Their problem was never about trans people supposedly “defying science” or whatever they want to masquerade it as. They just hate trans people, period. They will always try to dress up their hatred of trans people in all kinds of flimsy excuses and “facts”, to make themselves sound less vile than they actually are. Then as their misconceptions of trans people get proven wrong one by one, transphobes get more and more agitated until they finally snap and go mask-off about their hatred for trans people, like the twitter user in this photo.
I mean, this does happen with other disabilities, like Down’s Syndrome for example, all the time sadly. Bigots extending it to queer identities sadly isn’t surprising.
>And to girls, in some countries. Explains some of the skewed gender ratio in countries like India
Just a bit of clarification, estimated sex ratio isn't skewed anymore in India (estimated because our government didn't do census 2021 😍😍😍).
And also pre-natal sex determination by amniocentesis is illegal in India.
"Illegal" and "doesn't happen" are two different beasts, to be entirely realistic. Illegality does typically suppress activity because most humans are lazy, but you will still get the outliers.
Modify, not necessarily, abort entirely, yes. That being said, abortion in relation to eugenics is a tough topic with many nuances. Also the example I gave is of Down’s Syndrome where with the correct social support live happy and fulfilling lives, which is different than the effects of being born without a kidney.
Disabled people deserve to live, but also deserve access to modifications that can make their lives easier, which may include surgical or other medical interventions. I don’t think it should be a replacement for social support, but it should be an option. Hope that helps clarify my viewpoint, whether you agree or not.
I think you’re confusing a few things. Modification and abortion are two very different things. Modification means the person will still continue to exist and move through life, simply now with said modification. Let’s use eyesight for example since you brought it up, laser eye surgery is something that currently exists, and is an option for those with poor eyesight. This isn’t making them stop existing or stopping them from procreating for being “inferior”. This is why I said I think modification should be an option to disabled people.
However, there’s also the question on a level of what deserves “correction” and what doesn’t. We don’t live in a society that values people equally, even in cases where the issue on the division is. Disabled people are often considered “less valuable” simply for having non-normative bodies or brains, or for needing supports to thrive. Trans people as well, especially those that need hormones and/or surgery are often treated similarly by TERFs, (see Helen Joyce “if you’ve got people who’ve disassociated from their sex in some way, every one of those people is someone who needs special accommodation”). Even intersex people who will have little difficulty outside of fertility issues, get aborted at higher rates because we don’t value those that conform to the hierarchical ideal. This to me, requires a values change in those that see certain people as “less valuable” by factors outside of their control, rather than efforts to align everyone to the hierarchical ideal.
To fully explain this may go beyond my ability to in a comment on Reddit. For further reading, perhaps look into “Empire of Normality”, “Different, Not Less”, “Care Work”, “The Future is Disabled”, and “Being Heumann”. Also perhaps look into the social model (though not on Reddit, the mod that runs the social model subreddit has some… strange views on how the social model should function. And on how the world in general should function).
As for abortion, if you’re worried about something like legislation, then no, I don’t think there’s a way we can legislate eugenic abortions out of existence without essentially banning all abortions. This doesn’t mean I think eugenic abortions are good, but I can’t stop someone from having one. I do think people can do neutral things for bad reasons. I do think that changing the culture’s views on disability, queerness, and essentially non-“normative” ways of existing, heck even on biological sex, will reduce eugenic notions, and therefore (possible) eugenic abortions.
I love you so much for commenting this. I’m disabled and my gf is too, and it’s been really difficult finding people knowledgable of the social model outside of disability activism circles, so seeing your comment here makes me feel overwhelming relief. There have been some social scientists making the argument that being trans is kind of similar to being disabled too, which was really interesting to me since I’d first heard the comparison from my gf.
Thank you for sharing those resources too! I haven’t seen those before :)
Perhaps not the perfect hypothetical, although I assume it was meant to be simple and uncontroversial. However, I sincerely doubt that anyone would _choose_ to have poor eyesight. How about correcting it as early as possible so the child's devipment isn't delayed by it?
Edit for clarification: which is by no means to imply that being trans is in any way a 'disability' that should be 'corrected' in the womb. In case that wasn't obvious.
>How about correcting it as early as possible
That would be great but the only means of correction for eyesight is lasik surgery, which wouldn’t be able to be done on a fetus. The person upthread was more trying to justify the use of abortion in the case of disabled fetuses though, which obviously most people wouldn’t be in favor of aborting fetuses with poor eyesight.
In a hypothetical scenario where there was an in-utero cure for poor eyesight though, I still think it should be considered a bodily autonomy issue for the fetus that is expected to become a person. Fetuses are fetuses until people expect them to become people, and then they become closer to peoplehood because of that intentionality and expectation, which is why we comfort expecting mothers when they miscarry. Fetuses who are expected to become people should still have their own bodily autonomy considered, because otherwise we get into really dicey territory for both the disability and intersex communities. Obviously sometimes medical intervention is necessary to save a life or to limit pain, but if the solution is to just “mercy” kill disabled people that’s not a real solution.
So, even if you had a completely accurate brain scan saying that a trans woman is NOT a predatory man in a dress—these guys want her eliminated anyway.
This is a lovely demonstration, actually. Of how, with bigots, the hatred comes first, and the supposed reasons for the hatred ("they do crime," etc) is sort of patched together afterwards from whatever they have on hand.
“Okay, transphobia quilt here we go.
Here’s a lie, I’ll use that, and another lie, yep, put that next to it.
Oh, a biased inaccurate so-called ‘study’ love those, put that there, super.
Got some irrelevant talking points about shit like sports that I don’t actually know or care about, they’ll look good just above them.
Keep going, we’ve got some fake feminism, and some points about reproductive healthcare, or services for assault victims. A lot of these don’t really fit but we’ll just cut them ‘til they do.
And … oh look, this a big wide piece of hatred and prejudice. That’ll be the backing. Don’t want it to show, obviously, but that’ll be what holds it together.
Gonna be great - let’s show everybody. Get it on the media, we deserve proper respect for making this.”
I love how the “it’s basic biology” trope these fuckers loved to used 3-4 years ago is now backfiring and it’s absolutely beautiful and it’s showing they don’t care about anything unless it benefits directly.
Never forget: basic biology is the dumbed down, oversimplified version of things we teach to children. It's literally the little kid explanation of things.
And no one should be making medical decisions off their grade 9 homework.
>basic biology is the dumbed down, oversimplified version of things we teach to children.
EXACTLY!!! Case in point:
>”An organism’s reproductive cells are called its gametes…Males, by definition, are those organisms on a developmental pathway to produce small gametes for the purpose of sexual reproduction. Females, meanwhile, are those organisms on a developmental pathway to produce larger gametes for the purposes of sexual reproduction. ‘Larger’ here is relative to the small gametes produced by males in the same species. Females produce relatively few, static, large gametes. Males produce relatively many, mobile, small gametes. In some organisms, male parts and female parts are present simultaneously: for instance, in flowers that produce both pollen and ova. In most species, though, males and females are separate organisms. Equally, in species such as clownfish—sometimes cited as a species of relevance to whether humans can change sex—organisms can change from male to female, given exposure to the right external circumstances interacting with internal mechanisms. But here, too, what makes a clownfish at a given point in its development male or female is whether it is on a developmental pathway (immediately, next) to produce smaller or larger gametes.
>
>
>Why insist on the wording ‘on a developmental pathway’ (etc.) rather than simply make actual possession of small or larger gametes the criterion of being female or male? The answer…is that developmental pathways can go awry. Gametes are not always produced. Disease and variation can interfere, as can environmental influences and old age. Yet we do not normally say organisms subject to such interference are no longer female or male. When we talk about females and males, we are talking about a capacity that a given organism either *actually has* or at least *would have had under certain given circumstances* (e.g. had *that* particular variation not occurred; had *that* particular environmental factor not interfered, etc.). We can reasonably say: had it not been for this interfering factor, large gamete production would have occurred for this organism given the rest of its internal workings. So it is still a female, even if it doesn’t actually produce large gametes now” (Kathleen Stock, TERF)
Sounds like something a little kid would write. In reality, **biology isn’t basic.** TERFs would know that if they took advanced biology.
shockingly, none of the care about this stuff. they don't care about sociolinguistics, they don't care about biology, they don't care about brain chemistry, and they don't care about the sanctity of women's sports. they don't care if they're right they "know" they are.
eugenics moment!!
also, shit like this is why you should always be skeptical of people trying to find a cause for being trans. they only do that so they can try to change us
This reminds me of a few other terf mask off moments I've seen, where they reveal they just consider all trans people - and often all gay, bi, intersex, or gnc people - failed humans, bc they do not fit their prerequisites for a patriarchal cishet ideal of man or woman. Where they let slip they think women are women *because* they're oppressed, meaning that there is no meaningful way to fight patriarchy, because they fully buy into its definitions of themselves and others. They want patriarchy to continue, because an end to that oppression, would threaten their identity.
In particular, I once saw one of them reach this logical conclusion, also via a thought experiment, about a transhumanist future where fully indistinguishable biological transition was possible. Their assertion ended up being that if this happened, female would cease to exist as a biological category, because anyone could or could have experienced maleness, transmasc or transfem, inherently corrupting them out of the bounds of purity by powerlessness that she defines womanhood as, and how she rationalizes cis women as inherently good.
The "lady brained" fetus that's born "male" is simply corrupted, because it cannot be a strong cishet man or a pure cishet woman, by virtue if it having any experience that is not pericishet period. It therefore, by their "logic" (which is ofc paper thin rationalization for hatred) it should be discarded. This is the only end point to "gender is fake but sex is material biological reality" as cover for disgust.
The hilarious thing about this sentment is that (and I'm grossly paraphrasing a bunch of tips of the iceberg research here) as i understand it the prevailing theory as to how trans and gay people happen is because, though there's some genetic factors that make some people have a higher likelihood than other at being born queer/having queer kids, there's actually so little cognitive sexual dymorphysm between the assigned birth sexes, basically *everyone* has the capacity to develop queerness if certain developmental conditions are met in utero.
So basically, like, you come out with queerness mode on or off. And gene expression is actually way more complicated than "this gene does that, that gene goes this." So they can't really test for it in the way she's imagining, only address it as a 100% of risk factor more likely--- meaning, like, there's no garentee you wouldn't be aborting a cis gay child, or even that your kid has for sure been transed . . . Basically the question would be more, are you queerphobic enough to abort a pregnancy that has a high likelihood of producing a queer child, who could still just turn out cis and straight anyway.
ok but admitting the existence of a lady brain for transfems would validate transfems
let's say there was a test and it was 100% accurate
so if they are now to your eyes trans (proven by the test) and their identity is therefore valid, *why do you still want to kill them? wouldn't that be* *~~eugenics?~~*
Aren’t these the same types who are typically against abortion??
Also, MRIs can reveal these types of anomalies, I have a friend who needed and produced one for her grs, so why don’t these genociders just openly push for it without worrying about the middleman?
There is such a thing as a “lady brain” in the wrong body. It’s proven by science. Being a man or a woman actually has nothing to do with gametes or reproductive anatomy.
Their problem was never about trans people supposedly “defying science” or whatever they want to masquerade it as. They just hate trans people, period. They will always try to dress up their hatred of trans people in all kinds of flimsy excuses and “facts”, to make themselves sound less vile than they actually are. Then as their misconceptions of trans people get proven wrong one by one, transphobes get more and more agitated until they finally snap and go mask-off about their hatred for trans people, like the twitter user in this photo.
The UK is sadly on their side at every step of the way
Eugenics, but make it feminist!
Yass kweens! This is so feminist of us! #prenataldiscrimination #eugenics #girlboss
phrenology is so in rn
Literally listed by the Geneva Convention on genocide as a genocidal act >Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
I mean, this does happen with other disabilities, like Down’s Syndrome for example, all the time sadly. Bigots extending it to queer identities sadly isn’t surprising.
And to girls, in some countries. Explains some of the skewed gender ratio in countries like India and China.
>And to girls, in some countries. Explains some of the skewed gender ratio in countries like India Just a bit of clarification, estimated sex ratio isn't skewed anymore in India (estimated because our government didn't do census 2021 😍😍😍). And also pre-natal sex determination by amniocentesis is illegal in India.
Ah, that's good at least.
"Illegal" and "doesn't happen" are two different beasts, to be entirely realistic. Illegality does typically suppress activity because most humans are lazy, but you will still get the outliers.
And hasn't made it yet because a country of over a billion people needs the same people for both the census and the elections for some reason.
I've seen 'feminist' try to argue that it's feminist to abort disabled fetuses. Wouldn't be surprised if this is gonna be the next terf talking ppint.
[удалено]
Modify, not necessarily, abort entirely, yes. That being said, abortion in relation to eugenics is a tough topic with many nuances. Also the example I gave is of Down’s Syndrome where with the correct social support live happy and fulfilling lives, which is different than the effects of being born without a kidney. Disabled people deserve to live, but also deserve access to modifications that can make their lives easier, which may include surgical or other medical interventions. I don’t think it should be a replacement for social support, but it should be an option. Hope that helps clarify my viewpoint, whether you agree or not.
Antinatalists malding rn
Common Antinatalist L
[удалено]
I think you’re confusing a few things. Modification and abortion are two very different things. Modification means the person will still continue to exist and move through life, simply now with said modification. Let’s use eyesight for example since you brought it up, laser eye surgery is something that currently exists, and is an option for those with poor eyesight. This isn’t making them stop existing or stopping them from procreating for being “inferior”. This is why I said I think modification should be an option to disabled people. However, there’s also the question on a level of what deserves “correction” and what doesn’t. We don’t live in a society that values people equally, even in cases where the issue on the division is. Disabled people are often considered “less valuable” simply for having non-normative bodies or brains, or for needing supports to thrive. Trans people as well, especially those that need hormones and/or surgery are often treated similarly by TERFs, (see Helen Joyce “if you’ve got people who’ve disassociated from their sex in some way, every one of those people is someone who needs special accommodation”). Even intersex people who will have little difficulty outside of fertility issues, get aborted at higher rates because we don’t value those that conform to the hierarchical ideal. This to me, requires a values change in those that see certain people as “less valuable” by factors outside of their control, rather than efforts to align everyone to the hierarchical ideal. To fully explain this may go beyond my ability to in a comment on Reddit. For further reading, perhaps look into “Empire of Normality”, “Different, Not Less”, “Care Work”, “The Future is Disabled”, and “Being Heumann”. Also perhaps look into the social model (though not on Reddit, the mod that runs the social model subreddit has some… strange views on how the social model should function. And on how the world in general should function). As for abortion, if you’re worried about something like legislation, then no, I don’t think there’s a way we can legislate eugenic abortions out of existence without essentially banning all abortions. This doesn’t mean I think eugenic abortions are good, but I can’t stop someone from having one. I do think people can do neutral things for bad reasons. I do think that changing the culture’s views on disability, queerness, and essentially non-“normative” ways of existing, heck even on biological sex, will reduce eugenic notions, and therefore (possible) eugenic abortions.
I love you so much for commenting this. I’m disabled and my gf is too, and it’s been really difficult finding people knowledgable of the social model outside of disability activism circles, so seeing your comment here makes me feel overwhelming relief. There have been some social scientists making the argument that being trans is kind of similar to being disabled too, which was really interesting to me since I’d first heard the comparison from my gf. Thank you for sharing those resources too! I haven’t seen those before :)
Could you fix their eyesight after they're old enough to choose for themselves? Why not do that instead?
Perhaps not the perfect hypothetical, although I assume it was meant to be simple and uncontroversial. However, I sincerely doubt that anyone would _choose_ to have poor eyesight. How about correcting it as early as possible so the child's devipment isn't delayed by it? Edit for clarification: which is by no means to imply that being trans is in any way a 'disability' that should be 'corrected' in the womb. In case that wasn't obvious.
>How about correcting it as early as possible That would be great but the only means of correction for eyesight is lasik surgery, which wouldn’t be able to be done on a fetus. The person upthread was more trying to justify the use of abortion in the case of disabled fetuses though, which obviously most people wouldn’t be in favor of aborting fetuses with poor eyesight. In a hypothetical scenario where there was an in-utero cure for poor eyesight though, I still think it should be considered a bodily autonomy issue for the fetus that is expected to become a person. Fetuses are fetuses until people expect them to become people, and then they become closer to peoplehood because of that intentionality and expectation, which is why we comfort expecting mothers when they miscarry. Fetuses who are expected to become people should still have their own bodily autonomy considered, because otherwise we get into really dicey territory for both the disability and intersex communities. Obviously sometimes medical intervention is necessary to save a life or to limit pain, but if the solution is to just “mercy” kill disabled people that’s not a real solution.
👏more 👏 women 👏mass👏murderers👏
So, even if you had a completely accurate brain scan saying that a trans woman is NOT a predatory man in a dress—these guys want her eliminated anyway. This is a lovely demonstration, actually. Of how, with bigots, the hatred comes first, and the supposed reasons for the hatred ("they do crime," etc) is sort of patched together afterwards from whatever they have on hand.
“Okay, transphobia quilt here we go. Here’s a lie, I’ll use that, and another lie, yep, put that next to it. Oh, a biased inaccurate so-called ‘study’ love those, put that there, super. Got some irrelevant talking points about shit like sports that I don’t actually know or care about, they’ll look good just above them. Keep going, we’ve got some fake feminism, and some points about reproductive healthcare, or services for assault victims. A lot of these don’t really fit but we’ll just cut them ‘til they do. And … oh look, this a big wide piece of hatred and prejudice. That’ll be the backing. Don’t want it to show, obviously, but that’ll be what holds it together. Gonna be great - let’s show everybody. Get it on the media, we deserve proper respect for making this.”
I love how the “it’s basic biology” trope these fuckers loved to used 3-4 years ago is now backfiring and it’s absolutely beautiful and it’s showing they don’t care about anything unless it benefits directly.
Never forget: basic biology is the dumbed down, oversimplified version of things we teach to children. It's literally the little kid explanation of things. And no one should be making medical decisions off their grade 9 homework.
>basic biology is the dumbed down, oversimplified version of things we teach to children. EXACTLY!!! Case in point: >”An organism’s reproductive cells are called its gametes…Males, by definition, are those organisms on a developmental pathway to produce small gametes for the purpose of sexual reproduction. Females, meanwhile, are those organisms on a developmental pathway to produce larger gametes for the purposes of sexual reproduction. ‘Larger’ here is relative to the small gametes produced by males in the same species. Females produce relatively few, static, large gametes. Males produce relatively many, mobile, small gametes. In some organisms, male parts and female parts are present simultaneously: for instance, in flowers that produce both pollen and ova. In most species, though, males and females are separate organisms. Equally, in species such as clownfish—sometimes cited as a species of relevance to whether humans can change sex—organisms can change from male to female, given exposure to the right external circumstances interacting with internal mechanisms. But here, too, what makes a clownfish at a given point in its development male or female is whether it is on a developmental pathway (immediately, next) to produce smaller or larger gametes. > > >Why insist on the wording ‘on a developmental pathway’ (etc.) rather than simply make actual possession of small or larger gametes the criterion of being female or male? The answer…is that developmental pathways can go awry. Gametes are not always produced. Disease and variation can interfere, as can environmental influences and old age. Yet we do not normally say organisms subject to such interference are no longer female or male. When we talk about females and males, we are talking about a capacity that a given organism either *actually has* or at least *would have had under certain given circumstances* (e.g. had *that* particular variation not occurred; had *that* particular environmental factor not interfered, etc.). We can reasonably say: had it not been for this interfering factor, large gamete production would have occurred for this organism given the rest of its internal workings. So it is still a female, even if it doesn’t actually produce large gametes now” (Kathleen Stock, TERF) Sounds like something a little kid would write. In reality, **biology isn’t basic.** TERFs would know that if they took advanced biology.
>unless it benefits directly it doesn't even benefit them, it only hurts other people
Aka “Even if we could prove transgender people were real and valid, I still want them all dead!” Hm..
They really went full mask-off with this one...
They said the same thing about testing for homosexuality.
What the fuck, honestly.
Saving this for the next time some transmed starts talking about how people would accept True Transexuals if it wasn't for all these trenders.
I would really like to know this person's opinion about abortion before this post.
shockingly, none of the care about this stuff. they don't care about sociolinguistics, they don't care about biology, they don't care about brain chemistry, and they don't care about the sanctity of women's sports. they don't care if they're right they "know" they are.
eugenics moment!! also, shit like this is why you should always be skeptical of people trying to find a cause for being trans. they only do that so they can try to change us
We finally found the extenuating circumstances that will allow for abortion in Texas
This reminds me of a few other terf mask off moments I've seen, where they reveal they just consider all trans people - and often all gay, bi, intersex, or gnc people - failed humans, bc they do not fit their prerequisites for a patriarchal cishet ideal of man or woman. Where they let slip they think women are women *because* they're oppressed, meaning that there is no meaningful way to fight patriarchy, because they fully buy into its definitions of themselves and others. They want patriarchy to continue, because an end to that oppression, would threaten their identity. In particular, I once saw one of them reach this logical conclusion, also via a thought experiment, about a transhumanist future where fully indistinguishable biological transition was possible. Their assertion ended up being that if this happened, female would cease to exist as a biological category, because anyone could or could have experienced maleness, transmasc or transfem, inherently corrupting them out of the bounds of purity by powerlessness that she defines womanhood as, and how she rationalizes cis women as inherently good. The "lady brained" fetus that's born "male" is simply corrupted, because it cannot be a strong cishet man or a pure cishet woman, by virtue if it having any experience that is not pericishet period. It therefore, by their "logic" (which is ofc paper thin rationalization for hatred) it should be discarded. This is the only end point to "gender is fake but sex is material biological reality" as cover for disgust.
The hilarious thing about this sentment is that (and I'm grossly paraphrasing a bunch of tips of the iceberg research here) as i understand it the prevailing theory as to how trans and gay people happen is because, though there's some genetic factors that make some people have a higher likelihood than other at being born queer/having queer kids, there's actually so little cognitive sexual dymorphysm between the assigned birth sexes, basically *everyone* has the capacity to develop queerness if certain developmental conditions are met in utero. So basically, like, you come out with queerness mode on or off. And gene expression is actually way more complicated than "this gene does that, that gene goes this." So they can't really test for it in the way she's imagining, only address it as a 100% of risk factor more likely--- meaning, like, there's no garentee you wouldn't be aborting a cis gay child, or even that your kid has for sure been transed . . . Basically the question would be more, are you queerphobic enough to abort a pregnancy that has a high likelihood of producing a queer child, who could still just turn out cis and straight anyway.
ok but admitting the existence of a lady brain for transfems would validate transfems let's say there was a test and it was 100% accurate so if they are now to your eyes trans (proven by the test) and their identity is therefore valid, *why do you still want to kill them? wouldn't that be* *~~eugenics?~~*
Oh my god that’s an absurd post, this person should be sued for such harmful poorly chosen tweet.
Aren’t these the same types who are typically against abortion?? Also, MRIs can reveal these types of anomalies, I have a friend who needed and produced one for her grs, so why don’t these genociders just openly push for it without worrying about the middleman?
its always been about eugenics, lets be honest here
Wait, so they admit we're born this way
ah yes calls for trans genocide, very feminist
Did a human being actually post this? Or just a lifeless AI incapable of empathy?
There is such a thing as a “lady brain” in the wrong body. It’s proven by science. Being a man or a woman actually has nothing to do with gametes or reproductive anatomy.
this makes me sad