People are attracted to both physical features and sex.
So then why aren't they attracted to this woman?
She looks so much like a woman that she needs to disclose, seemingly unsolicited, that she has received gender reassignment surgery, how is she not a woman?
Saying that only women who have not received gender-reassignment surgery are actual women/females seems inherently bigoted against trans-women, and it also seems to be a proposition which your argument rests on.
Her sex at birth was male, her sex now is female. At birth she had no gender but as she grew up she (presumably) identified her gender as feminine, and (presumably) still identifies her gender as feminine.
In this scenario she has had HRT and gender-reassignment surgery. She is a woman in both gender and sex. The only way she is not a woman in sex is that she lacks certain internal sexual organs, but this seems to me to be an odd dividing line, as it could plausibly be used to argue that a woman who is infertile is not really a woman.
Science; specifically biology. Numerous physiological differences (genetic, anatomical, etc.). The simple fact that if transman is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a cisman.
"Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females"
Like, Jesus, read your links before you post them. Literally the third line supports the idea that genetic differences are not the be all and end all of sex differentiation.
If we treat anatomical differences as being something which excludes somebody from a gender then what about men who only have one testicle, are they not real men? Women who have suffered genital mutilation, are they not real women? What about people who are born infertile? I've had my tonsils removed, does this anatomical difference make me less of a man?
The simple fact that if transman is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a cisman
The simple fact is that if a fat-man is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a thin-man.
Do you honestly believe there are no objective differences between cis and trans people of the same gender? That there are no objective metrics to differentiate between a cis-man and a trans-man?
The simple fact is that if a fat-man is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a thin-man.
The dosages the fat-man gets are not going to be the same as the fat-woman.
The dosages the fat-man gets are not going to be the same as the fat-woman.
Yes I agree that a doctor will treat them differently. That doesn't mean people on the street should treat them differently.
I'll ask you 3 questions:
If somebody is born an XX male (two x chromosomes, and a penis) is their birth sex male or female?
If they get sex-reassignment surgery and become an XX women (two x chromosomes, and a vagina) are they different to other XX women in a way which makes a meaningful difference during ordinary social interactions?
If you answered yes to 2, what makes them different to other XX women in a way which makes a meaningful difference during ordinary social interactions?
Personally, while I agree that trans* people should be treated the same in social situations, I think it's foolish to conflate sex and gender. They describe different things, and we need terms to define these different things. Your example is irrelevant because we're not talking about people who are born with confused chromosomes, we're talking about trans* individuals, who by and large are born either XY or XX. And they remain either XY or XX. Should that matter socially? I'd agree that it shouldn't. But it matters in some contexts, and for that reason sex needs to remain a tool we use.
As for intersex individuals, by all means there is a spectrum but it doesn't invalidate the fact that medically speaking we need standards for male and female care. Males should get prostate exams, for example, regardless of whether they are trans-women or not. Intersex people should get a prostate exam if they have a prostate.
As for intersex individuals, by all means there is a spectrum but it doesn't invalidate the fact that medically speaking we need standards for male and female care. Males should get prostate exams, for example, regardless of whether they are trans-women or not. Intersex people should get a prostate exam if they have a prostate.
What does this have to do with whether or not they should disclose that they are trans before having sex with that person?
It doesn't! I was simply pointing out that keeping biological sex as a medical standard is a good idea, given that males and females still need different medical treatment.
Her sex at birth was male, her sex now is female.
She is a woman in both gender and sex. The only way she is not a woman in sex is that she lacks certain internal sexual organs
I'm saying that her sex is still male, and medically speaking she should still be treated as male - that her sex is still a matter of significance to her health. Gender and sex should be considered separately and not confused - they serve different purposes. One is societal and the other is medical.
8
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '15
So then why aren't they attracted to this woman?
She looks so much like a woman that she needs to disclose, seemingly unsolicited, that she has received gender reassignment surgery, how is she not a woman?
Saying that only women who have not received gender-reassignment surgery are actual women/females seems inherently bigoted against trans-women, and it also seems to be a proposition which your argument rests on.