Chud with a question

If a person hasn't had their testes/ovaries removed, or if they're not taking HRT then they're not in the process of transition, and certainly haven't completed the process. So I would say no, they're not valid. They're just a person with thoughts.

Well at least you're consistent. I guess I just disagree on what exactly gender is. I view everything, even the expressions that HRT changes, as accidents of gender and not the core idea. The idea being the person's role in reproduction.

because hormones go deeper than that? lol

What if we have more advanced technology in the future to change deeper phenotypical expressions of race?

yes lol, trans people who don't take hrt aren't valid. Or at least trans people who don't want to take hrt aren't valid, of course repressors are still trans.
transracialism isn't valid because there isn't a transracial brain. There isn't even a concept of what a transracial brain would look like even if it did exist.
on the other hand, repressors are still neurologically trans, and these neurological features are exhibited regardless of transitioning. There is no state of neurological transracialism because it's purely a social concept, and it's basically restricted to like 3 people ever, rachal dolezal, michael jackson, and oli london. And they're not even serious about it.

repressors are still neurologically trans, and these neurological features are exhibited regardless of transitioning

How would you be able to detect who's repressing?

sorry I'm nta but what do you mean? Like the question you ask is if you could basically completlely reconstruct the body from the ground up as another race if that person is then considered transracial? I guess they'd be.

because they cut up the brains of dead people who said they were trans before they died, but who never medically transitioned

Right, even if such technology existed to change your DNA after you've already developed, there would be no basis for or justification for changing ones race except personal desire. Whereas with transgender people, there is a reason we are the way we are, which is beyond our control.

neurological transgenderism

When you start trying to argue philosophy using science that's where you lose me. What exactly does it mean to be "neurologically trans"? You can look, sound, act, and think feminine, but if you're a male you're a man. There are plenty of men like this.
Does it mean your brain is more like that of a woman's? Why isn't that just being feminine? Does it mean thinking you're a woman? You can think anything

And? Arguing that a "trans woman" has a "female" brain is self-defeating, since trans women are biologically male.

I'm not sure because I'm speculating on technology, but I'm sure nobody 200 years ago would've foreseen our hormone technology.

It's not philosophy. The brain is an organ just like any other in the body. And in trans people, this is a gross simplification, but you can think of it as an intersex disorder of the brain.

It absolutely is philosophy. Science can only say a person's brain exhibits characteristics often found in another category of people's brains. It can't say what that implies about them.

no they aren't? Biology is reality, no? Like you dont call someone with diabetes biological dead, since they are in fact alive (but should be dead according to genetics)
Since trans women have a female cell expression (because of HRT) the reality makes their body biological female.
Yes yes a lot have a penis which is a distinct male organ. but post ops exist
Biology is defined by actual expressed sexual characteristiks , so a post op with years hrt is bio female

Since trans women have a female cell expression (because of HRT) the reality makes their body biological female.

Do they have the potential to bear children?

What exactly does it mean to be "neurologically trans"?

the scientific consensus is that gender identity is biologically innate. Trans people have distinctive features in the sex center of the brain as well as areas related to self awareness of ones body. There are a number of features of the brain such as the INAH3, BSTc, putamin, hypothalamus, and corpus callosum, which have been found to either be sexually intermediate, closer to the experienced gender, or otherwise abnormal in ways that are statistically consistent among trans people. Whether or not you think that overall trans women have "female brains", there are enough specific neurological features that you can say that the "transgender brain" absolutely does exist.
On the other hand, there isn't even a concept of a transracial brain, because the racial differences in the brain are mostly limited to small differences in overall size. A person of a race with a statistically larger brain does not have a transracial experience due to having a brain that is technically closer to the average size of a different race, but it is clear that trans people do in fact have a different experience of themselves due to the characteristics of their brain.
If we could magically change race, you could suggest that people are transracial, and that's fine. But they're only transracial in behavior, specifically because they transitioned. A transgender person is inherently transgender regardless of their actions.

I'll grant you the fact that so-called "trans women" are neurologically more feminine than a "transracial" person is neurologically alike to their desired race. I don't think that actually has bearing on if their identity is valid or not.

According to current scientific theory yes.
They lack the womb, but it is theorised that they could bear a child (with a donor).
It is infact expected that this will happen in the next 10 years. But since it hasnt been done yet its only a theory

Why is there not a test I can take to determine if I am trans or not?

Two more weeks?

with a donor

I'm asking if they can have a biological child with a man.

because many of these features are small and don't show up on easy scans like MRIs, or they're individually inconclusive, or they have overlap with other conditions. Plus scans are expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to just think about it for like 5 minutes and see if you want to be a girl or not.
there's no proof that we can use these characteristics to definitively show if someone is trans or not, they're statistical features. You could test a cis man for one of these characteristics, and it would be theoretically possible to get a false positive.

a lot cheaper to just think about it for like 5 minutes and see if you want to be a girl or not

This could be a false positive too?

You could test a cis man for one of these characteristics, and it would be theoretically possible to get a false positive.

That's exactly my point. So it's only in any real meaningful sense a test for how feminine you are neurotypically.

What do you think of Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome women? What about women who elected to have a hysterectomy?

I can't imagine being all that upset with waking up being a female, with all the same Z-scores for height/weight adjusted.

I'd just be panicking because it means the universe isn't real and a fucking gender wizard can do this but I can't prove to people that I'm still "me".

Yes.

There are already promising experiments to transform stem or other cells into ova (human egg cells), which could then be fertilized and implanted into a donated womb through normal in vitro fertilization.

If we start from the compassionate viewpoint that trans women are just women whose barriers to womanhood are unique, then they're no different from any other women who do not naturally possess the ability to bear children and who gain the ability through medical science.

Only if we start from a bigoted and prejudicial viewpoint that trans women are not really women is it possible to have any other thought process. Trans women are no different than any other hopeful mother robbed of the opportunity by fate.

It's a medical problem, just like helping otherwise infertile cis men and women conceive.

then I think you don't understand how statistics work

you mean genetically? like you'd need your own egg. But since there are cis woman with no eggs....??

I'm unsure about the first. I'd call it an edge case. And the second are definitely women.

God I hope that never happens. When we reach that level of technology humanity will have been mutilated beyond any recognition. That's what freaks me out about this whole trans thing. It feels like a wrong step into hell.

They're exceptions. You can find exceptions and edge cases for literally any definition.

Suppose a transwoman had a female reproductive system implanted that was derived from her adult stem cells and grown in a bio reactor. Suppose she were given gamete "eggs" that were also derived from her own adult stem cells, and was therefore no less capable of bearing children than any ciswoman whose fertility problems require them to use IVF.

Would they be woman then?

At this point we would've mutated humanity to the point that male and female aren't really useful classifications. I'm sure if we had this technology we'd have far more important things to worry about, like the horrors of genetic engineering.

Oof, then I ought not have posted
What would you prescribe as the ideal limit for human biotechnology?

but trannies are 0.3% of all women, how are they not by definition an edge case? Why are you saying that exception dont count but then expect this tiny group to fulfill 100% of your personal criteria when others dont? Thats called hypocrisy

lmao, this
by the time we get transplantable multi-organ systems, we're already going to start seeing "All Tomorrows"

Curious, then would you say your objection is more of a philosophical categorization? For the record, I'm cismale; my interest in this is from having suffered DP/DR due to mind altering substances. I sometimes wonder if some transphobia is more philosophical/existential.

What would you prescribe as the ideal limit for human biotechnology?

I really don't know, but I think we shouldn't just outrigt embrace it. The whole trans thing just feels wrong to me, and I feel the same way about genetic engineering. Generally I'd say that it's fine when used to reach an already human ideal but not to completely modify people beyond recognition.

Everything normative is philosophical. Science is descriptive.

When we can do the grow-a-uterus-and-accessories, we'll ironically probably have the ability to stop neonates from growing their alleged "trans" brain defects.

Caution is warranted, I think it's fair to say that most people would rather see self restraint in this field of development.

Because trans women definitionally are incapable of procreation on the female end. They don't have the facilities for it by virtue of being trans women.

You referred to the horrors of genetic engineering, and described these specific hypothetical advances as mutation; aren't those normative statements?

Why?

Yes, that's my concern. If we can make a man procreate with a man then we'll probably be able to do far more insidious things, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes? I argued earlier that the transgender debate is philosophical and not scientific lol.

Read Brave New World

I dont understand the difference to infertile women then? Like you dont stop being female if you arent fertile anymore. You also dont stop being female if you have an issue that stops you from ever becoming fertile in the first place.
And as previously mentioned it's not categorically impossible for a trans woman to have a child. There are some that have formed a womb and carried a child. It's just that the majority doesnt have a womb.

Every technology that humankind has developed for our own benefit in that present moment has wound up biting us in the ass later. Norman Borlaug set us up for ecological catastrophe, the WWW is now a horrifying means of mass manipulation, pdychotropic medications have almost completely overtaken psycho-social understanding of mental illness, and antibiotics were so improperly managed and implemented that we're losing them to resistant bacteria.

If we don't start learning our lessons then is right and we really will start seeing All Tomorrow's.

It's hard, this is an edge case of a definition. I'll admit it. I'd point to the fact that they naturally develop the secondary sexual features without medical intervention.

I have read Brave New World. Fascinating book.

We are talking about providing a tiny portion of the population the ability to give children when they do not have it, as an extension of technology we would be creating anyway, to help cis women who do not have wombs or have been forced into early hysterectomies.

Can you explain how we get from there to soma and state-mandated shock-based anti-beauty conditioning?

Was the invention of in vitro fertilization an undesirable thing? Would you go back and wipe in vitro fertilization from history and memory if you had the chance?

I meant the first part of for you.

It's not just about this technology, it's about the implications it has for other things. It's like how gay rights have been bad for straight people because they've broken down the barriers keeping people on the path of sexual morality.

well needless to say I disagree. For the same reason that medical intervention can help you overcome other biological issues.

Nta but I'd like to propose an alternative medical definition of man and woman.

I propose that a man is anyone who functions better on androgenic hormones than estrogenic/progestogenic hormones, where said improvement is not attributable to other contingent factors. A woman is the is same, but with the hormones reversed.

What are the implications for other things? Name a few please. I want to understand your concern materially.

broken down the barriers keeping people on the path of sexual morality.

I think the proliferation of online pornography is more to blame for that.

Well we should probably argue normatives instead of definitions, I think it's more useful and more honest. I'm against all kinds of stuff, like cosmetic surgery, steroids, antidepressants, and more in that vein for very similar reasons. I just think it's something we shouldn't be doing.

functions better

Define "better"

I would call IVF the 90's decentralized usenet of biotechnology. We're nowhere near Facebook/Tiktok equivalent levels of biotechnology.

Mostly eugenics taken to the extreme, resulting in undue stratification of society.

Psychosocially. Say a reasonably competent and unbiased psychologist would look at this person and say "this person is healthier, stronger and more alive than when I saw them 2 years ago, and it's not because of something else in their life changing."

That's a big deal too

unbiased psychologist

No such thing

Theoretical definitions are still a useful guide for intuition.

My point is that to say someone is living a "better" life presumes an entire moral framework.

At that point you could argue the same for any and all life changing decisions

Yeah?

Wait, I may have misunderstood, we were you saying that to refute the definition?

What definition? You didn't give me a definition of better.

I didn't, my argument is that we can say whether a transwoman is better off on cross sex hormone therapy just as validly as we would say whether any ordinary person is better off for having made a more mundane life changing decision. Intuition has a necessary element of informality and imprecision.

I agree, but transitioning is a much more significant decision and we have to observe our framework much closer to discuss it.

because there's a neurological basis for gender identity

That's bullshit. Nobody knows how brain construction is linked to gender identity.

being transsexual is a relatively common medical phenomenon that goes beyond just social preferences

According to a study in sweden only 0.0001% identify as transgender.

How would you feel if you grew tits and your dick shrunk?

I probably wouldn't like it, but that would just be me being a troon and I would look uncanny and ugly.

Good point. Ah, I just got home from work and I'm exhausted/have things to do after, good debating we you, hopefully someone picks up where I left off

You’d probably want to be able to have a normal dick and to remove your tits to live a normal guy life… that’s how FTMs feel. Vice versa for mtfs

I mean if I could in this hypothetical have biological kids I'd be fine with being a woman as long as I looked and thought like myself. But transition doesn't change that, so it's a wash.

Transitioning is a cope to get to the other side, yeah. But for us it’s genuinely better than being at our birth sex. Just like for you being on either edge is better than being in the middle. Like you have a valley between two hills. And you’d rather be on one hill or the other. For us it’s just one hill and we’d rather get stuck halfway up than stuck at the bottom.

you know there are racial traits besides skin color right lol

And trans women don't have periods.

I guess, I just want to embrace what I was born with and be free.

unrelated???

You should be able to draw the connection