Isn't gender affirming care just solidifying the gender roles that caused the stuggle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kind of think this about identifying as non-binary. Why can’t we broaden what it means to be male or female?

Kids already have.

I’m concerned we are narrowing what it means to be female

[Anonymous]

I do think "gender affirming care" is misleading. If gender is not the same as biological sex, then medical procedures to alter biological sex could be more appropriately called "biological sex transformative care," and be separate from "gender affirming care," which could be psychological and not biological/medical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP I agree with you. This is making a mockery of feminism, like actual feminism, and of acceptance - actual acceptance.

+1

Transgenderism is based on regressive gender stereotypes. We should celebrate gender non-conforming kids, not offer them surgery and garbage about being “born in the wrong body.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kind of think this about identifying as non-binary. Why can’t we broaden what it means to be male or female?

Kids already have.

I’m concerned we are narrowing what it means to be female

No, it’s very much the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP I agree with you. This is making a mockery of feminism, like actual feminism, and of acceptance - actual acceptance.

+1

Transgenderism is based on regressive gender stereotypes. We should celebrate gender non-conforming kids, not offer them surgery and garbage about being “born in the wrong body.”

It’s not about stereotypes at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think "gender affirming care" is misleading. If gender is not the same as biological sex, then medical procedures to alter biological sex could be more appropriately called "biological sex transformative care," and be separate from "gender affirming care," which could be psychological and not biological/medical.

While they have spent a lot of time saying that gender and sex are separate and can match or be different, now they are saying that they are the same and when the sex doesn't match the gender, then it needs to be changed. Now sex and gender are the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kind of think this about identifying as non-binary. Why can’t we broaden what it means to be male or female?

Kids already have.

I’m concerned we are narrowing what it means to be female

No, it’s very much the opposite.

What she means is she wants her form of being a woman the best right way and if other people are also women it makes her feel invalidated. She can only not feel invalidated by invalidating others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kind of think this about identifying as non-binary. Why can’t we broaden what it means to be male or female?

Kids already have.

I’m concerned we are narrowing what it means to be female

No, it’s very much the opposite.

What she means is she wants her form of being a woman the best right way and if other people are also women it makes her feel invalidated. She can only not feel invalidated by invalidating others.

Her way of being a woman is being a woman. Other people are being women by being enby or by being trans. Everyone is a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP I agree with you. This is making a mockery of feminism, like actual feminism, and of acceptance - actual acceptance.

+1. I would never dare to say this to anyone IRL, but this is how I feel.

Feminism has nothing to do with being feminine.

Ffs

Rejecting womanhood outright has a lot to do with feminism, or a misunderstanding thereof. Also femininity, but mostly feminism.

Being a woman and being feminine are two different things. Feminist has nothing to do with femininity.

Yes, that's why I separated them.

Feminism means that there a hundred, a thousand, a million ways to be a woman. There's only one way to not be a woman. That's to be a man, including a trans man, or enby.

No feminism means genders are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

The problem with discussing this subject is that most people don’t have the most basic understand or definition of words and interchange words that mean different things.

Funny you say that because YOU clearly aren’t familiar with feminism. Feminism is about sex. Biological sex. Gender is made up and oppressive to women, and it is not the basis of feminism, which is concerned with biological females.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP I agree with you. This is making a mockery of feminism, like actual feminism, and of acceptance - actual acceptance.

+1. I would never dare to say this to anyone IRL, but this is how I feel.

Feminism has nothing to do with being feminine.

Ffs

Rejecting womanhood outright has a lot to do with feminism, or a misunderstanding thereof. Also femininity, but mostly feminism.

Being a woman and being feminine are two different things. Feminist has nothing to do with femininity.

Yes, that's why I separated them.

Feminism means that there a hundred, a thousand, a million ways to be a woman. There's only one way to not be a woman. That's to be a man, including a trans man, or enby.

+1

Feminism is inclusive of ALL women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. I was a super intense tom boy and envied that my brothers didn't have to wear dresses for fancy events. These days I would be a kid that might be cued for transition. It was a phase. I also know a few friends who were lesbians for a while. Also a phase. Kids work through stuff--phases. No child should transition. Until they are adults, it should be treated as phases.

I'm so tired of hearing this argument. No one is frogmarching tomboys into a gender clinic and forcing them to take hormones. Bring a tomboy is not the same as being trans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. I was a super intense tom boy and envied that my brothers didn't have to wear dresses for fancy events. These days I would be a kid that might be cued for transition. It was a phase. I also know a few friends who were lesbians for a while. Also a phase. Kids work through stuff--phases. No child should transition. Until they are adults, it should be treated as phases.

I'm so tired of hearing this argument. No one is frogmarching tomboys into a gender clinic and forcing them to take hormones. Bring a tomboy is not the same as being trans.

Do "tomboys" - a cis girl who identifies as a girl but is not feminine - exist much anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. I was a super intense tom boy and envied that my brothers didn't have to wear dresses for fancy events. These days I would be a kid that might be cued for transition. It was a phase. I also know a few friends who were lesbians for a while. Also a phase. Kids work through stuff--phases. No child should transition. Until they are adults, it should be treated as phases.

I'm so tired of hearing this argument. No one is frogmarching tomboys into a gender clinic and forcing them to take hormones. Bring a tomboy is not the same as being trans.

Do "tomboys" - a cis girl who identifies as a girl but is not feminine - exist much anymore?

Absolutely. Don’t you know any teens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:America does it all wrong with transgender identity.

Third gender is how many indigenous cultures around the world have recognized transgender identities throughout history. And is how those who are transgender identify themselves. They are not female but they are a male body that possesses a female presentation. The third gender people have different names in different cultures.

There is no erasure or dilution of the definition of women in order to conform to the presentation of third gender people.

The reason that this developed, however, is because of grotesquely violent misogyny. In cultures with a third gender—which was nearly always predominantly natal men—that third gender existed because the deeply misogynist societies could not tolerate “effeminate” men. They were excluded from the definition of men in those societies because being a woman-like man was deemed absolutely unacceptable.

I genuinely do not understand the bizarrely idealistic and shockingly ahistorical take on “third genders” that has popped up lately. It was a deeply problematic societal structure that developed because of extreme misogyny. The “noble savage” version of this that is making the rounds bears little resemblance to what reality was like for societies with third genders, particularly for natal women in those societies.