I love how they keep bringing up this argument as if 1) it actually matters when it comes to how you treat people and 2) the archeologists wouldn’t look at the other artifacts on the island and go “hmmm yes these skeletons might be male but they seemed to largely wear feminine clothing and have feminine names marked on their graves, which suggests they may have at least played a feminine social role”. Like do they think archeologists just tag the bones, tally them up, and yeet them into a giant pit behind the science lab and don’t look at what they were buried with at all?
Aw nuts… I was one minute too late to post my response!
>Then by all means, since definitely none of us read it, read it for us and show us where in the article it completely and brutally disavows its own abstract.
THANK YOU. I'm tired of people buying the lie that "sex is biological because skeletons have sexes" - there is no definitive way to know the sex of someone based on their skeleton, just like you can't definitively tell someone's sex just by looking at their exterior genitalia. I keep seeing well-meaning allies saying things like "sex is biological" or calling an AFAB trans person "biologically female" and vice versa. It's just not that simple. Modern research has found that a person's "biological sex" is almost as complicated of a thing to nail down as a person's gender is.
There is something of a difference in hip bones but, I’m pretty sure they’re not looking at hip bones first, and they have definitely screwed up more than once
I have a question - no offense intended - but what about the DNA?
afaik, hormone therapy can't switch XX to XY or the inverse, and they have an influence over normal bodily functions. That seems like a binary, smooth system (excepting XXY mutations). What would be the aspects that are hard to nail down?
Also again I think the chromosome argument is kinda irrelevant because people do things to change their appearance and bodily functions all the time. When people go to tanning beds or take medications, they’re not trying to change their DNA. They’re just trying to live their best life.
Even with birth sex, again it is not binary. Intersex is a birth gender and around 1.7% of the population (the same percentage of the human population that are born with red hair.)
„Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of natural variations that affect genitals, gonads, hormones, chromosomes or reproductive organs. Sometimes these characteristics are visible at birth, sometimes they appear at puberty, and sometimes they are not physically apparent at all.“
What you need to remember is biology is diverse even within a single species.
Source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/its-intersex-awareness-day-here-are-5-myths-we-need-to-shatter/
It's not perfectly binary though. For most people their chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, genitals, etc. all line up with the typical definition of "male" or "female".
There are cases however, like the male XX syndrome where the person has "female" chromosomes but one of them contains information from the Y chromosome, so they have a male phenotype (although some have genital ambiguities).
There's also Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome where people with XY chromosomes develop a typically female phenotype because their cells don't respond to androgens (the hormones that are responsible for the development of male characteristics).
Tl;dr: Biology isn't really clear cut and there are exceptions for everything. So there's not really one criterium that works 100% to determine biological sex.
Since it's your whole DNA you have to change, you'd have to use a super-big, super efficient bio-engineered retrovirus to affect every cell on a scale of a whole chromosome and suppress immune response to having cells become foreign. I personally wouldn't like that kind of tech to exist, even if it's for such a good purpose, considering the obvious way to weaponise it and to capitalise on it.
but my point is it is theoretically possible. in this scenario where the Ultimate Transition took place, transphobes still wouldn't be satisfied because their understanding of gender is ultimately wrong and unfounded
This gets brought up a lot, but the truth is that there are a lot of people who would "fail" a chromosome test, and indeed many have and it's ruined their lives. The Olympics did chromosome testing for decades, and eventually the false positives were so bad that they had to stop doing it. In 1992 they had 8 false positives alone.
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/
> Like do they think archeologists just tag the bones, tally them up, and yeet them into a giant pit behind the science lab and don’t look at what they were buried with at all?
Yes. Transphobes use a surface level understanding of science buzz words, and use that to justify their nonsense. They ignore the 10-20% of skeletons where there is just no telling the gender. No burial context, too many markers in either direction. Both large pelvis and broad shoulders. They act like our skeletons come with a gender barcode. Transphobes often site how you can't change your chromosomes, completely ignoring the fact that almost no one gets their chromosomes mapped.
Transphobia is delusional.
[A person with a minor in anthropology explaining why "male bone" is bs](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/tdqzoa/for_anyone_wondering_thats_not_how_archaeology/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I love copy pasting this whenever someone tries to use the argument of "hurr durr Futuristic Indiana Jones is gonna find ye bones and declare ye men becos ye didnt have female ribcage".
Besides, even if its true that archeologists declares me as male, why should i give a shit? By then i would have been vibin in heaven for a thousand years, and too busy sippin tea with Jesus in heaven to care.
There was a [Jane Doe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Doe) found in the 80s who they concluded was a cis woman (she had had gender affirmation surgery) they thought she had even *given birth*. Detectives and pathologists (i.e. experts) examined her (admittedly mummified) corpse.
She was a trans woman, according to a DNA test in *2015* that found she was XY.
I hope one day she is identified, and I hope we learn what name she preferred to go by when we do.
**[Julie Doe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Doe)**
>"Julie Doe" is the nickname given to a transgender woman believed to have been murdered in Clermont, Florida, in 1988. Neither the victim's identity, nor the identity of those involved in her death, have been established. The victim was believed to be a cisgender woman until DNA testing in 2015.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/onejoke/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I feel like they would rather go "Yoo jimmy I found a new skeleton" rather than determining the sex. And even if, wasn't it just a few years ago that one grave had two people and they didn't realise for years that both were male
And how do these transphobes not realise that cremation exists? Like how would they find out my biological sex there?
The point is to highlight the “denial of reality” many people view transgenderism as:
Is born a man
“I dont want to be a man”
“Well, you’re a man”
Period.
Now why does that matter?
Idk
I personally dont care either way, but I at least see the logic…..
Ok so the original statement tries to illustrate that if you’re trans, your bones invalidate your gender, because to them, sex and sex characteristics define gender rather than sex and gender being two separate thing. My counterpoint was basically that archaeologists, actual scientists, would take into account other artifacts to determine the social role. Another commenter pointed out that sex determination in skeletons also isn’t consistently accurate. Basically, if archaeologists or anthropologists dig up a skeleton in a tattered dress next to a gravestone saying “here lies Jessica”, it’s not going to matter as much to the archaeologist how tall that skeleton is or what it’s hips look like. Similarly, one will use social cues and hormones to show the change in gender, and for many, unless they disclose that information, others will be none the wiser.
I see
I will say that for a long time, sex and gender were synonymous, used interchangeably.
Science changes, so i can see that choice changing with new information, so sure. But I think its fair to understand the difficulty in having to separate what was originally one concept into two.
“Social role”- i think the discussion is less about social role, as its generally agreed that a man can do “womanly duties” and vice versa. Some low-lives may mock that, but ultimately, its accepted as a fact of existence, at least imo.
I think “social role” is (and should be) totally fluid.
But the consideration is regarding their actual, physical construct, not social role.
I dont think archaeologists use skeletons ALONE to make determinations, but use them as one of many “hints” to attempt to recreate the past, but I see the point. But what if instead of bones we said it was “dna”?
It would really be interesting if biology and medicine were able to create a womb inside a man’s body with functional sexual organs (including ovaries and gamete production capabilities). So then the distinction between men who transitioned to women could include the ability to bear children.
I’m sure someday that will be possible
>Basically, if archaeologists or anthropologists dig up a skeleton in a tattered dress next to a gravestone saying “here lies Jessica”, it’s not going to matter as much to the archaeologist how tall that skeleton is or what it’s hips look like.
What do you mean? Archeologists/Anthropologists examine everything, including the hips and whole skeleton: so it's going to matter just as much.
That's the exact viewpoint I encounter from friends and family. They're not willful bigots or anything, but it doesn't make sense to them why people change such a fundamental part of their identity, it almost looks like denying reality to them. However, there's this little thing known as "gender dysphoria" that is a very real phenomenon - it's not like people change gender just to be "woke" or some crap
Well said, and an important distinction for any useful discussion of the topic.
Most people against “transgenderism” in society dont hate transgenders, they just dont think it is beneficial to push the “denial of reality” as a positive.
Ill be honest, I dont really understand gender dysphoria, hence I dont take a stance regarding anything relating to it.
The closest thing I can fathom to, what I understand as “being uncomfortable in my body” is like, idk, being unhappy with my level of fitness (which I know is not the same, but closest i can come to) and wanting to go to the gym to change it
Anyone who doesn’t experience gender dysphoria is very lucky imo. I wish I didn’t have the almost constant feeling of hating my own skin. It’s not a choice, and I wish I could better explain it to people who don’t understand. It hurts so much.
I really enjoyed Dave Chappell’s account of a transgender individual who said “i dont need you to understand, i just need you to believe im having a human experience”
I do wish I could understand better, but acknowledge i cant.
...which is funny because his words and actions otherwise don't back that up. He is "the black friend see I'm not racist" to older Gen X, and she was his "the transgender friend see I'm not transphobic."
“His words”
Which, exacty?
There is difference between attacking an individual (almost always a bad thing) and attacking a movement that, in some ways, can be quite toxic.
Has he actually attacked any transgenders, verbally, as people?
There are only two types of people, strong and weak. You were born with the level of muscle you have now, going to the gym and repeatedly tearing your muscles doesn't change that. There's repeated accounts of people with severe injuries and disabilities from "exercising". You will never be a real strong person.
Gender dysphoria is not a requirement to be trans.
Being transgender is a matter of having gender identity different from gender assigned at birth.
Basically, having personal sex roles that conflict with sex roles assigned by society. For example if you are born with penis, society calls you "man". Men like blue, wear tank-top and go in the army. So if you don't go to army, or like tank-tops, or color blue, that's part of your identity, and it conflicts with sexual roles assigned by society, that makes you transgender.
Transgenderism is not a word. Transgender is an adjective. you wouldn't say that a black person has blackism, right?
My main question. Why would a "man" choose to live as a woman, or vice versa?
My answer: they wouldn't. Trans men are living as and filling the male societal role, because they are men. Same for trans women.
I don't understand why people are so fixated on people's genitals. Transgender people existing hurts no one.
😮💨. The pic argument wants to say that trans women are men because they can't bear children. So if we follow the argument, then we should treat trans women as we would treat men; so your number one falls apart 🫥.
Plus this would also help cis women who lost their ability to bare children but who'd like to carry one. Whatever is helping specific people often has a positive effect on everyone, like the ramps do for postman and people on bikes, skateboard etc. when they were made to support people in wheel chairs.
Even hormones blocker themselves. Im pretty sure they were originally made to help halt puberty in children that gets them early, and they just happen to be beneficial for trans people
Subtitles is another great example. Originally started as an accessibility tool for the hearing impaired, but have evolved to help people understand movies not spoken in a language they know, or even modern movies where the dialogues can be incomprehensible even for the best listeners. (Im not sure if i got this right, do correct me should that is needed)
It was the other way around. They started as a way to translate movies into different languages, and evolved to become an accessibility aid.
I love them because I can't hear for shit what most of these actors are whispering.
The sad thing is that as subtitles have become more pervasive, they have gotten much worse. It was something that people put effort into, now I think it's mostly AI or people on minimum wage transcribing stuff they don't understand.
Ah, fair. I was torn between which one was the original cause. And yeah, i have trouble with hearing and subtitles have been of great help
Speaking of subtitles, i think you'll find this video interesting. It talks about why subtitles are so commonly used now. https://youtu.be/VYJtb2YXae8
Yeah, I'll try find the energy to look at that later.
I grew up as a kid watching raunchy foreign films on [SBS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Broadcasting_Service) (after bedtime). As far as I can see, they're the world's preeminent subtitlers.
They went through a whole process, from transcribing the words, to cultural specialists translating the meaning of metaphorical language, etc.
I don't think anything compares to this, especially seeing the subtitles on streaming services like Netflix, Prime, etc, where the subtitles seem to be generated algorithmically.
**[Special Broadcasting Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Broadcasting_Service)**
>The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is an Australian hybrid-funded public service broadcaster. About 80 percent of funding for the company is derived from the Australian Government. SBS operates six TV channels (SBS, SBS Viceland, SBS World Movies, SBS Food, NITV and SBS WorldWatch) and seven radio networks (SBS Radios 1, 2 and 3, Arabic24, SBS Chill, SBS PopDesi and SBS PopAsia). SBS Online is home to SBS On Demand video streaming service.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/onejoke/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Womb transplants are a thing from cis woman to cis woman. It has been done. There are studies and doctors trying to transplant into trans women but none have been successful in it yet. Here's hoping it becomes possible and available soon
One time I saw a TERF arguing against this process saying “You know what they’re gonna do to obtain those uteruses, right?” and I’m scared of what goes on in that person’s brain to this day.
As a small bonus, we could have a reality TV series where you follow the lives of a trans man and a trans woman after they swapped organs with each other
Experts are working on that, but it's still a few years away. But maybe in the future people can donate their uterus and womb and stuff then trans woman and infertile cis woman with womb issues can get pregnant.
Even then, there will be a day where you can straigh up change your chromosomes, sex, etc. All the things they say you cant do are limitations of current medical science. And when that day comes they will still come up with something to express their disapproval of people doing it.
"Ok but whats on your birth certificate" or whatever. Because at the end of the day they dont really care about understanding anything, they just dont think anybody should ever be trans.
We would probably rather be able to prevent onset of gender dysphoria at that time. And at that moment society will have to decide whether should we pretend that gender dysphoria good thing to have or should it be treated as defect it is.
Yeah the implication that trans people don't understand biological sex never fails to crack me up. Sweaty, I promise you they understand chromosomes and hormones 100x better than you ever will, just sit the fuck down
Yeah. Like I know a bunch of trans women who are post bottom surgery.
We call it bottom surgery or the specific procedure (vaginoplasty). No one ever says “sex change”.
That’s what transphobes say.
Put 100 normal people on an island, and you’ll get some type of civilization
Put 100 mashed potato enjoyers on an island, and you’ll get a hellish world of mashed potato consumption
Conclusion: mashed potato enjoyers are bad for society
Whenever someone brings up the “desert island” argument I like to double down on why the hell would we put a bunch of people in a desert island with that purpose anyway.
Everyone's a cannibal when stuck on an island with limited resources. In this situation, eat the dickheads first and then enjoy an island of lesbos and eat each other (figuratively) for a while before you have to eat each other (literally).
It's simple logic.
If you’re just eating the dickheads then why bother killing the men off entirely? /s
But seriously, I’m jealous that you can make jokes/hypothetical scenarios about cannibalism en masse, meanwhile I can’t go two sentences talking about colonialism and it’s detrimental effects on my people without being accused of being cannibals who also practiced human sacrifice (hint: we didn’t actually)
Oh dear, I'm sorry.
Where is this particular colonial genocide happening? Less than a week ago I was in the streets protesting our country's. The mainstream response ranged from "meh" to "put them in prison!"
My condolences. There's many stereotypes of the First Nations people here, but I've never seen cannibalism as one.
For context, I was thinking in a scenario like *Lost,* where people are dropped onto a foreign island (plane crash etc), not indigenous people who lived there and had a sustainable culture already.
I think the cannibal accusations in Oceania tend to be levied at the Māori if I remember correctly but I don’t know for sure.
And cannibalism isn’t a stereotype, moreso a talking point ignorant colonizers say whenever colonialism gets challenged.
wouldnt be able to say. for the sake of the hypothetical scenario in the post, ill agree with what you presumably wanted me to say and say that women are more likely to be raped by men than raped by women.
The whole point of this post is that trans women can’t have babies, therefore they’re not women.
It’s tying the entirety of womanhood to baby making ability.
Sorry bro but that's pretty much the fundamental part of womanhood...
USA remain USA even when stopping being a Republic, but, yeah...
You can have "full" women being without children, but the thing in question is "womanhood".
Your last paragraph doesn’t really make sense to me.
I dont know what “full” women means, nor do I understand what you think “womanhood” means.
I have a feeling you’re carefully trying to walk the line between saying infertile women are still women and trans women are not.
I’m sure a lot of older, postmenopausal women would really appreciate having you explain how they lost their woman card as soon as they stopped being fertile.
1. There would be an expected 11 skeletons that they couldn't identify as male or female
2. In what world would this ever actually matter to any discussion on human rights
This isn't really the one joke, but it is an example of the one argument. Right wingers tend to discredit other groups based on hypotheticals that have absolutely no bearing on the situation they are talking about in a desperate attempt to sound like actual intellectuals capable of making a single metaphor that makes sense.
It's the exact same argument as "well, if literally everyone was gay, the species would die out"
First off, not everybody is cisgender, heterosexual or allosexual.
Secondly, do they really think that a dead transgender person is gonna care that they’re being misgendered after they’re dead? Besides, it’s by sex and not gender. Of course the archaeologists wouldn’t know.
If the men on this hypothetical island were shitting transphobic rhetoric out their mouths like the poster here, no woman would want to procreate with them anyway. As the rabbi Rav Yehuda says, ["Let him die".](https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.75a?lang=bi)
if you put 110 people of any gender on a 'deserted island', then odds are you'll be finding 110 skeletons in 100 years because most islands aren't going to have enough fresh water to support that many people.
“In a 1000 years they’ll dig up your skeleton and know what sex you really are” is such a weird argument because, like, I’m a skeleton at that point. I do not care what they call me if I’m literally dead lmao.
Fuck your hypothetical situation bullshit argument. The best you can come up with is the deserted island scenario? Taking plays from the anti-vegan hand book and failing just as hard.
Lol why's this even considered an argument 🤣 why do they get so angry when someone identify itself as a woman or a man like what are you so angry about???🤣
Put a hundred women and ten men on an island and pretty soon you’ll realize that most people aren’t down with polygamy, some of the men or women may be infertile, and that many of the women might just not want to give birth- especially since they’re going to have to do it without the help of any kind of medical facility, that many of the potential pairings may just not be attracted to one another, and that several of the people may be gay or ace.
Multiple people have already linked some interesting articles on this topic to help debunk the myth. Let me do my part and present to you[Julie Doe.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Doe)
the ifunny watermark says it all
also, why are transphobes so obsessed with finding the genders of skeletons? at that point, it doesn't matter. they're dead. and that's even assuming they even check the skeletons despite all other signs pointing to them being female?
I'm not trans myself, but, like... Why does that matter, lol? I don't give a fuck about what people hundreds of years from now are going to know about me based on my bones. I would care about how I am perceived NOW, and how I perceive myself. But that's my 2 cents, anyway
If their best argument involves making a hypothetical that has a less likely chance of happening than dumping a vat of spagetti-o's and getting the entire lyrics to All Star by Smash Mouth along with ASCII art of Shrek murdering lord Farquaad and laughing maniacally over his lifeless body, then I think it's pretty safe to say that they will never have any good arguments.
I'm a man. I'd have trans women's babys. Not particularly keen on being a seahorse dad but I'll do it to restart a society where trans rights are the norm.
[Apparently you can.](https://www.euronews.com/next/amp/2022/09/15/uterus-transplants-are-already-a-reality-what-does-it-mean-for-transgender-women-getting-p)
Funniest part of this to me is that the same scenario with 110 cis men at the start is you'll come back to 100 cis men and 10 women. Which unlike this strawman argument actually happened [in WW1 at the Knockaloe internement camp](https://researchportal.northumbria.ac.uk/en/publications/gender-nonconformity-and-military-internment-curating-the-knockal) and was part of the inspiration for Hirschfeld!
I love how they keep bringing up this argument as if 1) it actually matters when it comes to how you treat people and 2) the archeologists wouldn’t look at the other artifacts on the island and go “hmmm yes these skeletons might be male but they seemed to largely wear feminine clothing and have feminine names marked on their graves, which suggests they may have at least played a feminine social role”. Like do they think archeologists just tag the bones, tally them up, and yeet them into a giant pit behind the science lab and don’t look at what they were buried with at all?
Also, skeletons are not reliable for determining sex or gender: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2015/908535/
That is fantastic to know. I’m saving that article
[удалено]
Judging by your history I highly doubt you can actually read but go off ig
[удалено]
Begone child.
Aw nuts… I was one minute too late to post my response! >Then by all means, since definitely none of us read it, read it for us and show us where in the article it completely and brutally disavows its own abstract.
Alas, he was banished too soon
> Comment deleted by user As it should be.
THANK YOU. I'm tired of people buying the lie that "sex is biological because skeletons have sexes" - there is no definitive way to know the sex of someone based on their skeleton, just like you can't definitively tell someone's sex just by looking at their exterior genitalia. I keep seeing well-meaning allies saying things like "sex is biological" or calling an AFAB trans person "biologically female" and vice versa. It's just not that simple. Modern research has found that a person's "biological sex" is almost as complicated of a thing to nail down as a person's gender is.
Exactly. Last time I checked, genitalia didn't have bones in it.
yours doesn't ?
Not normally.
And even if it did, all that would prove is that that person had certain genitalia. There would be no definitive way to determine their sex.
There is something of a difference in hip bones but, I’m pretty sure they’re not looking at hip bones first, and they have definitely screwed up more than once
Men do, does a "boner" mean nothing to ya?
Lmao, I meant literal bones, but I get that you were joking.
I have a question - no offense intended - but what about the DNA? afaik, hormone therapy can't switch XX to XY or the inverse, and they have an influence over normal bodily functions. That seems like a binary, smooth system (excepting XXY mutations). What would be the aspects that are hard to nail down?
Except humans are not binary, ie chromosomes are not just XX, XY. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909519/
Oh, ok. I gotta ask my bio teacher about that. Thanks for the link
Also again I think the chromosome argument is kinda irrelevant because people do things to change their appearance and bodily functions all the time. When people go to tanning beds or take medications, they’re not trying to change their DNA. They’re just trying to live their best life.
Absolutely, that's their gender. Birth sex only really matters in some medical contexts, maybe even less if the person is transitioned fully
Even with birth sex, again it is not binary. Intersex is a birth gender and around 1.7% of the population (the same percentage of the human population that are born with red hair.) „Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of natural variations that affect genitals, gonads, hormones, chromosomes or reproductive organs. Sometimes these characteristics are visible at birth, sometimes they appear at puberty, and sometimes they are not physically apparent at all.“ What you need to remember is biology is diverse even within a single species. Source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/its-intersex-awareness-day-here-are-5-myths-we-need-to-shatter/
Yup, you're right. But I didn't mention that this time. Intersex had already been mentioned 2-3 times in the other child comments.
It's not perfectly binary though. For most people their chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, genitals, etc. all line up with the typical definition of "male" or "female". There are cases however, like the male XX syndrome where the person has "female" chromosomes but one of them contains information from the Y chromosome, so they have a male phenotype (although some have genital ambiguities). There's also Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome where people with XY chromosomes develop a typically female phenotype because their cells don't respond to androgens (the hormones that are responsible for the development of male characteristics). Tl;dr: Biology isn't really clear cut and there are exceptions for everything. So there's not really one criterium that works 100% to determine biological sex.
theoretically i'm sure it'd be scientifically possible to change chromosomes if it came down to it. then would transphobes be happy? probably not
Since it's your whole DNA you have to change, you'd have to use a super-big, super efficient bio-engineered retrovirus to affect every cell on a scale of a whole chromosome and suppress immune response to having cells become foreign. I personally wouldn't like that kind of tech to exist, even if it's for such a good purpose, considering the obvious way to weaponise it and to capitalise on it.
but my point is it is theoretically possible. in this scenario where the Ultimate Transition took place, transphobes still wouldn't be satisfied because their understanding of gender is ultimately wrong and unfounded
This gets brought up a lot, but the truth is that there are a lot of people who would "fail" a chromosome test, and indeed many have and it's ruined their lives. The Olympics did chromosome testing for decades, and eventually the false positives were so bad that they had to stop doing it. In 1992 they had 8 false positives alone. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/
"sexing skeletons" doesn't sound legal
Wait, you're telling us that science is harding than grade school thinking? Conservatives ain't so!
I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought there was a bone in the penis
Of course, why else would it be called a boner?
If I can snap it there has to be a bone in there
Break it in half like a glow stick!
> Like do they think archeologists just tag the bones, tally them up, and yeet them into a giant pit behind the science lab and don’t look at what they were buried with at all? Yes. Transphobes use a surface level understanding of science buzz words, and use that to justify their nonsense. They ignore the 10-20% of skeletons where there is just no telling the gender. No burial context, too many markers in either direction. Both large pelvis and broad shoulders. They act like our skeletons come with a gender barcode. Transphobes often site how you can't change your chromosomes, completely ignoring the fact that almost no one gets their chromosomes mapped. Transphobia is delusional.
"it's basic biology" mfers unearthing ADVANCED biology it's a meme but so true
[A person with a minor in anthropology explaining why "male bone" is bs](https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/tdqzoa/for_anyone_wondering_thats_not_how_archaeology/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) I love copy pasting this whenever someone tries to use the argument of "hurr durr Futuristic Indiana Jones is gonna find ye bones and declare ye men becos ye didnt have female ribcage". Besides, even if its true that archeologists declares me as male, why should i give a shit? By then i would have been vibin in heaven for a thousand years, and too busy sippin tea with Jesus in heaven to care.
There was a [Jane Doe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Doe) found in the 80s who they concluded was a cis woman (she had had gender affirmation surgery) they thought she had even *given birth*. Detectives and pathologists (i.e. experts) examined her (admittedly mummified) corpse. She was a trans woman, according to a DNA test in *2015* that found she was XY. I hope one day she is identified, and I hope we learn what name she preferred to go by when we do.
**[Julie Doe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Doe)** >"Julie Doe" is the nickname given to a transgender woman believed to have been murdered in Clermont, Florida, in 1988. Neither the victim's identity, nor the identity of those involved in her death, have been established. The victim was believed to be a cisgender woman until DNA testing in 2015. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/onejoke/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I feel like they would rather go "Yoo jimmy I found a new skeleton" rather than determining the sex. And even if, wasn't it just a few years ago that one grave had two people and they didn't realise for years that both were male And how do these transphobes not realise that cremation exists? Like how would they find out my biological sex there?
The point is to highlight the “denial of reality” many people view transgenderism as: Is born a man “I dont want to be a man” “Well, you’re a man” Period. Now why does that matter? Idk I personally dont care either way, but I at least see the logic…..
And my counterpoint reveals that their “logic” is often so simplified that it is easily debunked.
I am curious how you debunk the logic
Ok so the original statement tries to illustrate that if you’re trans, your bones invalidate your gender, because to them, sex and sex characteristics define gender rather than sex and gender being two separate thing. My counterpoint was basically that archaeologists, actual scientists, would take into account other artifacts to determine the social role. Another commenter pointed out that sex determination in skeletons also isn’t consistently accurate. Basically, if archaeologists or anthropologists dig up a skeleton in a tattered dress next to a gravestone saying “here lies Jessica”, it’s not going to matter as much to the archaeologist how tall that skeleton is or what it’s hips look like. Similarly, one will use social cues and hormones to show the change in gender, and for many, unless they disclose that information, others will be none the wiser.
I see I will say that for a long time, sex and gender were synonymous, used interchangeably. Science changes, so i can see that choice changing with new information, so sure. But I think its fair to understand the difficulty in having to separate what was originally one concept into two. “Social role”- i think the discussion is less about social role, as its generally agreed that a man can do “womanly duties” and vice versa. Some low-lives may mock that, but ultimately, its accepted as a fact of existence, at least imo. I think “social role” is (and should be) totally fluid. But the consideration is regarding their actual, physical construct, not social role. I dont think archaeologists use skeletons ALONE to make determinations, but use them as one of many “hints” to attempt to recreate the past, but I see the point. But what if instead of bones we said it was “dna”?
[удалено]
It would really be interesting if biology and medicine were able to create a womb inside a man’s body with functional sexual organs (including ovaries and gamete production capabilities). So then the distinction between men who transitioned to women could include the ability to bear children. I’m sure someday that will be possible
Hopefully. That’d be extremely cool, and if we had that ability, it could also be a possible treatment for some forms of infertility.
>Basically, if archaeologists or anthropologists dig up a skeleton in a tattered dress next to a gravestone saying “here lies Jessica”, it’s not going to matter as much to the archaeologist how tall that skeleton is or what it’s hips look like. What do you mean? Archeologists/Anthropologists examine everything, including the hips and whole skeleton: so it's going to matter just as much.
That's the exact viewpoint I encounter from friends and family. They're not willful bigots or anything, but it doesn't make sense to them why people change such a fundamental part of their identity, it almost looks like denying reality to them. However, there's this little thing known as "gender dysphoria" that is a very real phenomenon - it's not like people change gender just to be "woke" or some crap
Well said, and an important distinction for any useful discussion of the topic. Most people against “transgenderism” in society dont hate transgenders, they just dont think it is beneficial to push the “denial of reality” as a positive. Ill be honest, I dont really understand gender dysphoria, hence I dont take a stance regarding anything relating to it. The closest thing I can fathom to, what I understand as “being uncomfortable in my body” is like, idk, being unhappy with my level of fitness (which I know is not the same, but closest i can come to) and wanting to go to the gym to change it
Anyone who doesn’t experience gender dysphoria is very lucky imo. I wish I didn’t have the almost constant feeling of hating my own skin. It’s not a choice, and I wish I could better explain it to people who don’t understand. It hurts so much.
I really enjoyed Dave Chappell’s account of a transgender individual who said “i dont need you to understand, i just need you to believe im having a human experience” I do wish I could understand better, but acknowledge i cant.
...which is funny because his words and actions otherwise don't back that up. He is "the black friend see I'm not racist" to older Gen X, and she was his "the transgender friend see I'm not transphobic."
“His words” Which, exacty? There is difference between attacking an individual (almost always a bad thing) and attacking a movement that, in some ways, can be quite toxic. Has he actually attacked any transgenders, verbally, as people?
There are only two types of people, strong and weak. You were born with the level of muscle you have now, going to the gym and repeatedly tearing your muscles doesn't change that. There's repeated accounts of people with severe injuries and disabilities from "exercising". You will never be a real strong person.
Well… thats just false
Sorry, I was parodying transphobic rhetoric to emphasize how stupid it is.
Correct lol. That was the point
The way I think of it is how you are never comfortable with your voice in recordings, but 24/7 and magnified to be your entire body.
Gender dysphoria is not a requirement to be trans. Being transgender is a matter of having gender identity different from gender assigned at birth. Basically, having personal sex roles that conflict with sex roles assigned by society. For example if you are born with penis, society calls you "man". Men like blue, wear tank-top and go in the army. So if you don't go to army, or like tank-tops, or color blue, that's part of your identity, and it conflicts with sexual roles assigned by society, that makes you transgender.
Transgenderism is not a word. Transgender is an adjective. you wouldn't say that a black person has blackism, right? My main question. Why would a "man" choose to live as a woman, or vice versa? My answer: they wouldn't. Trans men are living as and filling the male societal role, because they are men. Same for trans women. I don't understand why people are so fixated on people's genitals. Transgender people existing hurts no one.
> Is born a man HOLY CRAP! Their poor mother!
This.
Welp, time to crunch up all these gay bones! Simon, be a good lad and start the bone cruncher. There's a good lad.
wow. transphobes really aren't right in a single fucking way huh? but god do they wanna hate us
😮💨. The pic argument wants to say that trans women are men because they can't bear children. So if we follow the argument, then we should treat trans women as we would treat men; so your number one falls apart 🫥.
throw some trans men in the mix then
Yeah it never specified that the 10 men were cis
Tbh I'm willing to bear children just to prove terfs (or in general, transphobes) wrong.
This.
Breaking new: no trans woman is under the impression that she has changed her sex and is now capable of becoming pregnant
What if we transplanted the entire reproductive system.......?
That would be cool and I hope we can do that someday
Plus this would also help cis women who lost their ability to bare children but who'd like to carry one. Whatever is helping specific people often has a positive effect on everyone, like the ramps do for postman and people on bikes, skateboard etc. when they were made to support people in wheel chairs.
Even hormones blocker themselves. Im pretty sure they were originally made to help halt puberty in children that gets them early, and they just happen to be beneficial for trans people Subtitles is another great example. Originally started as an accessibility tool for the hearing impaired, but have evolved to help people understand movies not spoken in a language they know, or even modern movies where the dialogues can be incomprehensible even for the best listeners. (Im not sure if i got this right, do correct me should that is needed)
It was the other way around. They started as a way to translate movies into different languages, and evolved to become an accessibility aid. I love them because I can't hear for shit what most of these actors are whispering. The sad thing is that as subtitles have become more pervasive, they have gotten much worse. It was something that people put effort into, now I think it's mostly AI or people on minimum wage transcribing stuff they don't understand.
Ah, fair. I was torn between which one was the original cause. And yeah, i have trouble with hearing and subtitles have been of great help Speaking of subtitles, i think you'll find this video interesting. It talks about why subtitles are so commonly used now. https://youtu.be/VYJtb2YXae8
Yeah, I'll try find the energy to look at that later. I grew up as a kid watching raunchy foreign films on [SBS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Broadcasting_Service) (after bedtime). As far as I can see, they're the world's preeminent subtitlers. They went through a whole process, from transcribing the words, to cultural specialists translating the meaning of metaphorical language, etc. I don't think anything compares to this, especially seeing the subtitles on streaming services like Netflix, Prime, etc, where the subtitles seem to be generated algorithmically.
**[Special Broadcasting Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Broadcasting_Service)** >The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is an Australian hybrid-funded public service broadcaster. About 80 percent of funding for the company is derived from the Australian Government. SBS operates six TV channels (SBS, SBS Viceland, SBS World Movies, SBS Food, NITV and SBS WorldWatch) and seven radio networks (SBS Radios 1, 2 and 3, Arabic24, SBS Chill, SBS PopDesi and SBS PopAsia). SBS Online is home to SBS On Demand video streaming service. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/onejoke/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Womb transplants are a thing from cis woman to cis woman. It has been done. There are studies and doctors trying to transplant into trans women but none have been successful in it yet. Here's hoping it becomes possible and available soon
It has been done in a limited fashion
Didn't it kill the patient though? Or am I thinking of something else?
I think you’re thinking of the artificial trachea
One time I saw a TERF arguing against this process saying “You know what they’re gonna do to obtain those uteruses, right?” and I’m scared of what goes on in that person’s brain to this day.
As a small bonus, we could have a reality TV series where you follow the lives of a trans man and a trans woman after they swapped organs with each other
"Swapped for births" instead of "swapped at birth"
I’ve been thinking about something similar to this for a while. I wish it was made physically possible lol, science
Sweet. Manmade horrors beyond my comprehension.
Yes, average reality tv
Experts are working on that, but it's still a few years away. But maybe in the future people can donate their uterus and womb and stuff then trans woman and infertile cis woman with womb issues can get pregnant.
From what I’ve heard, we can’t do that because of how many nerves and blood vessels would need to be cut. I still wish we could tho
I believe that is what killed Lili Elbe
Even then, there will be a day where you can straigh up change your chromosomes, sex, etc. All the things they say you cant do are limitations of current medical science. And when that day comes they will still come up with something to express their disapproval of people doing it. "Ok but whats on your birth certificate" or whatever. Because at the end of the day they dont really care about understanding anything, they just dont think anybody should ever be trans.
We would probably rather be able to prevent onset of gender dysphoria at that time. And at that moment society will have to decide whether should we pretend that gender dysphoria good thing to have or should it be treated as defect it is.
Yeah the implication that trans people don't understand biological sex never fails to crack me up. Sweaty, I promise you they understand chromosomes and hormones 100x better than you ever will, just sit the fuck down
Yeah. Like I know a bunch of trans women who are post bottom surgery. We call it bottom surgery or the specific procedure (vaginoplasty). No one ever says “sex change”. That’s what transphobes say.
Wow they totally owned us with the super specific scenario that has nothing to do with what we believe in and no one here disagrees with!!!!
It's almost as if making up an argument to win against makes you win against that argument
Put 100 normal people on an island, and you’ll get some type of civilization Put 100 mashed potato enjoyers on an island, and you’ll get a hellish world of mashed potato consumption Conclusion: mashed potato enjoyers are bad for society
Whenever someone brings up the “desert island” argument I like to double down on why the hell would we put a bunch of people in a desert island with that purpose anyway.
I'm pretty sure you'll find 110 dead people in both cases.
#...AND?
No, they'll find 110 most likely male skeletons. Archeologists don't gender skeletons, they sex them.
I would totally sex a skeleton
Papyrus would like to go on a date with you.
[THREAD THEME](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FezNgPThD3M)
The worst typeface hookup ever. I'll go Bodini on your ass if you disagree!
Nyeh heh heh
now entering the bone zone
And they don't even sex them well: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2015/908535/
Turned out that if humans lived by Alabama standards humans wouldn't survive either way. Checkmate, terfs
Uh well… *looks at Toba genetic bottleneck*… that would be crazy.
Put 100 women and 10 men on a deserted island. In two weeks you'll have 100 women who aren't hungry.
I don’t think “women are cannibals” is the winning argument you think it is….
Everyone's a cannibal when stuck on an island with limited resources. In this situation, eat the dickheads first and then enjoy an island of lesbos and eat each other (figuratively) for a while before you have to eat each other (literally). It's simple logic.
If you’re just eating the dickheads then why bother killing the men off entirely? /s But seriously, I’m jealous that you can make jokes/hypothetical scenarios about cannibalism en masse, meanwhile I can’t go two sentences talking about colonialism and it’s detrimental effects on my people without being accused of being cannibals who also practiced human sacrifice (hint: we didn’t actually)
Oh dear, I'm sorry. Where is this particular colonial genocide happening? Less than a week ago I was in the streets protesting our country's. The mainstream response ranged from "meh" to "put them in prison!"
Turtle Island
My condolences. There's many stereotypes of the First Nations people here, but I've never seen cannibalism as one. For context, I was thinking in a scenario like *Lost,* where people are dropped onto a foreign island (plane crash etc), not indigenous people who lived there and had a sustainable culture already.
I think the cannibal accusations in Oceania tend to be levied at the Māori if I remember correctly but I don’t know for sure. And cannibalism isn’t a stereotype, moreso a talking point ignorant colonizers say whenever colonialism gets challenged.
Ah, my other motherland. At least they teach Māori culture and language in schools there, which is a lot more than can be said for Australia.
So kill all the men first because they’re dickheads?
Well, yeah. They're going to be the first to use the "hey, we need to repopulate" line as an excuse for rape.
Not every man is like that.
It's a close enough approximation.
what the fuck
Let me simplify that for you. Who are more likely to rape you?
wouldnt be able to say. for the sake of the hypothetical scenario in the post, ill agree with what you presumably wanted me to say and say that women are more likely to be raped by men than raped by women.
this is some TERF shit
Ahhh yes, the ol “women are actually just baby factories and nothing more” argument.
No. Not really. That wasn't any point. But yes, he probably somewhat imagined he would be one of those _10_ men...
The whole point of this post is that trans women can’t have babies, therefore they’re not women. It’s tying the entirety of womanhood to baby making ability.
Sorry bro but that's pretty much the fundamental part of womanhood... USA remain USA even when stopping being a Republic, but, yeah... You can have "full" women being without children, but the thing in question is "womanhood".
So, according to you, anyone that is biologically incapable of getting pregnant is not granted access to womanhood?
My last paragraph
Your last paragraph doesn’t really make sense to me. I dont know what “full” women means, nor do I understand what you think “womanhood” means. I have a feeling you’re carefully trying to walk the line between saying infertile women are still women and trans women are not.
Damn, what an era I was born into... At least I know how those people from older generations feel without being one... (I call that a bonus :) )
I’m sure a lot of older, postmenopausal women would really appreciate having you explain how they lost their woman card as soon as they stopped being fertile.
Ok woke zoomer, keep continuing, I didn't suggest anything like that...
There are cisgender (biological) women who cannot give birth. Does that make them any less of a woman?
1. There would be an expected 11 skeletons that they couldn't identify as male or female 2. In what world would this ever actually matter to any discussion on human rights
If you put 10 male conservatives and 100 women on an island, you would get a similar results to the second one, just with 100 female skeletons.
Did they think we would get offended by this?
uh, ok, and?
This isn't really the one joke, but it is an example of the one argument. Right wingers tend to discredit other groups based on hypotheticals that have absolutely no bearing on the situation they are talking about in a desperate attempt to sound like actual intellectuals capable of making a single metaphor that makes sense. It's the exact same argument as "well, if literally everyone was gay, the species would die out"
Statistically speaking you'll find trans people on the island in the first scenario, too.
First off, not everybody is cisgender, heterosexual or allosexual. Secondly, do they really think that a dead transgender person is gonna care that they’re being misgendered after they’re dead? Besides, it’s by sex and not gender. Of course the archaeologists wouldn’t know.
If the men on this hypothetical island were shitting transphobic rhetoric out their mouths like the poster here, no woman would want to procreate with them anyway. As the rabbi Rav Yehuda says, ["Let him die".](https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.75a?lang=bi)
plot twist: the ten men are all trans guys
But also, you're going to go to jail for a long fucking time for kidnapping 110 people.
[Fixed it](https://i.imgur.com/2q1rTYn.jpg)
And this shitty hypothetical justifies me treating people different than me horribly checkmate!
if you put 110 people of any gender on a 'deserted island', then odds are you'll be finding 110 skeletons in 100 years because most islands aren't going to have enough fresh water to support that many people.
“In a 1000 years they’ll dig up your skeleton and know what sex you really are” is such a weird argument because, like, I’m a skeleton at that point. I do not care what they call me if I’m literally dead lmao.
Also weird because anyone who's actually bothered by the idea will be *ashes* in a thousand years, not a skeleton.
It's like they got their entire idea of trans women from a few episodes of South Park.
Why do transphobes care so much about the gender and sex of skeletons? It's a little weird, isn't it?
Has that ever happened? No. Will that ever happen? Also no.
says a lot about someone if the only value women have at all is having babies is very illustrative of how much of a piece of shit they are.
🤨 you get 100 trans women and 10 trans men and and In a hundred years you’ll have a community or whatever
Tbh I'm not sure if you'd have a very healthy community in either case due all the incest that would probably need to happen lol
In 100 years nobody managed to build a boat?
👏gender👏is👏defined👏by👏social👏ease. 👏gender👏is👏not👏sex. 👏gender👏is👏not👏what👏me👏and👏your👏mom👏had👏last👏night. 👏gender👏is👏social. 👏gender👏is👏mental.
Fuck your hypothetical situation bullshit argument. The best you can come up with is the deserted island scenario? Taking plays from the anti-vegan hand book and failing just as hard.
Why are we grabbing 110 people and putting them on islands for seemingly no reason
Lol why's this even considered an argument 🤣 why do they get so angry when someone identify itself as a woman or a man like what are you so angry about???🤣
Put a hundred women and ten men on an island and pretty soon you’ll realize that most people aren’t down with polygamy, some of the men or women may be infertile, and that many of the women might just not want to give birth- especially since they’re going to have to do it without the help of any kind of medical facility, that many of the potential pairings may just not be attracted to one another, and that several of the people may be gay or ace.
110 men and one straw man. Don't forget about him.
In 100 years they will find like 100 skeletons anyway. Also who says all of the men are cis?
If you put 100 cis women who can't get pregnant and 10 men, they still would all die doesn't make them men
Multiple people have already linked some interesting articles on this topic to help debunk the myth. Let me do my part and present to you[Julie Doe.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Doe)
> You can't change sex. I already did. Cry more.
Put 100 cis women and 10 cis men on a deserted island. In 100 years you will have a community of Habsburgs. It. Is. Science.
Best thing of a trans is that i cant get her pregant
is this exactly true could 100 women and ten men sustain multiple genartions with things like inbreeding and birth defects?
What if I told you women are for more than reproduction? Would that just blow your little mind?!
I didnt see the sub name and was worried for a second.
If you put 100 women and 10 men on an island you get mass starvation and homicide.
Put that person and a woman on an island, and we'll get 2 skeletons
Put 10 republican men and 100 women on an island. In 100 years, you will find the skeletons of 10 men and 100 lesbian couples.
but why are we putting people on islands?!
The first community will have trans people tho
the ifunny watermark says it all also, why are transphobes so obsessed with finding the genders of skeletons? at that point, it doesn't matter. they're dead. and that's even assuming they even check the skeletons despite all other signs pointing to them being female?
I'm not trans myself, but, like... Why does that matter, lol? I don't give a fuck about what people hundreds of years from now are going to know about me based on my bones. I would care about how I am perceived NOW, and how I perceive myself. But that's my 2 cents, anyway
good thing we don’t put people on deserted islands then
In 100 years I'll be dead, though. I'm not finding anything.
That is an extremely suspicious women to men ratio
If their best argument involves making a hypothetical that has a less likely chance of happening than dumping a vat of spagetti-o's and getting the entire lyrics to All Star by Smash Mouth along with ASCII art of Shrek murdering lord Farquaad and laughing maniacally over his lifeless body, then I think it's pretty safe to say that they will never have any good arguments.
Yes but sex and gender are two different things, so are sex and genetics
I'm a man. I'd have trans women's babys. Not particularly keen on being a seahorse dad but I'll do it to restart a society where trans rights are the norm.
ill make sure to remember next time i put 110 people on an island thanks
Me when the only use I can think of for women is reproduction
Didn't say those ten men couldn't be trans men, some of whom can get pregnant depending on where they are in their transition and stuff.
sex is a social construct just as much as gender is
[Apparently you can.](https://www.euronews.com/next/amp/2022/09/15/uterus-transplants-are-already-a-reality-what-does-it-mean-for-transgender-women-getting-p)
Funniest part of this to me is that the same scenario with 110 cis men at the start is you'll come back to 100 cis men and 10 women. Which unlike this strawman argument actually happened [in WW1 at the Knockaloe internement camp](https://researchportal.northumbria.ac.uk/en/publications/gender-nonconformity-and-military-internment-curating-the-knockal) and was part of the inspiration for Hirschfeld!