Is it Trans phobic to say only women get abortions?

[Walking Cat Bed]

Trans person here rolling my eyes so far back into my head i can see my brain

Cis people talking about how trans men are *actually* "biologically" women and trans women are *actually* "biologically" men like tell us how you really feel

I do not know where to begin with this explanation. So instead, I'm going to go complain to to other trans people about the cis people on the internet that refuse to gender us correctly and love to pretend that you care about our medical care.

Before I do that, read this, and stop coming up with all these excuses to misgender us. Either own your transphobia or get the fuck over it.

"If cisgender people REALLY thought “biological sex†was important and weren’t just using it to police trans people who complain about health forms, they would

ask why there’s no intersex option on health forms

ask why there isn’t a different column where you denote if you’re trans and whether you plan on getting surgery (you know, since that affects your HEALTH)

use their cis privilege to point out the flaws in running health on a male/female system

stop saying “biological sex†while ignoring the existence of intersex people, as well as people with hormonal imbalances that put them at risk for disorders that typically don’t apply to their “biological sexâ€

basically it’s really obvious that cis people only say “they NEED to ask male or female on health forms its for your HEALTH†to get trans people to shut up, because cis people are scared of change"- list courtesy of tomibunny.tumblr

Stop pretending you're misgendering us "for our health".

And yes, it is transphobic to say only women get abortions. Not only women get abortions. You can acknowledge that access to abortions is incredibly affected by misogyny without making blanket statements about the genders of people getting them. It is also cisnormative. Cisnormativity is a type of transphobia, not a different thing. :x

Thank you for your perspective (not being snarky).

I'm cis but pansexual, and that's complicated enough. In a perfect world, biological gender classification would be between a person and their doctor -- not politicians or strangers. The same way sexuality would be between the people engaging in a relationship. But, because that's not the way of the world, anyone who isn't cisgender and heterosexual (or at least monosexual, i.e. straight or gay/lesbian) has to deal with classifications and assumptions that don't apply to them.

[nelliebelle1197]

Interestingly the word woman originated from womb-man = man with a womb.

The whole discussion is really complicated but I wonder what is the trans-person's definition of the words "woman" and "man"?

Is it terminated by a person's gender or biological sex?

How can the female gender and male gender be defined anyway?

Some feminists say that all gender is constructed, that it doesn't really exist and that women and men in reality only differentiated bodywise. But if this were true then why are there so many people that claim they feel like a woman even though they have a male body? Who is the woman in the man's body? How can she be described?

I think there is some confusion going on within the big field of gender and queer studies.

Your points are really interesting. I have always viewed gender as more of a construct, but in more an external sense. I have to think this through.

[Firiel]

Well, I did go ahead and read the rest of the article OTBT posted, and I was absolutely horrified. The irony of that article being used as a support of this statement

The point being that we should be tolerant of one another

is ridiculous.

And yes, I do think that the call for political correctness can be overused and when overused can do more harm that good.

But calling trans people "a bunch of dicks in chicks’ clothing" as the author of the article does is pretty fucking horrific and does nothing to support tolerance.

[VelociRapture]

Dumb question here, but with is "cis?" I've never heard of it before. I'm relatively new to the transgender conversation though; my younger brother (born my baby sister) only recently informed us we've had his gender wrong since he was born and we're all just starting to try to understand this whole new topic of discussion in order to better support him.

To me, it's kind of simple. Women are the ones most likely to get an abortion, but a transgender man can become pregnant (either by choice or through rape) before undergoing reassignment surgery. So, to me, it just seems simple to say:

All women can have an abortion if needed, but not all those who get abortions are women (or identify as female or however that person feels comfortable stating who they are). It's like breast cancer to me - it overwhelmingly strikes women, but men can still receive a diagnosis too. So while it is a serious women's issue, it also seems to be a human one as well because anyone can be impacted by an abortion. Does that make any sense?

[Firiel]

I don't know where you are in your journey, but is your ultimate goal to 100% identify as a man? I have a dear friend who gave up a very lucrative career and generations of social status to become what she knows she is- a woman. She has no desire to remember her male exterior. She 100% woman as far as she and anyone who knows her is concerned. She has a right to own women's issues whether or not she can produce children because she is a woman.

If you identify as a man, then you need to accept what men have done to women and how important women's issues are. Men have created an oppressive society for women, and women have the right to identify their issues and claim them, just as much as YOU do. You can't have it both ways. It is completely hypocritical to tell women that YOU have the right to neuter our issues because of certain traits in your biology but then jump on women who do not want you co-opting what is clearly a women's issue because you don't want to be defined by biology. Women are defined by biology constantly; laws are being made to control women's biology. It is such male privilege to think you have a right not to be defined by your biology. I don't have that right as a woman - in fact, it worse for women because it does no matter whether we have a prostate or not. We cannot escape our exteriors.

This is actually starting to make me angry. Sticking "-phobia" on something doesn't mean it is true. It is deeply offensive to me that a very few people think they have the right to redefine women's issues and struggles. I will NOT have a man tell me what to think, feel and accuse me of phobia. And that is exactly what these activists are trying to do. I even saw something on transmen objecting to women-only abuse survivors groups. That is ridiculous - I would not want someone identifying as male in a safe space like that.

This is just another patriarchical watering down of feminism. You see it all over the place, with young women not even identifying as feminists and not understanding the unique problems women face as different.

These are good points. Those are my concerns with the original question as well, but you stated it more eloquently than I could have.

This is my natural response, being a woman who has a woman's experiences, but I also want to be careful to consider the trans* experience (as best as I can). It's hard to know how to do that well, and reasoned responses like this as well as the input from trans* folks helps with that.

[OkToBeTakei]

If that is what it takes for you to function as a decent person in society well you rock on.

Glad to see you are now just apologising for ALL feminists but at least you left me out :lol:

Julie Burchill is a lairy foul mouthed feminist who probably would not thank you for that but not my issue. She does make good points sometimes, although is invariably offensive.

The point though is while you are intellectualising and over analysing every little word or action you make so as not to offend and to appear oh so tolerant, the very truthful fact of the matter is that that is all so much bullshit to be honest (not you personally.) Society as a whole is not there yet. If we were there, then racism would be history. As would many other isms. Frankly that is not the case ..is it?

I'm not saying I do not admire your wish to develop tolerance and the tools you use, it is just that whilst for example racial profiling is an everyday occurrence the time to discuss the finer points is quite a distance off for society as a whole.

Same with the term cisgender. Some find it helpful ..personally I do not. I find it pointless in the extreme. I don't think it helps particularly in dealing with the trans issues discussed here. I think it has the ability to confuse. I do think that simplifying issues helps build understanding and tolerance. Maybe others need the labels to do this.

When was tolerance ever achieved with attack? By your post you may have alienated a few feminists. I'm sure that was far from your intention. Or was it? :think:

[IronicallyMaeve]

Dumb question here, but with is "cis?" I've never heard of it before. I'm relatively new to the transgender conversation though; my younger brother (born my baby sister) only recently informed us we've had his gender wrong since he was born and we're all just starting to try to understand this whole new topic of discussion in order to better support him.

To me, it's kind of simple. Women are the ones most likely to get an abortion, but a transgender man can become pregnant (either by choice or through rape) before undergoing reassignment surgery. So, to me, it just seems simple to say:

All women can have an abortion if needed, but not all those who get abortions are women (or identify as female or however that person feels comfortable stating who they are). It's like breast cancer to me - it overwhelmingly strikes women, but men can still receive a diagnosis too. So while it is a serious women's issue, it also seems to be a human one as well because anyone can be impacted by an abortion. Does that make any sense?

Cisgender refers to someone whose sex and gender line up. When I was born, the doctor told my parents I was a girl based on my physical appearance. I have XX chromosomes. I identify as a woman. Therefore, I am cisgender.

[Walking Cat Bed]

Cisgender refers to someone whose sex and gender line up. When I was born, the doctor told my parents I was a girl based on my physical appearance. I have XX chromosomes. I identify as a woman. Therefore, I am cisgender.

This is a situation where the dictionary is a good source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cis-

1. a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin meaning “on the near side of; on this side of†( cisalpine); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( cisatlantic).

2. Chemistry. a specialization of this denoting a geometric isomer having a pair of identical atoms or groups attached on the same side of two atoms linked by a double bond.

Compare trans- (def 2).

3. a prefix meaning “on the same side of,†referring to the alignment of one’s gender identity with one’s biological sex assigned at birth ( cisgender; cissexual).

[VelociRapture]

Cisgender refers to someone whose sex and gender line up. When I was born, the doctor told my parents I was a girl based on my physical appearance. I have XX chromosomes. I identify as a woman. Therefore, I am cisgender.

Thanks! I was getting kind of confused with everyone using the term. There are so many different words used for so many different identities that I get confused easily.

I don't know if I'll use that term or not. To me, it's just simpler to say if you identify as a male, regardless of whether you are biologically or not, then you're a male to me. Is that weird or wrong? (I really want to make sure I don't offend or upset anyone)

[Firiel]

Thanks! I was getting kind of confused with everyone using the term. There are so many different words used for so many different identities that I get confused easily.

I don't know if I'll use that term or not. To me, it's just simpler to say if you identify as a male, regardless of whether you are biologically or not, then you're a male to me. Is that weird or wrong? (I really want to make sure I don't offend or upset anyone)

No, I don't think so. You may ask your brother what he thinks. I think I reason I will use "cis" is to acknowledge that there is a whole host issues that I have never had to face that trans* people have had to deal with.

Also, it's just a word. If saying or not saying a word helps people feel accepted and understood, I'm glad to make that non-sacrifice and change my vocabulary slightly.

[polecat]

1. Women have abortions.

2. Abortion is a women's issue just like domestic violence is a women's issue and birth is a women's issue and breast cancer is a women's issue -- not because ONLY women have these experiences but because women make up the majority of people facing these issues.

3. People -- including trans men -- have abortions therefore it is not strictly accurate to say that ONLY women have abortions. Many cis men may also feel as though they were active participants in their partner's abortions. That still doesn't make abortion a men's issue or any less a women's issue, nor does it make the statement that "women have abortions" any less accurate.

[Rachel333]

I don't think anyone needs to identify themselves as trans- or cis-gender all the time, only when it is directly relevant to the conversation. The rest of the time I think male/female would suffice for most people.

The "cis" part isn't just a made up term; it's a real prefix meaning the opposite of trans that people have used to create the term "cisgender."

[Walking Cat Bed]

Thanks! I was getting kind of confused with everyone using the term. There are so many different words used for so many different identities that I get confused easily.

I don't know if I'll use that term or not. To me, it's just simpler to say if you identify as a male, regardless of whether you are biologically or not, then you're a male to me. Is that weird or wrong? (I really want to make sure I don't offend or upset anyone)

From what I know about gender nonconformity, as long as you don't assume and you follow the person's lead, you're *usually* good. I try to stick with first names and "they" if I'm not entirely certain of someone's identification -- otherwise, however they introduce themselves is what I use.

For example, I'm friendly with a gender nonconforming person who is fine with being referred to as female, male, or neutrally; I tend to stick with neutral when talking ABOUT them, and their name when talking TO them.

[Firiel]

If that is what it takes for you to function as a decent person in society well you rock on.

Glad to see you are now just apologising for ALL feminists but at least you left me out :lol:

Um... I didn't apologize for all feminists. I apologized for making assumptions that things were pretty okay for trans* people within feminist circles without ever bothering to look into it.

Julie Burchill is a lairy foul mouthed feminist who probably would not thank you for that but not my issue. She does make good points sometimes, although is invariably offensive.

The point though is while you are intellectualising and over analysing every little word or action you make so as not to offend and to appear oh so tolerant, the very truthful fact of the matter is that that is all so much bullshit to be honest (not you personally.) Society as a whole is not there yet. If we were there, then racism would be history. As would many other isms. Frankly that is not the case ..is it?

I'm not saying I do not admire your wish to develop tolerance and the tools you use, it is just that whilst for example racial profiling is an everyday occurrence the time to discuss the finer points is quite a distance off for society as a whole.

Same with the term cisgender. Some find it helpful ..personally I do not. I find it pointless in the extreme. I don't think it helps particularly in dealing with the trans issues discussed here. I think it has the ability to confuse. I do think that simplifying issues helps build understanding and tolerance. Maybe others need the labels to do this.

When was tolerance ever achieved with attack? By your post you may have alienated a few feminists. I'm sure that was far from your intention. Or was it? :think:

Obviously, we haven't reached a point where racism/sexism/whatever-ism is a thing of the past. Could you point out what I said that made you think I believed that? I'm just lost at how you could have gotten that from my posts.

So you find the term cisgender useless. Cool. Good for you. I think it's often a helpful clarification. How does that relate to using transphobic slurs like "dicks in chicks' clothing" (which is calling trans* women "men" and is JUST as bad as insisting on using the wrong pronoun for them)? Or using the term "transsexual" as a derogatory punchline to a joke? To me, this is like someone who says, "That's so gay!" when something bad happens. It's associating "gay" as being something negative. It reflects a homophobic society.

I agree that racism is a big problem in the US. I agree that sexism is a big problem in the US. But to say we should ignore finer points because these overarching problems exist is, IMO, ridiculous (and, BTW, you are NOT ignoring this conversation, despite thinking that it would be the right thing to do).

About attacking. I tend to err on the side of not telling someone to "fuck off" when they say something sexist/racist/whatever. I tend to want to point it out nicely. But even that is a product of my privilege. People who have been treated poorly simply because of who they are for years and years have every right to be angry. I don't have the right to tell them what the "right" way to stand up for themselves is. Additionally, IME, when people are called out online, it's usually pretty tame-- until that person refuses consider other opinions, digs their feet in, and is an overall ass about the fact that others are offended. Then people get frustrated and "attack."

Also, I'm not sure if you are saying my posts were attacking. Could you point out where I launched an attack?

[OkToBeTakei]

Well, I did go ahead and read the rest of the article OTBT posted, and I was absolutely horrified. The irony of that article being used as a support of this statement

is ridiculous.

And yes, I do think that the call for political correctness can be overused and when overused can do more harm that good.

But calling trans people "a bunch of dicks in chicks’ clothing" as the author of the article does is pretty fucking horrific and does nothing to support tolerance.

Hey I did say that Burchill is offensive most days of the week. She is in her own words known as ' "the writing equivalent of screaming and throwing things"

I find most of her writings this. Why I referenced it although it was roundly criticised at the time was more her rant about political correctness. Her tone and language was offensive undoubtedly, she is fairly well known for that if you are familiar with her writings. The message though IF you read is that 'fellow travellers' are reduced to attacking one another. That is key. Including herself.

We can go around in circles here you know. She posted the article after her friend was threatened online after making an insensitive remark about transexuals. Friend makes insensitive remark, threatened to have her face ripped off and fed to feral dogs. To which loyal friend then reacts by making even more insensitive remarks. The conclusion which you chose to ignore is that the infighting is destructive. From all points.

So yes. It highlights to me the need for tolerance.

[Firiel]

Hey I did say that Burchill is offensive most days of the week. She is in her own words known as ' "the writing equivalent of screaming and throwing things"

I find most of her writings this. Why I referenced it although it was roundly criticised at the time was more her rant about political correctness. Her tone and language was offensive undoubtedly, she is fairly well known for that if you are familiar with her writings. The message though IF you read is that 'fellow travellers' are reduced to attacking one another. That is key. Including herself.

We can go around in circles here you know. She posted the article after her friend was threatened online after making an insensitive remark about transexuals. Friend makes insensitive remark, threatened to have her face ripped off and fed to feral dogs. To which loyal friend then reacts by making even more insensitive remarks. The conclusion which you chose to ignore is that the infighting is destructive. From all points.

So yes. It highlights to me the need for tolerance.

Well, then you should have said that this article was posted as an example of what NOT to do then. :lol:

The original context implied that you thought she was actually advocating for tolerance.

[OkToBeTakei]

Well, then you should have said that this article was posted as an example of what NOT to do then. :lol:

The original context implied that you thought she was actually advocating for tolerance.

No. That was your interpretation. You did not read the article before commenting initially. THEN your take away was only her offensive language, not actually the context of the article.

Dude calm down and read a bit.

There was no winners in the Suzanne Moore/Burchill issue. Including those offended.

It is natural for people to disagree, I have been round the block with the whole 'privilege' issue from back in the livejournal day. The one thing I always take away from it and that does not change to this day is that as long as people have a keyboard and an opinion they will try and brow beat, pigeon hole and label to the end of time and yet still the greater issues remain. That part does not change.

Answers on a postcard?

[Firiel]

No. That was your interpretation. You did not read the article before commenting initially. THEN your take away was only her offensive language, not actually the context of the article.

Dude calm down and read a bit.

There was no winners in the Suzanne Moore/Burchill issue. Including those offended.

It is natural for people to disagree, I have been round the block with the whole 'privilege' issue from back in the livejournal day. The one thing I always take away from it and that does not change to this day is that as long as people have a keyboard and an opinion they will try and brow beat, pigeon hole and label to the end of time and yet still the greater issues remain. That part does not change.

Answers on a postcard?

Umm... I may have misunderstood your meaning, but only because you (perhaps unintentionally) implied it:

The irony of the fact that you interact with fellow humans by checking your privilege in every given situation highlights exactly the problem we have with society today. You make one astute comment. There is enough oppression to go around and if you had read the full article you may have realised this nuance. The point being that we should be tolerant of one another, create an accepting society WITHOUT one party or another claiming as you put it the most oppressed card. That goes for race, sexual orientation et al.

You said the point of the article was that we should be tolerant with another and create an accepting society.

So please, stop changing the terms of this conversation. Own up to what you said. If that's not what you meant, then it's not what you meant and it was a miscommunication, but don't pretend that what you wrote didn't imply that the article is advocating for tolerance.

[Firiel]

Actually, it appears that this isn't the first time in the last couple of weeks that, when confronted about the content of your posts, you blame the interpretation on the reader. Last time, you essentially concluded that it was pointless for people to quote your posts to remind you of what you had said previously.

Anyway, I can't really have a discussion where you keep changing what you're saying and pretending like you've been saying the same thing all along. I foresee this being a frustrating lose-lose situation for me. So... I'm out! :)

No hard feelings. Except for that horrible chicken! :wink-kitty:

[OkToBeTakei]

What the actual fuck?

My words.

You make one astute comment. There is enough oppression to go around and if you had read the full article you may have realised this nuance. The point being that we should be tolerant of one another, create an accepting society WITHOUT one party or another claiming as you put it the most oppressed card. That goes for race, sexual orientation et al.

I said the article was nuanced. THIS in relation to oppression. *I* *ME* The person MY point being we should be tolerant.

YOUR words.

You said the point of the article was that we should be tolerant with another and create an accepting society.

Not really the same now is it?

I'll tell what is ironic. The point I am trying to make is that people have fucking pointless arguments that do nothing to further tolerance or understanding. Just words labels and white noise.

Maybe it was not clear, but I think the fact I've now explained it some three times is.

[OkToBeTakei]

Well fuck a duck :lol:

That's me told then. *shrug*

[DGayle]

I don't know where you are in your journey, but is your ultimate goal to 100% identify as a man? I have a dear friend who gave up a very lucrative career and generations of social status to become what she knows she is- a woman. She has no desire to remember her male exterior. She 100% woman as far as she and anyone who knows her is concerned. She has a right to own women's issues whether or not she can produce children because she is a woman.

If you identify as a man, then you need to accept what men have done to women and how important women's issues are. Men have created an oppressive society for women, and women have the right to identify their issues and claim them, just as much as YOU do. You can't have it both ways. It is completely hypocritical to tell women that YOU have the right to neuter our issues because of certain traits in your biology but then jump on women who do not want you co-opting what is clearly a women's issue because you don't want to be defined by biology. Women are defined by biology constantly; laws are being made to control women's biology. It is such male privilege to think you have a right not to be defined by your biology. I don't have that right as a woman - in fact, it worse for women because it does no matter whether we have a prostate or not. We cannot escape our exteriors.

This is actually starting to make me angry. Sticking "-phobia" on something doesn't mean it is true. It is deeply offensive to me that a very few people think they have the right to redefine women's issues and struggles. I will NOT have a man tell me what to think, feel and accuse me of phobia. And that is exactly what these activists are trying to do. I even saw something on transmen objecting to women-only abuse survivors groups. That is ridiculous - I would not want someone identifying as male in a safe space like that.

This is just another patriarchical watering down of feminism. You see it all over the place, with young women not even identifying as feminists and not understanding the unique problems women face as different.

Gender is identity. How you gender-identify doesn't change biological sex. Different issues are being merged here, and insisting that gender identity is wha should be used is both self-centered and dangerous. It's NOT misgendering to say a trans man is BIOLOGICALLY a woman because, guess what, it's true. Gender identity does NOT change biology, and that's a FACT. It's not any sort of phobic. It's FACT.

I fully support the right to gender identity, and my friends in real life know I'm militant about that. But gender identity absolutely does not change biology, and medicine is biological and deals with the biological body. Medicine is the realm where you need to deal with the biological body, and it's NOT misgendering since gender has nothing AT ALL to do with this.

Nellie brings u some EXCELLENT points in this. If someone wants to identify 100% as a man, then this means being a MAN, and not telling those who identify as women that we don't have the right to identify as women and be concerned as women's issues.

There is a TON of support in this community for the transgender and queer community. You need to show support for people who identify with their biological sex as well. A little reciprocity is a good thing. Sadly, you're already taking on the negative trait of trying to oppress women and tell women what we can feel. That's something that irks women about men.

And again, BIOLOGICAL sex and gender identity are entirely separate, and medicine deals with biology.

[VelociRapture]

From what I know about gender nonconformity, as long as you don't assume and you follow the person's lead, you're *usually* good. I try to stick with first names and "they" if I'm not entirely certain of someone's identification -- otherwise, however they introduce themselves is what I use.

For example, I'm friendly with a gender nonconforming person who is fine with being referred to as female, male, or neutrally; I tend to stick with neutral when talking ABOUT them, and their name when talking TO them.

Thanks! That's what I've been attempting to do with my brother. It's a tough situation because he works for a private institution with Jesuit leanings and he doesn't want to let people at work know straight out what is going on. So in private (pretty much just immediate family that he has told) we use male pronouns and his new name. In public or on social media he asked we try to stick with gender neutral, or the name that he is using on that site. I keep getting all tangled up in the pronouns, which is probably going to happen for a while - I mean, Cher had a lot of trouble keeping her pronouns straight when her son was going through his transition, so I guess its probably somewhat normal.

The one thing I keep bringing up when my brother shares an update is how proud my Fiance and I are of him and how much we love him. Fiance is 100% cool with all the changes going on and has told him he's excited to be getting another brother-in-law. Same with my sister, her husband, and my mom - they couldn't be prouder of him. Dad, not too sure. He tends not to discuss his feelings much unless something really bothers him. I think he's doing ok with all of this stuff and I know he would defend my brother if he ever needed to. So I guess thats really more important than getting pronouns right all the time for now. :D

[Firiel]

Thanks! That's what I've been attempting to do with my brother. It's a tough situation because he works for a private institution with Jesuit leanings and he doesn't want to let people at work know straight out what is going on. So in private (pretty much just immediate family that he has told) we use male pronouns and his new name. In public or on social media he asked we try to stick with gender neutral, or the name that he is using on that site. I keep getting all tangled up in the pronouns, which is probably going to happen for a while - I mean, Cher had a lot of trouble keeping her pronouns straight when her son was going through his transition, so I guess its probably somewhat normal.

The one thing I keep bringing up when my brother shares an update is how proud my Fiance and I are of him and how much we love him. Fiance is 100% cool with all the changes going on and has told him he's excited to be getting another brother-in-law. Same with my sister, her husband, and my mom - they couldn't be prouder of him. Dad, not too sure. He tends not to discuss his feelings much unless something really bothers him. I think he's doing ok with all of this stuff and I know he would defend my brother if he ever needed to. So I guess thats really more important than getting pronouns right all the time for now. :D

Aw, that's great. He's lucky to have you guys. And yeah, of course the acceptance and understanding you guys are giving him is WAY more important than never accidentally using the wrong pronoun. :)

[RachelB]

Same with the term cisgender. Some find it helpful ..personally I do not.

You may know this already, OKTBT, but the term "cis" comes from chemistry, where it is simply the opposite of "trans."

I mostly feel that my gender assignment at birth was accurate, which is what "cis" reflects. And I value the existence of the word "cis" partly because I want to distance myself from some of the people who react most negatively to it-- because in my experience, that negative reaction often correlates with believing that gender assignment at birth is always accurate, or that people can't be trusted to understand and describe their own experiences. I don't hold either of those beliefs, and I want to make that clear.

Many of the cis people I know who object to the word "cis" do so because they see being cis as "normal." That is kind of problematic. (In the way that the sun is kind of warm.)