It Is So Insane To Me That People Think This Could Ever Work. Male And Female Anatomy Are SO Different,

It is so insane to me that people think this could ever work. Male and female anatomy are SO different, and they are huge risks to organ transplant even when they find a perfect match for blood type etc. The very few cases where we have seen successful uterine transplant were so that women who wanted to have children but did not have a functional uterus (often d/t uterine cancer or Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome). Before and after transplantation, the woman has to be placed on heavy immunosuppressants so her body will not reject the uterus, and then the goal is for the woman to get pregnant and have a child, after which she will have a hysterectomy so she can be taken off of the immunosuppressants. Literally the only reason for this process to occur is that a biological women who doesn't have a uterus very strongly want a biological child.

Do TIMs really think that any of us enjoy having a uterus or would want one for any reason other than to have a child? Are grown men really that jealous of an organ that literally destroys a part of itself once a month and leaves us in excruciating pain? Doctors will never perform a transplant that doesn't provide the body with a function it is lacking. It's why you don't need a kidney transplant if you only lost one kidney. The absolute audacity of this TIM saying they want a procedure that is still not reachable for the biological women struggling with infertility, just so he can be "the first trans woman to have an abortion" is proof that TIMs have no idea what it truly means to be a woman.

Please explain to me how saying that gay rights are human rights is bigoted.

You know those yard signs that are like "In this house we believe: climate change is science, no humans are illegal, gay rights are human rights" etc. and they basically just sum up the American liberal belief in one easy-to-read sign? I want one of those for radfem beliefs that just sums our talking points up. I'm thinking something along the lines of "In this house we know that:

-lgb rights are human rights

-feminism exists for the liberation of women

-abortion and contraception are healthcare

-hormone replacement and plastic surgery for the purpose of gender transition are NOT healthcare

-Pornography fuels the sex trafficking industry and both industries exploit women endlessly for male pleasure

Anyone else have additions?

i think that the "i do not control the ____" memes are generally tame and do not lend enough credence to the genuine absurdity of the original line that is

Saving this so I have resources next time someone asks why chess and videogames as a sport should remain sex segregated for tournaments to be fair.

You know those yard signs that are like "In this house we believe: climate change is science, no humans are illegal, gay rights are human rights" etc. and they basically just sum up the American liberal belief in one easy-to-read sign? I want one of those for radfem beliefs that just sums our talking points up. I'm thinking something along the lines of "In this house we know that:

-lgb rights are human rights

-feminism exists for the liberation of women

-abortion and contraception are healthcare

-hormone replacement and plastic surgery for the purpose of gender transition are NOT healthcare

-Pornography fuels the sex trafficking industry and both industries exploit women endlessly for male pleasure

Anyone else have additions?

LGB stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bi. Why on earth would that be a tag for bigots and racists? Sexuality has nothing to do with race.

As to your question about trans people: sexuality is almost always based on a person's sex, not their gender identity. The reason for this distinction is that while sexuality and gender identity are technically both abstract concepts, sexuality is rooted in concrete physiological processes. What I mean to say is that when a human being is sexually attracted to another human being, there are concrete signs of it in their body (ranging everywhere from an increased heartrate/perspiration to an erection to the body self self lubricating).

Gender identity, on the other hand, has exactly zero concrete markers. Let me ask you this: is a trans woman still trans if she has a penis? How about facial hair? What about if she doesn't like to dress in feminine clothing and prefers short hair?

Now imagine the person I described above is an identical twin, but their twin still identifies as male. So both twins have short hair and facial hair, with looser fitting clothing, but one twin identifies as a trans woman and one does not. You cannot tell the twins apart much as their gender identity is one of the few things that is different about them. My guess is that anyone attracted to one of them on first glance would almost certainly be attracted to both of them, because they look exactly the same. So if a gay man is sexually attracted to the one who identifies as male, he is almost guaranteed to be attracted to the one who identifies as a trans woman. Does that now make the gay man straight? Bi? Why does the gender identity of one person affect the sexuality of another person?

This is the problem with using an abstract concept with no concrete markers as a basis of identity for who you are sexually attracted to: no one else can see the abstract concept. Which is why sexuality has always been rooted in a person's sex instead of their gender identity. Lesbian women are only attracted to other females, and they are not aroused by male genitalia. Gay men are only attracted to other males, and they are not aroused by female genitalia. And Bisexual people are attracted to men and women and can be aroused by either set of genitalia. This is something that can be scientifically tracked due to those concrete physiological markers and is in fact, the definition of sexuality.

Let me take my analogy one step farther just to prove the point: say the gay man in my scenario never actually meets these twins, just passes them in public and knows he feels sexually attracted to both of them when he sees them. By your logic, he would be considered bisexual because he was attracted to both a man and a trans woman, but his brain saw two people with short hair, facial hair, and loose fitting clothing who looked exactly the same, so he assumed they were both male. Thus, in his mind, he is still gay.

It's the idea that one person's identity should alter the sexuality of someone else that I have a problem with. Why does a random stranger's gender identity affect my sexuality? If I am dating a man who one day wakes up and feels they should identifying as trans, am I now in a lesbian relationship despite only exclusively being attracted to men my whole life? Do you see the problem with replacing sex with gender identity in the realm of sexuality? It simply doesn't work because it just becomes a tangled web of everyone having to announce their gender identity for people to know what their sexuality is. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to just use biological sex in regards to determining sexuality, don't you think?

You know those yard signs that are like "In this house we believe: climate change is science, no humans are illegal, gay rights are human rights" etc. and they basically just sum up the American liberal belief in one easy-to-read sign? I want one of those for radfem beliefs that just sums our talking points up. I'm thinking something along the lines of "In this house we know that:

-lgb rights are human rights

-feminism exists for the liberation of women

-abortion and contraception are healthcare

-hormone replacement and plastic surgery for the purpose of gender transition are NOT healthcare

-Pornography fuels the sex trafficking industry and both industries exploit women endlessly for male pleasure

Anyone else have additions?