Is it Trans phobic to say only women get abortions?

[DGayle]

Rachel, something that happens a lot is that cisgender is tossed out like an accusation. It's a correct term, like homosexual is a correct term, but it's used as an insult a lot. When you hear Steve Anderson talking about the homosexual community, you can practically hear him airquoting it and saying it with malice and sarcasm. That's how cisgender is used a lot, and that makes a lot of people bristle a bit.

[VelociRapture]

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. :)

Thanks! It's nice to hear that we're doing some stuff right. Lol!

To be honest though, I feel like I'm lucky to have him as my brother. We drove each other crazy as kids, but he's got such a huge heart and will go out of his way to help someone else. He's the type of person who is so laid back about things that you can't help but like him.

Plus, we both watch, "Pretty Little Liars," and we text snarky stuff back and forth during episodes. :lol:

[OkToBeTakei]

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.)

I did not know the chemistry Rachel until I looked. I was more aware of the latin.

My dislike of the term is more it's misuse rather than it's use. It was first used in the 90's by a sexologist/scientist. It has since been adopted.

I understand that to use the term 'normal' is deeply offensive to some because our own individual reality is our personal normal. It's hard to reinvent the wheel and pitch it to the general public though (generalisation I know) if you get my drift? I appear as usual to be having difficulty marrying my explanation/culture with intent today :lol:

I'll try. I am explaining to a person who has never come across a trans person before that they feel they are a man trapped in a woman's body. That is a fairly succinct straight to the point explanation. They then make a wtf face or say something which some may find offensive. Do I then say that is because you are displaying your cisgendered discrimination and not in touch with your cisgender privilege..... whilst wagging my finger or do I use simple clear explanation, introducing terms if appropriate? Because that is real life with real people, not an internet debate.

Education and tolerance is not always politically correct.

RachelB was it you who a few years ago took the time to explain what 'white privilege' was in terms which made sense to me baring in mind our cultural differences. I was thinking about this earlier. No way am I stalking my own posts to find out :lol:

[OkToBeTakei]

Rachel, something that happens a lot is that cisgender is tossed out like an accusation. It's a correct term, like homosexual is a correct term, but it's used as an insult a lot. When you hear Steve Anderson talking about the homosexual community, you can practically hear him airquoting it and saying it with malice and sarcasm. That's how cisgender is used a lot, and that makes a lot of people bristle a bit.

Yes this. It's like White male cisgender. Top of the tree with the most privilege. From there on down it's just degrees of how fucked you are in relation to somebody else. There is no room in these labels for individuality.

I know quite a few men who identify as men are white, heterosexual and are actually decent humans. Not acceptable though eh?

ETA. As example.

[homeslice]

I am middle aged, religious, conservative and country as hell. Even I can get get it right. Let people define themselves and their experiences. If someone tells they are a man or a woman, I just take their word for it. Just like everyone does for me. They get to define that.

If someone tells me what they are experiencing I just take their word for it. It's not my job to jump in and explain how stuff really is. If they want my opinion they will ask me. If they have a question I'm here. But otherwise it's not my job to tell people what it's "really" like to be them.

Lastly, I will screw up. I know not to screw up someone's pronouns. Good. But that doesn't make me entitled to assume everything else I say is fine. If I say something that hurts rather than arguing for my right to say that stupid thing again I should be curious enough about other people's experiences to find out what I did that caused pain.

And then- I don't do it again. It isn't complicated or new. It isn't some horrible speech code trans-persons are forcing on us. It's just good manners.

[RachelB]

I did not know the chemistry Rachel until I looked. I was more aware of the latin.

My dislike of the term is more it's misuse rather than it's use. It was first used in the 90's by a sexologist/scientist. It has since been adopted.

I understand that to use the term 'normal' is deeply offensive to some because our own individual reality is our personal normal. It's hard to reinvent the wheel and pitch it to the general public though (generalisation I know) if you get my drift? I appear as usual to be having difficulty marrying my explanation/culture with intent today :lol:

I'll try. I am explaining to a person who has never come across a trans person before that they feel they are a man trapped in a woman's body. That is a fairly succinct straight to the point explanation. They then make a wtf face or say something which some may find offensive. Do I then say that is because you are displaying your cisgendered discrimination and not in touch with your cisgender privilege..... whilst wagging my finger or do I use simple clear explanation, introducing terms if appropriate? Because that is real life with real people, not an internet debate.

Education and tolerance is not always politically correct.

RachelB was it you who a few years ago took the time to explain what 'white privilege' was in terms which made sense to me baring in mind our cultural differences. I was thinking about this earlier. No way am I stalking my own posts to find out :lol:

Ah. And my method would probably be to pull up a Trans 101 link on the spot.

That's partly because other people have offered much better explanations than I'll be able to. Had I known the word "genderqueer" near the end of college, I suspect it would have resonated pretty strongly with me; all the stories I then knew about trans people were about people who felt a strong sense of gender identity, albeit one that didn't match their birth assignment.

The other reason I'd pull up the 101 link is that the best antidote I know for WTF Face, and the complex mix of feelings it seems to accompany, is an account of someone's subjective experience. To the extent that it is curiosity and not, I don't know, revulsion?, that is motivating that response, I like the option of finding someone who has already addressed some of the curiosity questions (as opposed to just plain nosy ones about anatomy or sex). Here, I mean questions like, "How did you realize that your experience of gender differed from that of people around you? What is it like to be you? What is hard about it? What is good about it? What do you wish people would ask you? What do you wish people *wouldn't* ask you?"

Answering questions like those takes a lot of bandwidth for people who are talking about a facet of their lives that is sometimes judged pretty harshly by those who wish them ill. The existence of trans 101 sites means there are ways to find answers to those questions without asking someone offline who may not have the bandwidth at the moment, and those sites also offer a level of nuance that I think my good intentions can't match.

[Walking Cat Bed]

I am middle aged, religious, conservative and country as hell. Even I can get get it right. Let people define themselves and their experiences. If someone tells they are a man or a woman, I just take their word for it. Just like everyone does for me. They get to define that.

If someone tells me what they are experiencing I just take their word for it. It's not my job to jump in and explain how stuff really is. If they want my opinion they will ask me. If they have a question I'm here. But otherwise it's not my job to tell people what it's "really" like to be them.

Lastly, I will screw up. I know not to screw up someone's pronouns. Good. But that doesn't make me entitled to assume everything else I say is fine. If I say something that hurts rather than arguing for my right to say that stupid thing again I should be curious enough about other people's experiences to find out what I did that caused pain.

And then- I don't do it again. It isn't complicated or new. It isn't some horrible speech code trans-persons are forcing on us. It's just good manners.

This is an excellent point. I've used this example before: if I'm at a job interview and introduce myself as Ms. Jane Smith (not my name, obviously) and the interviewer calls me Mrs. Smith or Jenny, they're being disrespectful and I'd reconsider any job offers they made. If a telemarketer called for Mr. John Smith, they'd be disrespectful AND misgendering. If I were at the doctor's office and the medical professional I was talking to insinuated or outright told me that using contraception means I'm promiscuous, that would be so very exceptionally rude -- and if they assumed, based on my clothing and hairstyle, that I was more masculine and called me "sir" and telling me I needed to schedule a prostate exam, I would be beyond furious. Because they are allowing their perceptions to determine my identity rather than interpreting my identity on my terms.

[Mama Mia]

This is basically my reason for preferring the "anyone with ovaries" framing, where access to abortion is concerned-- anyone who once had them but has had them removed (i.e., some number of cis women) isn't going to need abortion services. Anyone who does have them might.

From everything I have heard, dealing with acute body dysphoria is miserable. I don't want someone who's already having a rough time because of a pregnancy they don't want to go through that, on top of everything else, just to receive necessary medical care. It is a pretty shitty bargain to have to choose between seeking timely health care and avoiding known triggers for self-harm.

Oh for Gods sake, this is just a ridiculous amount of convoluted rationalization to avoid ever offending anyone, ever. If a trans- man who hasn't had surgery is pregnant he is still, biologically, a woman. Dealing with the pregnancy is going to be upsetting, I would assume. But expecting the entire world to change the definition of who gets pregnant to avoid a

" trigger" word? ? Just no. And seriously, when the hell did any mention of anything that might upset someone ever have to come with a new word or a " trigger" warning?

[Mama Mia]

I don't think it's inaccurate to say abortion is a women's health issue. The vast majority of people getting abortions are women. However, to say that ONLY women get abortions is inaccurate.

@Oflgen makes a good point about medical records. It's easy for me to just check the "female" box. What about a transman who still has a cervix? If his healthcare provider doesn't know he has transitioned, then it's unlikely he will get a pap smear. And a woman with a prostate may not get screened for prostate cancer.

Gender identity is still a new thing for most people. I have trans* friends. I'm gay. I get it. But most people aren't involved in the queer community. Even for me, it's a struggle to watch my language sometimes, especially when talking about sex. I'm getting better, though! As a whole, I think people are more aware and more accepting.

So try to get Dr.s to add a " trans" identification on forms. Most government forms have that now. I don't see why Doctors offices wouldnt. And then the doctor would know what to ask about. Or put it in the comments, or fill it in next to the M F box if they haven't switched forms yet.

But also, how about a little personal responsibility? If you are a trans man or trans woman who has not had surgery - aren't you responsible for letting your physician know what biological sex you were born so they know what to do for you health wise?

[OkToBeTakei]

Ah. And my method would probably be to pull up a Trans 101 link on the spot.

That's partly because other people have offered much better explanations than I'll be able to. Had I known the word "genderqueer" near the end of college, I suspect it would have resonated pretty strongly with me; all the stories I then knew about trans people were about people who felt a strong sense of gender identity, albeit one that didn't match their birth assignment.

The other reason I'd pull up the 101 link is that the best antidote I know for WTF Face, and the complex mix of feelings it seems to accompany, is an account of someone's subjective experience. To the extent that it is curiosity and not, I don't know, revulsion?, that is motivating that response, I like the option of finding someone who has already addressed some of the curiosity questions (as opposed to just plain nosy ones about anatomy or sex). Here, I mean questions like, "How did you realize that your experience of gender differed from that of people around you? What is it like to be you? What is hard about it? What is good about it? What do you wish people would ask you? What do you wish people *wouldn't* ask you?"

Answering questions like those takes a lot of bandwidth for people who are talking about a facet of their lives that is sometimes judged pretty harshly by those who wish them ill. The existence of trans 101 sites means there are ways to find answers to those questions without asking someone offline who may not have the bandwidth at the moment, and those sites also offer a level of nuance that I think my good intentions can't match.

Unfortunately trans 101 is just not going to cut it in my demographic. I think this is what people need to understand.

Not every person's default is born from discrimination. It's not even born from ignorance. It's just born from a new experience. How you make that person react is what makes the difference. Trust me, throwing websites and words like cisgender is just going to make you another ignorant bigot who was made that way by your pretentious reaction. (not you personally.)

Bandwidth is a good term. Mine goes from 80 year old to 12 year old. It goes from professionally and aware of current issues to paying the bills and trying to be a decent member of society. Everything in between. I know people who's online activity is facebook and boohoo.

Trans 101? No.

So yes tolerance. It comes in all shapes.

[Mama Mia]

This is an excellent point. I've used this example before: if I'm at a job interview and introduce myself as Ms. Jane Smith (not my name, obviously) and the interviewer calls me Mrs. Smith or Jenny, they're being disrespectful and I'd reconsider any job offers they made. If a telemarketer called for Mr. John Smith, they'd be disrespectful AND misgendering. If I were at the doctor's office and the medical professional I was talking to insinuated or outright told me that using contraception means I'm promiscuous, that would be so very exceptionally rude -- and if they assumed, based on my clothing and hairstyle, that I was more masculine and called me "sir" and telling me I needed to schedule a prostate exam, I would be beyond furious. Because they are allowing their perceptions to determine my identity rather than interpreting my identity on my terms.

Um, except for the birth control/ promiscuous example -- how are any of those things some horrible offense?

If I'm an employer interviewing you - if I called you Mrs instead of Ms -- I can guarantee you that it's because I misheard you. If I call you by the wrong first name - same thing. If I called you by your first name instead of Ms. It would be because that was the office culture and everyone went by their first names.

Frankly if you would reconsider a job offer over something so trivial I don't think I'd want you as an employee as you'd be made of spun sugar and everyone would have to tip toe around you.

A telemarketer? Really? Some poor person, likely in India, who got the name wrong on their list of 10,0000 computer generated calls is " mis gendering" you? No. They are reading off a fucking list.

And if you dress in masculine clothes and have a masculine hairstyle - why would you be " beyond furious" if someone assumed you were a man? How the hell can people win? Presumably if you were in the same clothes and trans you'd be upset the Doctor DIDN'T assume you were a man.

Most people in the world are not going to be waiting for you to explain your identity to them. They don't care. They are going to interact with you to the best of their abilities. Sometimes they will screw up. I don't see why that would be seen as some huge affront.

[RachelB]

Oh for Gods sake, this is just a ridiculous amount of convoluted rationalization to avoid ever offending anyone, ever. I really don't think it is. I think it is baseline respectful. Is it so important to you to get to define someone else's experience for them? And if so, do you have any insight into why that might be? If a trans- man who hasn't had surgery is pregnant he is still, biologically, a woman. For one thing, the framework you're using here is exclusively binary. Some people are agender, bigender, or otherwise nonbinary. A surgical model for determining what someone "really" is has no place for people with nonbinary gender. Why is a model that actively excludes people preferable to you to one-- i.e., self-definition-- that does not? Dealing with the pregnancy is going to be upsetting, I would assume. But expecting the entire world to change the definition of who gets pregnant to avoid a

" trigger" word? ? I am glad you have never had to deal with body dysphoria at the doctor's office. That is one of the results when someone who is tasked with your medical care is acting with the level of disrespect you are evidencing here. Dysphoria is a thing. You can look it up. Just no. And seriously, when the hell did any mention of anything that might upset someone ever have to come with a new word or a " trigger" warning? PTSD is also a thing. Being triggered is not a sign of being a too-delicate special snowflake. It is a consequence of being visibly different in a world that is not kind to visibly different people and sometimes treats them violently. Misgendering someone repeatedly, and being a jerk about it instead of apologizing, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to do that person bodily harm. But guess what? Folks who are going to do trans people bodily harm for being trans also repeatedly misgender trans people, and are jerks about it instead of apologizing. A panic attack is a quite logical reaction to someone behaving that way.

You are legally allowed to believe and say whatever you want, not that you need my permission.

But honestly? It sounds to me like you are more interested in your right to be an asshole than you are in other people's rights to self-define. And I don't get it.

[Mama Mia]

You are legally allowed to believe

and say whatever you want, not that you need my permission.

But honestly? It sounds to me like you are more interested in your right to be an asshole than you are in other people's rights to self-define. And I don't get it.

I don't think it is being an asshole to realize that some things actually just factually are a function of biology. Pregnancy is one of them. Biologically Female persons get pregnant - biologically male persons do not. I do not understand the point of trying to change actual fact in order to protect the potential triggers of a handful of people.

I can name a few things that are genuine triggers to me. I do not expect the world to never use the word "rape" or " domestic violence" or reword them to be less offensive. I'm also triggered by a negative surgical event that pretty much ruined my life --it turns out lots and lots of people have been victimized by similar issues - should we screen for triggers whenever we talk about Doctors or hospitals or medication or surgery?

I actually am physically, visibly, different" from the norm, due to a disability. I think there is a world of difference between wanting people to try to be respectful and inclusive of people with disabilities and expecting the entire world to use some disclaimer about how they aren't disabled, but it's okay if I am. In fact I think it would be kind of insulting if they did.

which is how the whole " cis" thing sounds to me.

To me, this whole rewording / disclaimer thing would be like if there was an advertisement for a new car, but instead of just marketing the car they had to add in a whole mess about " of course, not everyone can drive a car. If you can't drive a car let us tell you about your option for adapting for drivability, if you still can't drive a car we're sorry we offended you by mentioning some people can drive cars and apologize for any assumption that driving cars is the normal default experience" .

[FloraDoraDolly]

I did not know the chemistry Rachel until I looked. I was more aware of the latin.

Cis isn't a prefix that is commonly used like pre, post, un, re, retro, dis, non, or anti. For all intents and purposes, nobody knows what it means. There is transportation, transaction, and translation but whoever heard of cisportation, cisaction, or cislation?

My dislike of the term is more it's misuse rather than it's use. It was first used in the 90's by a sexologist/scientist. It has since been adopted.

I don't like the term cisgender either. I don't want people calling me that. I understand what you mean in terms of the word's origins, but most of the time it is used in a context similar to when African-Americans refer to white people as crackers or honkys.

I understand that to use the term 'normal' is deeply offensive to some because our own individual reality is our personal normal. It's hard to reinvent the wheel and pitch it to the general public though (generalisation I know) if you get my drift? I appear as usual to be having difficulty marrying my explanation/culture with intent today :lol:

I'll try. I am explaining to a person who has never come across a trans person before that they feel they are a man trapped in a woman's body. That is a fairly succinct straight to the point explanation. They then make a wtf face or say something which some may find offensive. Do I then say that is because you are displaying your cisgendered discrimination and not in touch with your cisgender privilege..... whilst wagging my finger or do I use simple clear explanation, introducing terms if appropriate? Because that is real life with real people, not an internet debate.

In the autism/neurodiversity community, the term "neurotypical" is used to describe individuals who are not on the autism spectrum and who do not have a related disorder. It is an easy term for people to understand and it works better than using the word "normal." In a similar vein, the term "gendertypical" might work to describe that vast majority of people whose gender identity matches the anatomy they were born with. It is a lot easier to understand than "cis" or "cisgendered" and it is less offensive than "normal." Also, it works alongside "genderqueer."

As for the abortion question, it is highly unlikely that we will see a situation where gendertypical women are legally permitted to have abortions but transmen are not. If abortion is banned, it will be banned for everyone.

[RachelB]

I actually am physically, visibly, different" from the norm, due to a disability. I think there is a world of difference between wanting people to try to be respectful and inclusive of people with disabilities and expecting the entire world to use some disclaimer about how they aren't disabled, but it's okay if I am. In fact I think it would be kind of insulting if they did.

which is how the whole " cis" thing sounds to me.

This puzzles me.

I care about this not only because there are trans people in my life whom I care about, but because I think there's positive value in a diverse society with as few barriers to participation as possible.

The analogy I'd make is-- The Americans with Disabilities Act removed some barriers to participation in public life for people with disabilities, i.e., recognizing that part of what is disabling about having a disability is that buildings were built assuming that everyone could walk. Recognizing and fixing that problem is a good thing. Because sometimes the best person for the job uses a wheelchair, and if she can't get into the building for an interview, nobody wins.

Also, public opinion changes, as people's experiences change: people who 50 years ago would not have seen putting in an elevator or ramp as a good use of money now see good reasons to do so-- because of legislation, because of increasing contact with people who have disabilities, and because as they age, they experience personal benefit from accommodations designed to help people with mobility problems.

The ADA didn't solve everything, but we'd have a less equitable society without it. People complained bitterly about how expensive it would be, and how much of a pain in the ass it would be. This is a typical response to civil rights movements. The U.S. has become, slowly and painfully, a more equitable place. This is good. This has helped you, and me, and a lot of people.

So why treat someone else's struggle as ridiculous? What does it really cost you to use someone's preferred pronouns? Or to be curious, rather than dismissive, about why someone is asking you for an accommodation?

[RachelB]

If abortion is banned, it will be banned for everyone.

I agree with you on this part, FloraDoraDolly. I also think there are ways to agitate for reproductive rights that are inclusive, and it is important to me that the agitation that I do be inclusive.

"Keep abortion safe and legal."

"Stop criminalizing my access to health care."

"My body, my choice."

"Disapprove of abortion? Don't have one!"

"I am a human, not an incubator."

[sockinshoe]

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.

Nelliebelle, I completely understand that all men need to acknowledge the patriarchy. However, I would suggest that you consider the unique place of transmen among men. Transmen (and all trans individuals) have had to deal with the terrifying and often difficult process of coming out and transitioning. That transition is something that is often made incredibly complicated by the very same heteropatriarchy that oppresses women. Transmen have to be told they're just "tomboys" and "girls playing at being boys" and they get belittled and denied their dignity in countless ways. I think the average transman understands perfectly well how much patriarchal systems are damaging. You probably haven't intended this, but it sounds as though you seem to believe that transmen have somehow betrayed their biological sex to join the oppressors. That is not the case.

Additionally, many trans individuals undergo certain treatments (be they hormonal or surgical) to help them transition. These treatments often affect the individual's reproductive system. Transmen need to have access to gynaecological care, not just for cancer prevention/potential childbirth but as an important part of their transition. Abortion is primarily a women's issue, but it is also an issue that can affect transmen. Including them in the language of abortion does not water down the issue. In fact, I would argue that it strengthens it against the patriarchy. Saying "only women have abortions and men who do are just oppressing the women who do" is playing right into the heteropatriarchy's hand. Marginalized groups are stronger together than separated. Abortion affects transmen too.

Finally, you make several assumptions about Ofglen. I do not know Ofglen or their gender, nor will I pretend to. However, you assume they are a man. You immediately begin attacking them for "telling you what to say/think". I think that's overblowing it, frankly. Ofglen is not "telling you what to think" or "calling you -phobic because you disagreed with them". They are reminding all of freejinger that trans people exist and have a right to their preferred pronouns. Also, they are advocating on behalf of intersex people and people with hormonal conditions, who are frequently overlooked by the medical community. Also, they raise fair and important points about how the medical community handles trans patients. I'd also like to point out/remind that it is NEVER okay to make comments/conjecture about a trans person's transition. It is not alright to ask about surgery, unless you happen to be that trans person's doctor.

On a personal note, I'd like to say that I'm dismayed that freejinger, which is normally so progressive on gay issues and issues of race, is having such difficulty grasping that trans people's identities are valid and that they do not deserve to be marginalized in any way.

[Mama Mia]

This puzzles me.

I care about this not only because there are trans people in my life whom I care about, but because I think there's positive value in a diverse society with as few barriers to participation as possible.

The analogy I'd make is-- The Americans with Disabilities Act removed some barriers to participation in public life for people with disabilities, i.e., recognizing that part of what is disabling about having a disability is that buildings were built assuming that everyone could walk. Recognizing and fixing that problem is a good thing. Because sometimes the best person for the job uses a wheelchair, and if she can't get into the building for an interview, nobody wins.

Also, public opinion changes, as people's experiences change: people who 50 years ago would not have seen putting in an elevator or ramp as a good use of money now see good reasons to do so-- because of legislation, because of increasing contact with people who have disabilities, and because as they age, they experience personal benefit from accommodations designed to help people with mobility problems.

The ADA didn't solve everything, but we'd have a less equitable society without it. People complained bitterly about how expensive it would be, and how much of a pain in the ass it would be. This is a typical response to civil rights movements. The U.S. has become, slowly and painfully, a more equitable place. This is good. This has helped you, and me, and a lot of people.

So why treat someone else's struggle as ridiculous? What does it really cost you to use someone's preferred pronouns? Or to be curious, rather than dismissive, about why someone is asking you for an accommodation?

I don't think trans people's struggle is ridiculous. I don't think using a pronoun requested by an individual is ridiculous. I think the use of " they"

" their" in general makes more and more sense. Not because of trans issues but because the way we all communicate now tends to be more annonymous and to a larger audience.

I don't see having to obscure the biological reality of who can get pregnant as an accommodation. An accommodation, in that circumstance, would be an abortion clinic being informed by the trans man what their situation was and requesting things like increased privacy. Or an accommodation for a trans man for general gynecological care might be receiving their Pap smear from a general practitioner , even if they would usually refer to a gynecologist. Just like if a person with disabilities needs a specific accommodation to do their job, they tell the employer what it is.

They can't just assume an employer will be a mind reader and know exactly what that person needs - or that they even need an accommodation. It's the responsibility of the person with the disability to make their needs known. Why should it be any different with a trans woman speaking up to her doctor and saying she has a prostrate? Or a pregnant trans man calling the pregnancy center and explaining the situation.

I'm trying to think of an equivilant to wheelchair ramps or elevators and I just can't think of one that applies to general public settings. Maybe the closest equivilant would be making appropriate accommodations in institutional settings? This, to me, sounds more like if wheelchair users insisted no one use the stairs because they had to use a ramp.

[Ofglen]

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.

I am not a man? I never said that I am a man? I identify 0% with maleness, and I never said I did? Jfc where did this come from? :roll:

[2xx1xy1JD]

First, I appreciate that language changes over time to become more inclusive but I can think of plenty of people who use "woman" to refer to biology in a context like this who simply didn't get the "people with uteruses" memo. Not everyone has the same level of education or background, not everyone speaks English as a first language, not everyone has been exposed to updated terminology, and it's a bit elitist to think that terminology alone reflects actual attitude esp on an individual level.

Second, on the level of gender as opposed to biological sex, how many trans men have had abortions? I suppose it is possible esp in cases of rape but the likelihood of someone who actively identifies as a trans man being currently involved in a sexual relationship with a man in a patriarchal context will be low. It isn't just an issue of biology, it is also an issue of seeking to assert control over women and punish "sluts".

[Ofglen]

First, I appreciate that language changes over time to become more inclusive but I can think of plenty of people who use "woman" to refer to biology in a context like this who simply didn't get the "people with uteruses" memo. Not everyone has the same level of education or background, not everyone speaks English as a first language, not everyone has been exposed to updated terminology, and it's a bit elitist to think that terminology alone reflects actual attitude esp on an individual level.

Second, on the level of gender as opposed to biological sex, how many trans men have had abortions? I suppose it is possible esp in cases of rape but the likelihood of someone who actively identifies as a trans man being currently involved in a sexual relationship with a man in a patriarchal context will be low. It isn't just an issue of biology, it is also an issue of seeking to assert control over women and punish "sluts".

You're absolutely right about the first part. Many people don't know about trans issues, and there's a learning curve because of how ingrained both the sex and gender binaries are in western society. There is no problem at all with people who have not had access to the information and who, when exposed to the information, show understanding and respect and change what they were doing that may have been unintentionally harmful. I will always encourage accessibility and learning. My problem only lies with people who have been told that they're doing something wrong, how it is harmful, and who it harms, and who then continue to do thing out of convenience or hate towards the group it disadvantages.

Second, trans men and non binary people have abortions all the time. Just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it's not happening. Trans people (especially trans women as a result of transmisogyny, but other trans people as well because of transphobia) are at an increased risk of rape and other sexual violence, and desperately need these services.

Since trans men and male privilege came up- Just because one is transgender does not negate the fact that one is male (yes, trans men *are* male). Trans men absolutely have a problem with being misogynists, as do cis men. However (and please do not take my position as the last word on this- there's lots of debate within the trans community), the effect of having any marginalization certainly changes things, and I think that often trans men are more aware of their privilege as a man, and aware of how this privilege intersects with the disadvantages (and dangers) of being trans. It is also important to note that male "passing" privilege impacts but does not by any means account for all of male privilege. Trans men that do not "pass" still have male privilege even without "passing" privilege. In my opinion, the topic of misogyny within the trans community is best left for trans feminists to discuss (and believe me, we are discussing it).

Since there has been some question about my identity- I am trans, I am a feminine person, my pronouns are they/them/theirs. My body type is irrelevant. I won't bother getting into the specifics of my non-binary identity, but I am certainly not a man like some people assumed.

[Rachel333]

There are a lot of gay trans men out there having sex with other men and thus have the potential to get pregnant, though it is really unlikely if they're on testosterone. There's also the chance of rape. I'm sure they make up an extremely tiny minority of people getting abortions, but I imagine it does happen.

[Terrie]

I think the issue of the trans community and abortion is further complicated by the fact that, politically, abortion is very much a women's issue. The most strident anti-choice crowd is virulently misogynistic and trans-phobic - not surprised, since these views share some common roots in the idea that there is a "right" way to be a man or a woman. so, to them, if you can get pregnant, you are a woman. they are quick to proclaim transmen as mentally ill, surgically mutilated woman.

So while medical providers like Planned Parenthood probably consider the issue of transmen and abortion, it doesn't really enter the political debate, and pseudo-medical providers, like crisis pregnancy centers, certainly follow under the political camp. Can you imagine what would happen if a transman came in for services at one of those places?

[Rachel333]

I just had to share this series of tweets from Patton Oswalt: http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/las ... here-it-is It's really funny and reminded me of some of the conversations in this thread.

[bal maiden]

Just going to throw this in there...

I hate the word 'tolerance' in these discussions. It suggests that there is something to be tolerated, to be put up with, when it comes to gay people or trans people or whoever. How about including people within mainstream society, rather than just 'tolerating' them?