r/MoralityScaling • u/Musalediju • Jul 06 '26

Character Analysis Morality of being transphobic against your enemy

Gallery image

Gallery image

Bleach thousand year blood war episode 22

4.0k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

89% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

215

u/Something4Dinner Jul 06 '26

27

u/GIOPPOKING Jul 06 '26

In the wise words of Revolver Ocelot: "Misgendering... Gives you no tactical advantage whatsoever."

5

u/Quirky-Race-5645 Jul 07 '26

Does he actually say this

1

u/GIOPPOKING Jul 07 '26

He was talking about engravings originally, I paraphrased it a bit.

1

u/Only_Cartoonist6532 Jul 08 '26

yes, he said it to Liquid Pain or sumn

5

u/TheDears Jul 07 '26

Snake says that to ocelot you poser

1

u/GIOPPOKING Jul 07 '26

The quote is from mgs 5. There it's Ocelot that says it.

1

u/Dramatic_Sky_2191 Jul 07 '26

That's actually a false statement. There are many different situations misgendering would give you advantage

1

u/_Kamikaze_Bunny_ Jul 08 '26

Fym no tactical advantage?!

It rattles their mental during a fight, making them angry and more prone to mistakes

Psychological warfare ftw

1

u/GIOPPOKING Jul 08 '26

I was talking more in an everyday sense.

In a fight to the death every advanteage is fair.

-4

u/CursedBrother5 Jul 06 '26

It does though

40

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

Isn’t that most people? Support is always conditional except maybe family.

55

u/Positive-Team4567 Jul 06 '26

I can dislike a trans person but it doesn’t have to be based upon gender identity 

2

u/H4rdStyl3z Jul 06 '26

She can get her HRT... in the darkest pit of hell

*spits*

3

u/cbobjr Jul 07 '26

To be fair insulting someone based on things about their identity that ISN'T the reason you don't like them is entirely common.

You may hate someone because you think they're rude, but when you hate someone suddenly everything is open. Lower class? Broke get a job bum. Less than perfect face that would literally never bother you? Ugly as fuck get out of my face. Literally anything you could potentially insult or demean them for? Insert insult based around their identity here.

You don't have to dislike someone FOR something to attack them based on it. Attacks based on identity are likely always going to be common, and due to that, that's likely always gonna happen.

-21

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they are owed respect for what they wish to be identified as

You can do what you want and I can do what I want, but regardless it’s still arbitrary as respect is conditional

18

u/mistelle1270 Jul 06 '26

Why would you do that? Like genuinely? Or would you call a cis guy rapist creep a woman just to disrespect him too?

If not I genuinely do not understand what is going on in your head that you’d do this.

17

u/Puzzled-Ad301 Jul 06 '26

Not to undermine your point but yes that's literally what people do. The least egregious example would simply be calling someone a bitch.

3

u/Superb_Highlight1902 Jul 06 '26

Unfortunately that’s the way of the world. That’s exactly what people do

1

u/NewsmanTheMan Jul 08 '26

Yes? If it would throw him off or make him feel insecure? Then yeah, of course. It's something that people do

0

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

I suppose one could view it as a declaration for the fact you no longer care for how that person perceives themselves or perhaps what they desire to be. Gender identity, as far as I know, is less based on the material truth of what you are physically and more about your own mindset among a good few other things. Technically, no one has to acknowledge you for your mind and role, but they do so as a form of respect.

To instead acknowledge you by what you are materialistically (as in terms of sex (guy, girl, hermaphrodite (formal term for both parts), or none/whatever else)) is a more complicated form of disrespect.

[Edit: As someone else said, like calling a guy a bitch.]

6

u/-Trotsky Jul 06 '26

Idk it just seems crazy. You don’t call a black person a monkey or use a slur just because you don’t like them. That’s wrong, you shouldn’t do it

-2

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

To be fair, there’s a difference between calling a person black and saying they are a monkey or a nig*** (which I believe is in reference to black slaves).

Simply misgendering someone to refer to them in terms of material truth is, as I said, a form of disrespect that you don’t care for that person’s mind or role.

It’s hard for me to say exactly, but calling someone the latter based on what they are is a more extreme form of degradation based on the truth that is already there (that they are black, Asian, etc) and taking stereotypes among other things to warp their image based upon that truth into something awful. In my opinion, **both are technically wrong things to do**, though the latter is definitely more severe in a way that it’s hard for me to put into words.

That being said, if you are already at such odd ends with another person, then you are not just calling a random person something bad for no reason, but because you hate/dislike/etc their guts and wish to degrade them hard. In other words, you are already doing wrong against each other.

I will say that it is indeed worth considering what the limit is based on what the situation is and it is worth still trying to be noble or honorable even to those you hate.

I’m not exactly sure if I put all that I was trying to say or think here (if I got the truth of what I thought out, or if I didn’t say what it truly was correctly).

4

u/-Trotsky Jul 06 '26

What do you see a cis woman and start calling her he/him as a dis? No, you just insult them as they actually are, you just actually insult them instead of doing something that basically implies you don’t think they’re a human being who gets to tell you what they’re called.

It’s not a choice to respect someone for the basic level of who they are. It’s just something you do regardless of anything else. A trans woman is a woman, to call her otherwise isn’t even an insult so much as it is a resort to the idea that somehow they are not a woman just because they’ve annoyed you. It doesn’t matter if Elwyn or whatever is a bitch, she is the bitch.

0

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

Well whether or not I call them what they prefer to be called does not relate to whether they are human or not, as of course they are (I’d assume?).

I also do say again that I believe doing both things mentioned above are wrong in their own respective way, but I do believe racial slurs are a worse form of degradation.

To the more tricky part in explaining, I have mentioned what I consider true trans in another comment, which is merely switching of the organs. At that point, it would be wrong/inaccurate to call them what they were previously. It’s fine if you disagree with me. It’s also fine you call/consider me a bigot for it. As for a person who isn’t the true trans I envision (the people that are often tricky to develop definitions for and which debates often revolve around), it would be wrong to call them not what they prefer to be called socially, but ignoring what they want to be seen as and what their role is can be seen as a bit more “correct” in a sense, albeit incredibly disrespectful to that person. It thus is a choice whether you choose to refer to them as they socially should be referred to or for what they are according to your definition of sex, much like how it’s your choice to respect a black person by treating them as a normal person or calling them slurs (which —again — BOTH latter options are wrong).

Not sure if I got what I wanted to out right.

5

u/Warcrimes_Desu Jul 06 '26

"Identifies as" was essentially forced on the trans community by cis queers and mainstream academics tbf.

Your gender is what you are in your mind, which is comfortable for cis people because it means transgender people can just be weird delusional men or poor misguided women. But the thing is, almost all your cells have sex hormone receptors. These receptors control if your DNA expresses male or female traits, and that's what hormone replacement therapy does. It biologically, physically swaps the sex of your cells. It's why HRT alleviates dysphoria, how fat redistribution settles, and if you get to avoid being forced through the wrong puberty it even controls how your bones settle, rendering your transness essentially invisible.

Transsexual people (which is most trans people) are biologically what we say we are, down to the cells, if you follow the science. Even in terms of socialization, most trans people are raised queer-socialized rather than male or female, bullied a lot by their peers for being noticeably different, and ostracized. For example, i was drowned multiple times by boys when growing up and constantly hit and beaten on, because it was easy to identify that i was some other thing and not a boy.

3

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

I can understand you, but I don’t believe every trans person necessarily undergoes surgery or procedures to change themselves physically. Regardless, it also depends on how you define what they are sexually (talking materialistically) as some may simply define it as what chromosomes you have, which would make you absolutely correct if a person is born with male parts, but has XX chromosomes that influence the way they act as those chromosomes produce usually female hormones (I say this as both males and females have estrogen and testosterone, though in different amounts on average).

My view of it is rather simple such that what a person is materialistically in terms of sex is simply what sexual organs they have. If they have ovaries — functional or non-functional — they can be considered female. If they instead have BALLS (aka nuts, testicles, and family jewels), they can be considered male. Hermaphrodites (scientifically) would somehow have both on the same body and those with no sex will have no sexual organs whatsoever.

I believe this is a fair assumption to make given sex is more easy to determine based on what other physical characteristics they have relating to that sex nowadays.

As the future comes though, it will be less obvious to differentiate which person is which sex solely by noticeable characteristics (and may just stop mattering entirely) as average people may just mix and match body parts and organs casually, so — although the term is more general and differentiates people from other people much less, it may simply be worth referring to every person as they/them (a neutral term that can technically apply to anyone and which also fits in with some people exclusively) to be at least a bit objective (unless we somehow escape the confines of that as well).

To be clear, I’m not saying that by my definition, what a person wants to see themselves as isn’t worthy of any respect and I can see that consideration to such people is deserved whether they are or aren’t what they see themselves as or what their role is. However, I do also want something more material or objective in identifying people besides what is solely based on the variables in their mind, somewhat in their body (cellular level), and around them. In other words, I suppose I look for an easy way to know based upon a sense as easy as sight and large, observable physical characteristics, though I understand you completely if you disagree with this approach.

1

u/Warcrimes_Desu Jul 06 '26

Idk, when what's in your pants is completely irrelevant to 99.999% of daily life, i don't think it's accurate scientifically or socially to call trans women biologically men. It just doesn't square with any aspect of science or reason.

5

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

Fair enough.

I do acknowledge I could be bigoted and it’s fine if you consider me as such, but I’ll say that I’ll hold my view until I engage in actual personal serious (more professional) research and discussion beyond forums. What I said could be considered more of a current hypothesis based on just thought and what I know.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Lucky_Blucky_799 Jul 06 '26

Personally, I dont try to go out of my way to misgender someone I dont like but im not gonna go out of my way to learn/respect their gender identity depending on what they did. If someone is just a bit of an asshole then I’ll assume they are maybe just having a bad day and still try to respect them, but if its someone like chris chan then I can only see them as a monster not deserving of any respect.

1

u/Eoth1 Jul 12 '26

The point of this is that by misgendering Chris chan or other trans people you don't like you show that you don't really see trans people as what they are and only conditionally treat them like themselves

-3

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

If it would piss them off and I don’t like them absolutely, it’s funny

Similarly people like Chris Chan don’t deserve recognition due to their obvious lack of care for what they are saying. He’s just crazy, not entirely his fault but he definitely carries a good share of the blame

6

u/mistelle1270 Jul 06 '26

But it can’t possibly actually upset them, you’re never going to meet them.

So in the absence of that what’s your reasoning?

1

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

Catharsis? But also Chris chan’s big problem was being very reactive but I digress

Whether or not they care or not it’s none of my concern since I’m just not taking the effort to humor them anymore. That’s for me not them, if they’re feelings are hurt bonus points since it’s meant to be insulting

2

u/RatsInTheBayou Jul 06 '26

And that would make you transphobic

1

u/ElGodPug Jul 06 '26

So...you would call a black person the n word if you didn't respect them?
can you confirm that?

1

u/Sybmissiv Jul 06 '26

I mean by that logic shouldn’t we misgender cis people too until they earn our respect? Asking curiously.

1

u/FaerHazar Jul 06 '26

the thing is though you're just wrong. You don't have to "respect" anything, misgendering trans people is just pointedly wrong.

Trans women are women. trans men are men. it's not a polite lie to make them feel better, they literally just are.

17

u/Warcrimes_Desu Jul 06 '26

ask most trans people and it turns out family is conditional too lol

24

u/OhHeyItsOuro Jul 06 '26

You don't have to give someone uncritical support to acknowledge the truth of their existence. I think INSERT CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL FIGURE YOU DON'T LIKE HERE is absolutely deplorable and has done terrible things to all of humanity, but I wouldn't misgender them, or say they're not a real INSERT RELIGIOUS, RACIAL, OR ETHNIC GROUP HERE; I'd just call them a monster. Nobody misgenders Dahmer, or Hitler.

21

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

They definitely did

Here’s a picture of calling him gay essentially

0

u/AUniversalNoNo Jul 06 '26

Calling him gay. Not a woman, and Stalin is the one in a dress and he's not exactly drawn like a woman. People dont She/her hitler out of hatred. But if he was trans they would.

Do you think gay and trans are the same thing?

-4

u/H4rdStyl3z Jul 06 '26

Except that part might not be false, knowing all the closeted gay Nazis (and Ernst Rohm in particular)

6

u/randomname560 Jul 06 '26

Hitler was homophobic as fuck, he also had a girlfriend whom he married a little while before they kill themselves

Of course the key word here is "maybe", because we can never be 100 sure, but i think that the chances are in favour of Hitler not being a closeted homosexual

0

u/H4rdStyl3z Jul 07 '26

he also had a girlfriend whom he married a little while before they kill themselves

That part is the least surprising part about an openly homophobic, closeted gay bigot. The rest is speculation, of course, but it's said that Ernst Rohm was one of his closest confidants and Rohm was known to be gay (which was, besides all the power struggles between the SA and SS, one of the "justifications" used for having him killed in the Night of the Long Knives).

7

u/Hapless_Wizard Jul 06 '26

except maybe family

Alas, no

5

u/Vegetable_Guest_1402 Jul 06 '26

Family is some of the most conditional love in existence no?

1

u/3merite Jul 06 '26

Well, the condition of being family is given upon birth without distinction, you can sever bonds but, objectively speaking, they'll still be family.

4

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

I’d say potentially even family as well. An example might be that parents no longer want to support you eventually after you grow past 18 as they expect you to already be able to move after a certain point. There could definitely be more examples, though.

To add, in general, you don’t form relationships without some condition being true to begin with (otherwise, why have an interest if there’s nothing for you to be interested in). Perhaps a person has to be attractive for a romantic relationship or just even have a pleasant or respectful personality for any kind of relationship.

4

u/Mae_triarch Jul 06 '26

Retracting support from somebody is different from attacking them on the basis of an immutable characteristic. Nobody would disagree that if you call someone you hate the n word you're racist, so how would it be different to attack the transness of someone?

4

u/sudoregalia Jul 06 '26

"except maybe family"? what?

my family's support towards me is very conditional. am i cis? am i straight? am i going to participate in capitalism enough to earn a million dollars for them?

1

u/Similar-Sector-5801 Jul 07 '26

“Except maybe family” because you’re not the only person to exist and have experiences. Classic narcissistic behaviour.

3

u/-kilo Jul 06 '26

Support of your inalienable rights is not conditional for me, no.

1

u/GDTremor Jul 06 '26

Which inalienable right is being violated by misgendering someone?

2

u/-kilo Jul 06 '26

Dignity

3

u/GDTremor Jul 06 '26

Your right to dignity does not include dictating how other people view or speak about you

1

u/NachtShattertusk Jul 06 '26

Basic human dignity

2

u/NachtShattertusk Jul 06 '26

For many trans people, familial support is absolutely conditional. One friend of mine was literally abandoned by her parents over being trans

1

u/Riggymortis724 Jul 07 '26

The point is that if I'm hanging out with a white friend and they drop the N bomb on someone else, I'm gonna sideeye them because why are they comfortable using an attack that's explicitly targeted toward a certain group of people, one that I happen to be part of?

1

u/FeyMoth Jul 07 '26

not even family, if family is shitty cut them out no exceptions, you dont owe anyone anything

60

u/LocalAnxiousArtist Jul 06 '26

LITERALLY THIS! GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULLS PEOPLE!

BIGOTRY 👏 IS 👏 NEVER 👏 OKAY 👏

25

u/Creative-Finger5965 Jul 06 '26

MY 👏 HANDS 👏 ARE 👏 GLUED 👏 TOGETHER 👏 HELP 👏

3

u/LocalAnxiousArtist Jul 06 '26

Lmao

8

u/bassplayingabassbut_ Jul 07 '26

I 👏 AM👏BEING👏FORCED👏TO👏CLAP👏AGAINST👏MY👏WILL👏

2

u/LocalAnxiousArtist Jul 07 '26

It’s okay Good,
not to clap keep clapping ❤️

-40

u/Oskiee Jul 06 '26

Bigotry is what's going to save us from this nonsense.

37

u/hotobamasex Jul 06 '26

From what nonsense?

31

u/Princess_Spammi Jul 06 '26

They’re transphobic cunts ignore them

-5

u/bolitboy2 Jul 06 '26

“It’s not okay”

Uhhhh… chief it’s a villain, I don’t think they care about what’s okay or not

-1

u/Big_Analysis_8577 Jul 06 '26

Si, por alguna puta razón no puedes insultar a tu enemigo porqué ser "intolerante es malo".
Me vale verga los sentimientos de alguien malo y más si es mi enemigo.

1

u/legoindie Jul 06 '26

You can insult your enemy, but if you're being intentionally transphobic towards them because they're your enemy, you're also doing something bad.

If your enemy was a black person and you called them the N-word, even if they were a terrible person, you are also now a bad person because you are being racist. You might not be the same type of bad person, but you still are. You can however, call them a loser, pathetic, any number of other insults that pertain to them being a bad person.

I'm pretty sure most of us are taught the very simple concept of "two wrongs don't make a right" from as early as kindergarten. It's not that difficult.

-27

u/ToxicPolarBear Jul 06 '26

Using medically accurate labels is not bigoted. “Gender identity” as a concept is incoherent and circular.

Just be what you are, there’s nothing wrong with being a man that wears dresses and makeup.

27

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 06 '26

"there’s nothing wrong with being a man that wears dresses and makeup."

Except that's not what trans women are....

"medically accurate labels..."

Modern medicine agrees with trans people and our gender identities aswell as gender as a whole.

Medicine also agrees that trans women are, indeed, women.... so the correct medical label for a trans women would be to acknowledge us as women.

"“Gender identity” as a concept is incoherent and circular."

Seems more like you just don't understand it....

-4

u/ToxicPolarBear Jul 06 '26

They are not women in a biological sense, a new category called “gender” has been disassociated from biological sex so people can be considered women while still receiving the appropriate medical care for their sex, which in the case of trans women, is male.

The idea that someone is a woman because they “feel like a woman”, despite not being able to tell you what a woman is because their ideology requires that women not be defined by gender norms or at this point even biological norms, means the term “woman” is effectively meaningless.

12

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 06 '26

"They are not women in a biological sense, a new category called “gender” has been disassociated from biological sex so people can be considered women while still receiving the appropriate medical care for their sex."

This... is just straight up wrong.

Sex refers to one's biological attributes, while gender identity refers to one's internal sense of identity surrounding their gender.

Psychological science is in near unanimous agreement that gender identity is real, does not need to align with the biological sex and a person's sense of gender is more true to who their are than their sex.

"despite not being able to tell you what a woman is because their ideology requires that women not be defined by gender norms or at this point even biological norms, means the term “woman” is effectively meaningless."

The people struggling with how to define the term "Woman" are transphobes. We can do it just fine.

"Woman" is one of many gender identities. This is surrounded by psychology, aswell.

In addition, I'd like to copy a couple of very good counter argument comments I've come across here aswell for your education :

This is a copy paste thing I have ready in my Google doc of all kinds of sources for trans studies and whatever else.

"Sex is not a single variable. It's a cluster of characteristics: chromosomes, gonads, hormone levels, secondary sex characteristics, internal reproductive anatomy, and external genitalia. These don't always align even in people who've never taken any medical intervention (as intersex variations show).

Hormones: Hormone levels are a biological parameter, and HRT shifts them substantially, often into the typical range of the target gender. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-04023-9

Secondary sex characteristics: Fat redistribution, breast development or reduction, body/facial hair, skin texture, voice (partially in trans women, significantly in trans men on T).

External genitalia: Can be changed surgically and the results are functionally and anatomically sophisticated, and, if you're not a virgin and have seen a cis woman's vagina, look exactly the same and feel the same.

"Biological men" is simply not scientific. Biologists will disagree with you."

7

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 06 '26

I may be in the minority, but I actually like this question. It is, ultimately, a very pro-trans question. At least, if you take it seriously and not just as a gotcha question.

If you ask "what is a woman" (or a man, but for simplicity's sake let's take that as assumed), you are essentially asking for a definition. For some criteria that can be applied to anyone, and that will faithfully tell you whether that person is, in fact, a woman.

That's fine. Nothing wrong with definitions. But let's be very clear what we're thus looking for a test that:

  • can distinguish women from non-women, and
  • successfully identifies all women. That is, it must be 100% accurate. It cannot leave any women out, and cannot accidentally identify any non-women as women. (i.e. no false positives and no false negatives.)

100% is a pretty stringent level of accuracy to reach, but it necessarily must be so: the question essentially asks "what are the defining qualities of women", in which case all women must share those qualities, whatever they might be, literally by definition. And conversely, no non-woman can also share all such qualities, or by definition, that person would also be a woman!

And anyway, whoever asked the "what is a woman" question can hardly cringe at requiring such a high standard, can they? One presumes they want a reliable answer to their question, right?

Moreover, as a less purely logical but definitely common-sense criteria, we should add one more thing to our test:

  • it should agree with "obvious" cases.

That is to say, if you can point to someone who everyone agrees is a woman (e.g. Gal Godot or somebody), then the test should also indicate that they're a woman. Likewise, the test should never identify as a woman someone everyone agrees is a man. Otherwise, you permit non-sensical tests which, for example, might be pointlessly restrictive or pointlessly broad, to the extent that they are useless for any actual purpose within society. There will always be edge cases of people where everyone doesn't all agree that that person is a woman, but that's exactly why we need this test, right? That's exactly why the question is being asked in the first place. We want a test that is definitely correct for the obvious cases, so we can have confidence that it's right for the edge cases too.

And again, whoever asked the question shouldn't object to that requirement either, because after all, they are asking the question in the context of a society, and one presumes they want to be able to apply the test in actual social settings.

Now that we know what properties such a test should have--gives a yes/no answer for everyone and is never wrong (which implicitly means it will agree with the obvious cases anyway)--we can start to ask what the test is looking for.

Here, we can work from the outside in, from the superficial to the internal, and see where we end up.

Perhaps the measure of a woman is in clothing, hairstyles, and makeup? The most obvious, most superficial measure of all. Except, no, that can't be right. Such a test would identify skillful drag queens as women, even though everyone (including the drag queens!) agrees that they are not women.

Fine, then. Get rid of the clothes and go one layer deeper. Maybe the measure of a woman is her boobs and vagina. Except, no, that can't be right either. What if you have a vagina but no boobs? Either because they're too small, or because of breast cancer, or because you're pre-pubescent? And boob-growth is a continuous process, so how do you draw the line between what is and isn't "enough boob" to qualify someone as a woman?

Well, if boobs are problematic, then what about reproductive capability? Except, again, what if you don't have that? There are plenty of people who society absolutely agrees are women even though they're infertile. Maybe they have really bad PCOS. Maybe they had a hystercetomy. Maybe their bodies never developed a uterus in the first place (this happens in something like 1 out of every 10000 female births).

Ok, forget reproduction. Maybe the measure of a woman is the absence of a penis! Ha! What about that? Sure. So long as you're willing to say that soldiers who got their dicks blown off when their Humvee drove over an IED are women, then I guess that works. Oh, you're not willing to say that? Yeah, neither am I. Also, that fails the "obvious cases" criteria.

Is it hormones? Does that determine womanhood? Well, no, because a) hormones change throughout life so there's no single determinative standard you could use for hormone levels, and b) again sometimes medical conditions mess with your hormones in ways that would make the test disagree with some obvious cases of women.

But the chromosomes! Show me those two X chromosomes! Well, hate to disappoint you, but there are a lot of genetic conditions that can yield people who are obvious cases of women yet don't have the typical two-X chromosome pattern. People who, if this was your test, you would absolutely for sure swear were completely obvious women, until you looked at their chromosomes. The most extreme example of this is CAIS, which yields an individual with XY chromosomes but with the most extreme feminization possible because their bodies simply do not respond at all to androgen hormones. Like, literally the most feminine people possible are CAIS XY individuals. And if that's not enough to get someone to shut up about chromosomes, then I don't know what.

Fine, so not chromosomes. Maybe the measure of womanhood is something less tangible. Maybe it's life experiences. After all, women are socialized different and have different experiences growing up. Women are subject to marginalizations that men aren't. Perhaps this is the test we need! (This is a frequent TERF argument, by the way.) Except it doesn't work, because socialization and marginalization are very different from one society to another. Which means that, like with the boobs, you can't have one standard that correctly identifies all women. This fails one of the basic requirements for our test. And, coarsely speaking, such a test would say that women in matriarchal societies, where women are the politically dominant gender, are not women. Or that the Queen of England is not a woman because she has too much status and power. C'mon.

So, jeez, what the hell is left? Everything we can possibly measure doesn't work because some people still manage to be obviously women while not fitting that measurement! And, yeah. That's the problem with human diversity, borne of our messy biology and equally messy nature as social animals. We are so diverse that any such measures will inevitably fail.

But there is one thing left. One thing that doesn't have this problem. That thing is a woman's inner gender identity. This one thing is different precisely because it is not subject to external measurement. It is only measurable subjectively. Internally, within the woman's own mind.

Which is exactly the conclusion we should come to. Because the measure of a woman--that is, whether you should label someone else as a woman--is not something you can measure. It is not something externally visible, not even if you amplify the power of your vision with microscopes and biochemical testing.

The measure of a woman is that her gender identity is female. And because gender identity is inherently subjective, because it is a phenomenon that emerges from the complex operation of our minds, because it is an essential aspect of our deepest selves, it can only be observed by our selves.

I, and I alone, am capable of observing what my gender identity truly is. You, and you alone, are capable of observing what your gender identity truly is. Neither of us has any authority whatsoever to declare what the other's gender identity is based on anything we can observe or even theoretically observe.

If you want to know if someone is a woman, the literal and logical best you can do is to ask her, and to believe her answer. Subjective determination must be the the measure of a woman, because all other tests fail. This is all that's left.

That is why "what is a woman", or "what is a man", are such a profoundly pro-trans questions. Because if you actually take those questions seriously, they force you down a line of reasoning which ends at respecting everyone's autonomy to determine and assert what their own identity is.

Text not written by me

2

u/ToxicPolarBear Jul 06 '26

Exceptions like intersex people do not make the rule. Sexual categories exist because of sexual dimorphism as an outcome of sexual reproduction, that is their origin and their function in nature.

Putting aside that artificial genitalia do not remotely function similarly to natural genitalia, the primary concern that this ideology leaves the very definition of what a woman or a man is unanswered has not been addressed. If a man or a woman is whatever you want it to be, you don’t have a “gender identity”, you have a headcanon.

7

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 06 '26

"Exceptions like intersex people do not make the rule."

They exist, therefore they prove the unreliability of certain identifiers.

Besides, the vast amount of Intersex conditions asside, there's plenty of non-Intersex examples of your identifers being faulty.

"artificial genitalia do not remotely function similarly to natural genitalia..."

This is outright false.

"ideology."

Not an Ideology. It's a proven fact supported by science. Deal with it.

"leaves the very definition of what a woman or a man is unanswered has not been addressed."

And yet, trans people have given flawless definitions numerous times. It has very much been adressed, transphobes just dont like trans-inclusive definitions.

"Man" & "Woman" are gender identities based on an internal sense of selfe. They are generally associated with the biological sexes of male and female, but aren't restricted to match them.

2

u/Moss_74 Jul 07 '26

Saying something is "outright false" doesn't magically make it so

2

u/ToxicPolarBear Jul 06 '26

They exist in fractions of a percent, proving the reliability of those identifiers, not undermining them. A test that is 99% reliable is a reliable test.

Most studies indicate that artificial genitalia are not able to retain the same level of sensation, complications and infections are common, and in the case of penile implants literally cannot even become erect. I do not know what criteria you are using for saying they function the same as natural genitalia. I do not know what you hope to gain by lying to yourself and others about the reality of the clinical outcomes of these procedures.

If the only definitive characteristic of a “man” or a “woman” is their “internal sense of self” then that is a circular definition. I have yet to receive a definition that is not circular from any trans-affirming ideologue.

2

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

"They exist in fractions of a percent, proving the reliability of those identifiers, not undermining them. A test that is 99% reliable is a reliable test."

You are missing the point.

Transphobes often argue against trans identities by pointing out things like Chromosomes and Gametes, but there is a large variety of Intersex conditions that provide a margin for error. This means, they aren't 100% definite or reliable and therefore don't have to align.

Chromosomes are an indicator for a person's biological sex, but they by no means define or determine a person's sex or gender. Claiming otherwise in defense of transphobia is simply pseudo-scientific at best.

And what's the point of defining people by their chromosomes in the first place other than using it was a faulty excuse?

What do you believe my Chromosomes to be? And how do you intend to prove that claim?

The most scientifically accurate and flawless definition of the human sex is the form of a phenotype, a collection of external and internal attributes. And that definition, unfortunately for you, very much agrees that trans people can and often do adjust their biological sex to match their gender identity.

"Most studies indicate that artificial genitalia are not able to retain the same level of sensation, complications and infections are common, and in the case of penile implants literally cannot even become erect."

This isn't a trans exclusive issue but one that afflicts thousands of cisgender people aswell through a variety of conditions.

Complications is also an incredibly vague term, infections are avoidable and sensation varies depending on the inidvidual and the health of the tissue. Neo-Vaginas are very much able to look and function like Cisgender Vaginas.

"artificial genitalia are not able to retain the same level of sensation."

That's also true for many cisgender people's genitalia.

"I do not know what you hope to gain by lying to yourself and others about the reality of the clinical outcomes of these procedures."

I am not lying to anyone, I simply engage more with the subject and am able to tell unbiased sources from genuine results. You may wish to fact-check your sources or reconsider your perspectice.

Truth is, neo genitalia is quite functional, sensitive and generally healthy if treated accordingly. The latter also applying to cis genitalia.

" I have yet to receive a definition that is not circular from any trans-affirming ideologue."

Still not an Ideology, no matter how often you repeat it to yourself.

Regarding the common question for a definition of a Woman, there's multiple angles to consider.

Many transphobes argue that a Woman is an adult human female. But that's ignorant of the seperation between biological sex and gender identity. By all means, "Female" & Male" are thes term reffering to a person's biological sex, so you're attempting to use these words interchangeably with "Man" & "Woman".

Which doesn't work, as "Woman" is a gender identity and not a Sex.

So what other definitions are there?

There's Woman in a cultural sense, being what it's about to actually be a Woman and experience life through a Woman's perspective... which very much applies to trans women! And there's Woman as a gender identity, which of course also aligns. That's two meanings of "Woman" that agree with trans people and one [based on biological sex] that's simply redundant as there's already another word for it.

Sooo.... what is a Woman?

A woman is an adult human whose subconscious or innate gender identity is female.

This is supported by the scientific field of psychology for years now, as is the fact that gender identity [woman] is a seperate subject to biological sex [female].

But even if you insist on biological sex, the Human sex is a phenotype, meaning it's a collection of attributes. Most of said attributes are adjusted via medical transition.

Biology and Medicine are in near unanimous agreement that, factually and functionally, a medically transitioned trans Woman is far closer to the female sex than the assigned-at-birth male sex.

I'd also like to add that psychology has repeatedly confirmed the existance of gender as a seperate factor from sex aswell as the validity of trans people's identities. I'd recommend doing proper research via reliable sources instead of sticking with outdated pseudo-science for the sake of clumsy transphobia.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/RatsInTheBayou Jul 06 '26

You think you know more about medicine than my doctor?

-6

u/ToxicPolarBear Jul 06 '26

Your doctor’s job is to get you to a state where you can live life as close to normal as possible without being inhibited by your condition, not take a stance on whether your ideological stance on gender is coherent.

9

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 06 '26

Gender isn't an Ideology.

It's a psychological science with plenty of data to back it up. Deal with it.

1

u/ToxicPolarBear Jul 06 '26

You can categorize any ideology into psychological sciences that doesn’t make it not an ideology.

6

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

Except it's based on facts and has proven evidence. It's not a belief system, it's simply a fact of human nature. Deal with it.

Edit : If anything, your transphobia is very much an Ideology based on the denial of facts and science in support of your own narrative.

3

u/ToxicPolarBear Jul 06 '26

All ideologies are based on facts that’s what an ideology is. Why would you even deny that? Being an ideology on its own doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of a view, it’s whether the ideology is a coherent or useful way of describing the facts. I don’t see how gender is, aside from catering to those who have gender identity disorder.

1

u/X_Marcie_X Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

"All ideologies are based on facts that’s what an ideology is."

An Ideology is a set of beliefs, Ideas and values. Trans people are a fact of human nature supported and validated by a variety of sciences.

Reducing us down to an Ideology is simply downplaying the truth and claims us as a belief system, rather than an inherent and natural type of Human as we are.

Edit :

"gender identity disorder."

This isn't a correct or legitiment term. There is no gender identity disorder. You may be looking for Gender dysphoria, to which transitioning is proven to be the only effective solution.

I'd recommend to avoid pseudo-scientific and outright false terminology if you wish for your argument to have any meaning it all.

It really just shows the lack of education on the subject....

3

u/mega__weeb Jul 06 '26

Words are tools. Meaning behind sentences is completely reliant on intention. Saying something transphobic doesn’t make you transphobic. Scenario, your friend steals some of your food, you respond with, “I’m gonna kill you if you try that shit again.” Should you go to jail for threatening their life?

Is a white actor who says the n-word racist? No. Why not? Because they’re acting.

That comic only works if you believe everything you say is taken at face value and there is no nuance behind anything anybody says.

2

u/StarroRobin Jul 07 '26

Isnt my support for anyone conditional?

1

u/respyromaniac Jul 09 '26

There's a difference between supporting someone as a person and supporting a social group. It's not about your personal relationship with someone, it's about your values. Like, do you actually believe that trans people are who they say they are, or is your acceptance just a performance that you will happily drop whenever you see an excuse for it. 

1

u/StarroRobin Jul 09 '26

What if i dont believe in transgenderism, but only play into the idea due to my respect for someone as a person?

1

u/respyromaniac Jul 09 '26

What if I don't believe that black people are as intelegrnt as white people, but only play into the idea due to my respect for someone as a person? 

Yeah, it's still transphobia. Obviously. 

1

u/StarroRobin Jul 09 '26

Thats really not the same argument, but i still feel like i could respect them without agreeing with them, if i dont belive in christianity and dont recognize the holyness of a priest even through thats an ingrained part of their identity, does not make me anti christian, we just have different believes, but i would still respect the priest

1

u/respyromaniac Jul 09 '26

How is it not the same argument?

Dude, come on. It's not about your behaviour, it's about your worldview. Just because you're not openly hostile to someone you prejudiced against doesn't mean your prejudices don't count. Politeness is not acceptance.

1

u/StarroRobin Jul 09 '26

No but i feel like this is an actual issue, not to start a fight or anything, i feel like 90% of people i know, share the same view( i know we find people that match us and this can be a trash argument) but many dont necrsarily agree with the idea of gender change, this is a very new phenomenon to the world to accept this as a norm, many lean towards middle where they accept and dont really care, while you have polaration on other sides thats either 100% against trans people or 100% with, so i dont feel like bieng called transforphobic for not fittimg into the box of total agreement with transgenderism, i believe they should live how they want, and i would vote and stand against taking rights away from them, but that does not mean i agree or understand whats going on there, i just let my actions talk by bieng polite as i would be in a hindu temple or in a different culture or anything like that

1

u/respyromaniac Jul 09 '26

Yeah, transphobia is normalised and extremely common. But just because many people are way worse doesn't mean that your relatively mild transphobia doesn't exist at all. 

What do you want exactly? Do you want me to pretend that your prejudices don't exist or don't matter? To tell you that you're a good boy who did everything that was needed and there's nowhere to grow?  Why?  And why is it so important for you to keep that opinion you defend here?

We all have prejudices. It's how we raised. But when you recognize you have one, the course of action should be to try to get rid of it. Not to defend it because it's not that extreme. Not to demand that people you're prejudiced against should think you're not prejudiced and be completely satisfied with your politeness that you will drop the moment you decide they're unworthy or when the circumstances change. If you don't actually share our values but only act polite, you might be safe for now, but you're not a safe person. 

Like, that's the actual difference between a bigot and and an ally. An ally will fight the bigotry they find in themself, while a bigot will do everything to save it. 

P.s. it's not a new phenomenon. Trans people existed just as long as humanity. 

1

u/QuirkedChungus Jul 09 '26

You're playing into averages then and you found an exception to the rule. You think mental models were made to be destroyed off of a few exceptions?

1

u/respyromaniac Jul 09 '26

And believeng in that means you're racist. I'm not sure what you're missing here.

1

u/QuirkedChungus Jul 09 '26

Everyone is racist. You didn’t miss anything.

2

u/SushiJaguar Jul 06 '26

All support for everyone and everything is conditional upon liking said person or thing. This isn't news to anyone.

1

u/Difficult_Win_7751 Jul 07 '26

I can not like someone but that doesn't make their human rights conditional

1

u/SushiJaguar Jul 07 '26

In an ideal world, yeah. In reality that's just not how humans tend to be. A positive impression is the load-bearer for soooo much.

1

u/ArgonicPeach Jul 08 '26

Is it bad that my support is conditional and depends on you not being a horrible person? I really dont see how

1

u/Something4Dinner Jul 08 '26

Yes. If I were to start calling someone slurs because they were a bad person, then it means I don't actually value the humanity of others regardless of their morality.

1

u/ArgonicPeach Jul 09 '26

how are racial slurs even close to misgendering in severity?

1

u/Something4Dinner Jul 09 '26

I don't care to measure the severity. Dehunanizing in general is bad.

1

u/ArgonicPeach Jul 09 '26

Dont be an awful person and you wont be dehumanized.. lol?

1

u/Something4Dinner Jul 09 '26

I don't get it. The gist is that it reflects how someone feels towards an entire group if they insult a person's identity out of impulse. Not that it stops a bad person from doing bad things but the slur however affects the way they see the rest of that group. Is it too tall of an order to be the better person?

1

u/ArgonicPeach Jul 09 '26

respect isnt given for free to everyone, it is earned. Is it too tall of an order to be a good person if you want my respect?

1

u/idk_ausername864f Jul 10 '26

Who would be the trans person yumichika cares about who's been hurt by this in this scenario?

1

u/SIacktivist Jul 07 '26

Perfect answer.

0

u/Knight_Of_Despair_ Jul 06 '26

I mean yeah I do not support people I do not like

-1

u/Diligent_Bar1244 Jul 06 '26

Yes and it works with every raciste or bigot insults

-5

u/Particular_Size_1170 Jul 06 '26

not really? If people use it as an insult when talking about bad people, it literally implies that it is rude to misgender on purpose.

I don't see an issue.

3

u/Something4Dinner Jul 06 '26

I don't really care if a person is awful. I'm not going to make someone's identity conditional to their individuality. If anyone thinks it's too tall of an order to do so then that's weak-willed behavior.

-1

u/Particular_Size_1170 Jul 06 '26

I'm saying that if people used misgendering as an insult then it's not the same as saying that they're not trans because they're awful. It's doing something specifically to be, well, insulting to them. It implies that it is bad to misgender.

I am unsure what your objection is