to the point, does anyone have the right to pass judgement on the identity of someone else?
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by ANM775)
Most people simply don't buy into the idea of having a bit of a nip tuck can transform you into another gender

I'll give you it though that on the outside some can be quite convincing these days in looking like a woman. Earlier this year I was in a class with a male to female transexual and I did not twig until she actually spoke.
This would seem to be a contradiction. You claim people don't "buy into the idea" that you can change your gender medically, yet then you describe a situation where, if this trans woman had only had some extra vocal surgery or voice training to give her a more typically feminine voice, you would have "bought into" it - i.e. you would have considered her a woman the whole time and never doubted it.
2
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
Why are they a real woman? Because if you say they aren't you are "discriminating" and this of course opens up the doors to your demise, in education and at work.
Why are they not a real woman? Because of the same reason cited above.

What I am trying to say here is that your opinion, if it does not conform with the status quo, with the opinions of those in position of authority in this country, you risk loosing everything. You have to agree that individuals claiming they are a gender that is disagreeable with their biological reality, are true of that gender because you do not live in a country where you are allowed to hold any other view. You live in a country where your thoughts are dictated by those in authority by threat of ostracisation, marginalisation and abuse....dare challenge them and risk loosing everything.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 1 month ago
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
I through term 'real women' was Dove ads were they use non models to show their products.
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by ByEeek)
But if said "real woman" was attracted to women, dressed as a man, spoke like a man, took on a male gender identity and was not visually identifiable as a woman, how would you classify this individual?
I would follow exactly the same logic as if I saw a car with cosmetic wings and a propellor attached to it, with its wheels taken off and with “British Airways” written on the side of it.

I would classify this vehicle as “a car with the appearance of an aeroplane”, and the individual as “a woman with the appearance of a man”. (Or I might mistakenly classify the car as an aeroplane and the woman as a man, if the appearance was sufficiently convincing and I had no prior knowledge of the alterations that had taken place).

It would be in quite the same way that there is a difference between say, a real firearm and an imitation firearm. I may certainly mistake the imitation firearm for a “real” one if it looks convincing and I’m seeing it for the first time. But the moment I realise that the appearance is just superficial, and that it cannot and never could shoot bullets because it wasn’t designed to do so in the first place, I would reclassify it as an imitation firearm and cease to fear it as I would a real one.

But more to the point, does anyone have the right to pass judgement on the identity of someone else?
Nobody is passing judgement on their “identity”; that is their own internal thing. They could identify as a man, woman, animal, plant or alien for all I know. If they claim to identify as something, I’m not going proclaim that they actually don’t.


But yes, I think it is everyone’s right to use language in the way they see fit and are accustomed to using it. Language is just a medium to communicate thoughts from one person’s mind into another, and its success is determined by the accuracy with which it does this.

In my view, to describe an individual as “a real man” or simply as “a man” (when I know that they are in fact biologically female), without any clarification or qualification, to most people would communicate a concept that does not capture, or even contradicts my understanding of the reality. I would see this as a failure of language to do its job.
Last edited by tazarooni89; 1 month ago
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
Personally one would say no. I mean, they're more than welcome to identify as whatever they so wish but they shouldnt expect people to disregard basic biological fact in pursuit of that. Nor slavishly defer to their opinion for no better reason than, well, none.
0
reply
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by anarchism101)
This would seem to be a contradiction. You claim people don't "buy into the idea" that you can change your gender medically, yet then you describe a situation where, if this trans woman had only had some extra vocal surgery or voice training to give her a more typically feminine voice, you would have "bought into" it - i.e. you would have considered her a woman the whole time and never doubted it.
He would have considered her a woman (as he did until he heard the person's voice), but that person wouldn't have been a woman. ANM775 would have been mistaken.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
He would have considered her a woman (as he did until he heard the person's voice), but that person wouldn't have been a woman. ANM775 would have been mistaken.
To be considered a woman is to be a woman.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Just my opinion)
"To discover who rules over you simply find out who you can't criticize"
You do know that quote comes from a literal Neo-Nazi, right?
1
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by anarchism101)
To be considered a woman is to be a woman.
Is a dragonfly a wasp just because it fools predators into thinking that by mimicking the wasps stripes?
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by ANM775)
Is a dragonfly a wasp just because it fools predators into thinking that by mimicking the wasps stripes?
Doesn't work as a comparison, for a couple of reasons:

1) You're comparing a difference in species category to a difference in social category.
2)The categories of Dragonfly and Wasp are defined externally from their subjects (i.e. by us), whereas Man and Woman are defined intersubjectively by their subjects (i.e. also by us!).
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by anarchism101)
You do know that quote comes from a literal Neo-Nazi, right?
I thought it was Voltaire but I'll take your word for it. I don't care who wrote it, Hitler or Gandhi, if it's true I will use it. If it's not I wont.
The proof of the pudding in the quote being my post has been deleted.
0
reply
cheerIeader
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
Cheesy manufactured vagina/penis hun.
0
reply
TheOnlyIzzy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
I think the main difference is that Gender is a choice you can make, where as sex you cannot change. Sex is your biology, what is in your chromosomes (XX, XY, etc) whereas Gender is a construct that you can change with how you identify. There are many cultures and tribes where there are (for example) 4 genders (male-female, male-male, female-male and female-female), so it is completely reasonable to change your gender in a western society as well since it is only a western construct. Sex however can't be changed.
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by anarchism101)
To be considered a woman is to be a woman.
Okay, well going by this logic:

I consider “FTM trans-men” to actually be women (in spite of their dress or any modifications to their bodies). So this means they are women. Because according to you, to be considered a woman is to be a woman.

Agree?
Last edited by tazarooni89; 1 month ago
0
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by tazarooni89)
It’s just a matter of semantics, isn’t it? It depends on what you mean by “real woman”, and how you choose to define and use this phrase.

In my choice of parlance, such a person would not be described as a “real woman”. This is in order to be consistent with the way I speak about everything else. For example, if you attached wings to a car (which were only cosmetic, and didn’t actually allow it to fly), most people, myself included, would not start calling it a “real aeroplane”. At best, it is a car that kind of looks like an aeroplane. This manner of speech also allows the verbal distinction to be made between this modified car, and the vehicle that is universally understood to be a “real aeroplane”.

Similarly, my use of the phrase “real woman” would refer to any adult human female. That is, someone possessing the biological features that typically confer the functionality of carrying offspring and giving birth - irrespective of any superficial, cosmetic modifications that have since occurred.
who let the Dog (whistles) out ?

sweetie, it's quite clear you are well and truely out of your depth here, when the basic sicences and clinical evidence is increasingly demonstrating that beign trans is a durable biological phenomen and that physiologicla sex determination as well as being remarkably complex has little or nothing to do with gender identity ...

as usual of a dog -whistling exclusionist your attempts to 'pwn teh transes' also others and invlaidates a none trivial number of cisgender women and others and pathologies intersex folx ...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How many uni open days have you been to/did you go to?

0 (66)
27.39%
1 (40)
16.6%
2 (40)
16.6%
3 (33)
13.69%
4 (16)
6.64%
5 (20)
8.3%
6 (6)
2.49%
7+ (20)
8.3%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed