welcome to the fest

I wanna make this crystal clear to every single one of you:

>>Genitalia is only formed and differentiated on the fetus while still in the womb. Puberty just helps maturate it and make the whole reproductive system fully functional in the adult life.<<

That means that you can never change a human being's sex after they are born, you can only try to sterilize them, androginize them and/or mutilate their bodies, all for purely aesthetical reasons so it mimics the opposite sex. You won't be able to get those people to have the same sexual functions as the opposite sex. Never. So, they will never be the opposite sex, because to be, you'd have to bear the same functionaly, not just some look-a-like thing that doesn't even originates in the same way since the intrauterine development of sexual dimorphism is WIDELY different from a sex change surgery.

So, to sum it up: If you try to block puberty on children, you're just gonna fuck up their bodies and possibily get them sterile, because you're trying to make their sexual system act against it's own pre-birth natural sex differentiation which is set in stone by the time they are born. You will never change their sex. You'll turn them into some fake woman or fake man, because that's what poorly done imitations that doesn't even function as the original thing are: fake. Maybe that's real enough for sexist dudes that can't see women as more than a walking pair of boobs for them to squeeze and double holes for them to jam their pathetic penises into, but women aren't just sex toys for men. And the changes you will promote with puberty blockers and homornization might be irreversible depending on how early you inflict that harm on children and might scar them emotionally and psychologically. It's a form of abuse.

Just because women can grow hair on places that they usually don't by taking extra testosterone and men can get fatter manboobs with hormonization doesn't mean that they are changing sex. It just means that sexual dimorphism in our species is economical and works within a complex system of hormone inbalance. It also means that the difference between sexes is not that large, it's just enough to help us procriate, if that's what we want to do.

And on the the falacial argument that "women must have babies because it's natureal" that's fucking wrong, because choosing whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, or even at all, is also natural. Because women who don't want to have a baby don't have to have a baby. Abortions, if legalized, can be done in early stages of pregnancy, with little to no harm to women. Espontaneous abortions already happens as a mechanism for our bodies to not give birth to poorly deformed humans that wouldn't even survive the intrauterine life. Abortion IS also natural, even the ones women can induce on themselves because they are not ready to go throught a whole body transformation and motherhood. That's a completly reasonable motive to abort and abortion is NEVER a go-to approach to not having children. It's only done when everything else has failed.

Puberty blockers do NOT work like that. The analogy here would be false. You're not stopping a process that you can choose to have. You're stopping an important process that it's part of being human that you can't choose to stop!

You don't have to get pregnant to be human, otherwise men wouldn't be humans. But you have to grow up. Everyone does, it's natural, it's healthy, it's part of life.

You can't decide whether your body will grow up or not, that's not on you. But you CAN decide whether you want to get pregnant or not. And any man, woman or group of people interfering on your right to choose whether to get pregnant or not, or to abort or not, is violating women's human right to body sovereignty.
Any man, woman or group of people interfering on your right to grow up under the FALSE promise that they can change your sex and that they can revert the process are LYING to you and violating your right to a dignified healthy life.

That's why rape is a crime, but abortion shouldn't be. That's why women don't have to have babies, but they should be allowed to let a pregnancy go to term if it's their wish and their bodies can handle it. That's why children should be encouraged to being gender non-conforming but not to take hormones that will block their puberty in an false attempt to "change their gender".

That's actual respect towards the body autonomy of women and children. It's really that simple, you guys are just desingenious or have a bias against women.

Thank you for this post. I'm really frustrated right now, because I see arguments over this divide women that would otherwise be working together. In my anti sex industry efforts I'm trying to build coalitions and when women learn that I don't agree that anyone can change sex, they get upset. I explain and they practically fall of their chairs, because they genuinely believe that surgeons can turn a male body into a female one and vise versa. The rhetoric is such that it appears literally possible. Then the women can only peak or go into some really deep denial shit, where they start arguing that if it's penetrable and between your legs it qualfies as a vagina, which is so deeply misogynsitic I can hardly put it into words... Just had another conflict over this. I don't invite this debate, because often it's so antagonistic and unproductive, but a woman asked me if I wanted to interview a transwoman who was a prostitution survivor. And I said "Yes, no problem. Just to be honest and upfront I believe transwomen are biological male and if that's an issue maybe your friend shouldn't come on my channel. I can use prefered pronouns (though talking directly to a person, when would that ever come up???), but I just wanna let you know I don't subscribe to gender identity." She says she now has to call up all her trans friends to inquire about their genitalia post surgery to see if I'm telling the truth about the nature of these surgeries. Wow... and they will probably be pissed, because who wants to be asked about their genitalia. Understandably nobody. I wouldn't be bringing any of this up if I didn't want to firmly publically state that I support women only spaces and males no matter the amount of surgeries don't belong there. But this debate as such power it divides women even if there is no male around to actively divide us. Women police themselves so heavily, it's depressing.

While I certainly agree that the present options medical science can provide are vaguely cosmetic at best, I think taking a solid stance of "Can't" is a bit overzealous. At most I would say "not there yet".

There was, after all, once a time when a chunk of roughly hand-shaped wood was considered a viable prosthetic. But now we've come so far that there are man-made limbs that actually possess the sense of touch. Science and medicine improves with continued practice.

Now, that being said, I don't think we should just mess with the human body willy nilly, and in our current state of understanding there are definitely things about ones sex at birth that cannot be brushed aside for the sake of gender identity.

I know of people who want to change the documented sex on their birth certificates and it just boggles the mind! Because doctors need to know, cosmetic appearance and preferred pronouns aside, what base biology they are treating. So changing everything to say you are one sex when you were born the other is outright dangerous and I strongly believe it should not be done. Ever. Medicines behave differently in male and female patients. Many illnesses present differently as well. A person demanding to be treated as 100% their identified gender without any mention of their sex at birth is asking more than our current world can safely provide.

But I do think that gender identity deserves some degree of respect/acknowledgement at the level it presently exists. Because, sure, it can seem like a poor imitation. But for some that poor imitation is all they have and it just... it has to be enough sometimes.

Foxgloves wrote:Thank you for this post. I'm really frustrated right now, because I see arguments over this divide women that would otherwise be working together. In my anti sex industry efforts I'm trying to build coalitions and when women learn that I don't agree that anyone can change sex, they get upset. I explain and they practically fall of their chairs, because they genuinely believe that surgeons can turn a male body into a female one and vise versa. The rhetoric is such that it appears literally possible. Then the women can only peak or go into some really deep denial shit, where they start arguing that if it's penetrable and between your legs it qualfies as a vagina, which is so deeply misogynsitic I can hardly put it into words... Just had another conflict over this. I don't invite this debate, because often it's so antagonistic and unproductive, but a woman asked me if I wanted to interview a transwoman who was a prostitution survivor. And I said "Yes, no problem. Just to be honest and upfront I believe transwomen are biological male and if that's an issue maybe your friend shouldn't come on my channel. I can use prefered pronouns (though talking directly to a person, when would that ever come up???), but I just wanna let you know I don't subscribe to gender identity." She says she now has to call up all her trans friends to inquire about their genitalia post surgery to see if I'm telling the truth about the nature of these surgeries. Wow... and they will probably be pissed, because who wants to be asked about their genitalia. Understandably nobody. I wouldn't be bringing any of this up if I didn't want to firmly publically state that I support women only spaces and males no matter the amount of surgeries don't belong there. But this debate as such power it divides women even if there is no male around to actively divide us. Women police themselves so heavily, it's depressing.

I'm glad you feel heard through my words. I believe most of the divide is due to ignorance on how biological development really works. Most people don't know about embriology enough or don't even know hox a "sex change" surgery actually works to understand the actual details on the matters that justify our conclusions. But I believe you can find a detailed explanation on human sex development in any respectful medical/physiological textbook and you can check out a "sex change" surgery here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZz5-OVg5w

Immo, while I agree that sex shouldn't be concealed I disagree that we can't say that people really can NOT change sex. They can't. Science is not there, and I don't think it should get there. If men already hate women enough imagine when they find out a viable way of gestating kids outside of a female body? You really think they won't get rid of women? They will. A lot of them are misogynists for crying out loud. They will paint it as benefitial to us, but they will exterminate us. Alas, sex is much more complicated than the sense of touch in one's hand. And a prostetic is still a prostetic, no one denies that the person using one was never physically disabled lol. That's an important difference right there.

Mama Immo wrote: But I do think that gender identity deserves some degree of respect/acknowledgement at the level it presently exists. Because, sure, it can seem like a poor imitation. But for some that poor imitation is all they have and it just... it has to be enough sometimes.

I think your personality deserves respect. Gender is not an identity, is a set of sexist roles and stereotypes invented by men, ingrained on everyone's minds for millenia and reproduced by both men and women to sustain a false hierarchy between the sexes. Calling it an "identity" erases the centuries of oppresion women suffered unjustilly because men wanted to control our bodies and reproductive habilities, and it's honestly offensive and anti-woman.

Gender isn't the entirety of an identity, no, but it is a part of it. There are aspects of our identity that we have little or no control over and aspects that are much more transmutable. We can't control our genetics, obviously, and time being linear as it is we can't control our age. But we can control what these mean to us and how we shape them into our sense of self.

The subtle shifts of semantics and nomenclature can make ridiculously large differences in practical application. A personal example: I am a lesbian and have been in a stable and loving relationship with my partner for 15 years. This is a strong piece of my identity and yet there a multitude of ways that a simple word choice takes a sledgehammer to that identity in social situations.

Things we have been called other than "partners" by people in our lives include but are not limited to:

• friends
  roommates
  sisters
  client and worker (she has CP and people like to assume I'm an attendant)

And while there are people who would argue themself blue in the face that our sexuality is an invalid choice and that we are doing things we shouldn't etc. etc.... It doesn't change that it is part of my identity and something I expect most civil-minded people to respect and use correct terminology for.

All of this is a very rambling round about way to say that I personally believe it's only civil and fair to acknowledge trans people to the same degree that I myself expect from others. And as science is finding ways that women can reproduce without men and thus, my partner and I could have a biological child someday, I see no reason why it shouldn't seek to help improve things for trans individuals as well.

Quick (I hope?) context question, because even if I remembered my old anatomy class terminology, the usage may be different in these conversation.

Does "genitalia" include uterus, or is it specific in these conversations to the parts that are directly involved in intercourse (vagina, penis, testes, clit, various glands behind the walls of the vagina I don't know the name of, etc)?


~rambling a bit off topic, please ignore unless bored~


After having gone through my first child birth, and having delved into the science of parts of it (including how the female brain is profoundly and permanently rewired by parturition), I am....agog that anyone thinks that we can turn one sex into the other when there is still so MUCH we don't understand about the crazy, complex specialization of babymaking organs.

That is not aimed at you Mama Immo, because I can see you are simply acknowledging that when predicting the future there are no absolutes. I respect that.

gyrfox wrote:Quick (I hope?) context question, because even if I remembered my old anatomy class terminology, the usage may be different in these conversation.

Does "genitalia" include uterus, or is it specific in these conversations to the parts that are directly involved in intercourse (vagina, penis, testes, clit, various glands behind the walls of the vagina I don't know the name of, etc)?

Genitalia includes all the organs belonging to the reproductive system of each sex. It does includes uterus.

gyrfox wrote:~rambling a bit off topic, please ignore unless bored~


After having gone through my first child birth, and having delved into the science of parts of it (including how the female brain is profoundly and permanently rewired by parturition), I am....agog that anyone thinks that we can turn one sex into the other when there is still so MUCH we don't understand about the crazy, complex specialization of babymaking organs.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

gyrfox wrote:That is not aimed at you Mama Immo, because I can see you are simply acknowledging that when predicting the future there are no absolutes. I respect that.

I can asure you the future of baby making without a female body is very far away from us. I did say "never", but it's unprobable. So, we can't really change sex, which I guess, for a long time, will still be true.

I feel like I should inform everyone that I'm not taking all the info I shared here out of my ass, I've been studying for about 10 years in the field of biological sciences and those are the conclusions I drew from that and from reading about feminism.

I know I sound rigid, but it's only to be clear and objective. The information I brought is accurate regarding human biology. No bias, no "bioessentialism" going on. Bioessentialism would be assuming that all women have "pink brains" and men have "blue brains" and that's why sexist roles and steryotypes are "natural" and women should be subjugated by men. You know, like TRAs do.

I'm sure I can affirm that you can not really change sex, so blocking puberty is nonsense and harmful to children.

I did say you will never change sex, but I'll give in and add: not in your lifetime. And tbf, I don't see that as a solution for people who suffer from sex/gender dysphoria. The problem is not their bodies, it's the idea in their heads that they can't be their "true selves" with the healthy bodies they were born into. Some sort of... soul-body modern dicothomy. That I don't have the luxury of believing because I don't think souls exist. We are our bodies and our minds, which is a byproduct of our complex brains which are part of our bodies. We are complex, beautiful, we can do so many wonderful and horrible things. Our societies certainly surpass the simple sum of people interacting, they can certainly become a living thing itself. But we do not have souls, gods don't exist, we are biological machines. Complex, ethical, questioning biological machines. That does not justify prejudice and bigotry, that does not justify sexism, racism or homophobia. Alas, it is what it is. Sorry if we can't all agree on that, but that's what I believe.

Mama Immo, I'm not getting your point at all thought.

Are you afraid that if we question the "validity" of gender identities we also question the validity of sexualities other than heterossexuality? Is that what you're saying?

Z6IIAB, it's not so much that I fear questioning one leads to questioning the other...

More so, they are each factors that can be counted in the many pieces that make up identity and I feel that it makes them deserving of some degree of consideration.

This is probably going to get rambly, I tend to just... stream of consciousness type. But I'll try to make sense, lol.

The way I see it, our identities are complex collections of things. Some written in stone, some more changeable. All are things we can choose to be a large or small part depending on the personal importance we give them. Who our biological parents are is written in stone, for example, as is our race and so on. But how much a part they play into our identity is up to us as singular beings.

Maybe you take great pride in your family tree, and thus it's a big part of who you identify as. Or maybe you couldn't give a rat's ass about that or other things are just more important to you.

At the same time, something you personally feel to be an important part of who you are, might not mean much to someone else. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't respect what it means to you, yes?

Again, I know I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make with all this blather is that we all have things we hold as important parts of our sense of self. They're different for everyone and some people put more value on certain factors than others. But if I want people to respect what I find important, I must open a similar courtesy to them in kind. Even if I don't fully agree with/understand/believe in what they do.

Which is my very long winded way of saying, who the heck are we to tell someone they cannot change themselves as much as our current abilities allow?

Things written in our DNA in regards to things like sex and race are immutable. We are born XX or XY (or sometimes XXX or XXXY etc, not to leave out all those mutations...). This is science and it is 'hard' as in not gonna change just because we don't like it.

What gets me is that the very same people that insist a person can change sex are up in arms against those who want to change race.

The mutilation of a human body that they call a 'sex change' is as disgusting as any genital mutilation.

I am a science kind of person and I have watched a lot of the 'botched' surgery shows. I do this in order to understand what some of my clients have gone through or are willing to go through when they opt for cosmetic surgery.

It is a horror. The doctors performing this well are nothing more than fancy butchers who can sew a nice scar and hopefully know a thing or two about blood and nerve supply. The possibilities for something going wrong are enormous and death might not be the worst outcome.

All that can be accomplished with surgery is cosmetic. It changes nothing that is important. It only changes the surface and often with horrible results.

Drugs are also nothing but bad. To take hormones increases the risk of so many diseases. Sure you can take things to make hair or boobs grow - heck, with enough testosterone in her system, a woman's clitoris can grow to hefty proportions as plenty of female body builders have found to their horror. But that does not make it a penis.

What is on the outside of us - sexual characteristics - are not what defines us. A person does not need to change their genitals in order to be who they truly are.

Heck, I am an extremely attractive, tall, slim, and muscular being with really good hair and good teeth... on the inside. Outside me is a little different - and I am okay with the contrast. I don't need to surgically 'correct' what does not match up with my 'avatar'.

I think, RikkiTikki, that you are projecting your own risk/reward values on others.

To you the possible harms and complications of these cosmetic surgeries far outway the seemingly negligible reward. And that's fine for you personally. But for others it might not be the same and it's arrogant to presume our values are the only correct ones.

RikkiTikkiTavi wrote:
Heck, I am an extremely attractive, tall, slim, and muscular being with really good hair and good teeth... on the inside. Outside me is a little different - and I am okay with the contrast. I don't need to surgically 'correct' what does not match up with my 'avatar'.

right on 🤙

Mamma Immo, I think the point is: you wouldn't say it's okey for bulimic/anorexic people to have bariatric surgeries or eat so little they are always in a starving state, even if they feel they are obese. Why would you say it's okey for people with sex/gender dysphoria to have "sex change" surgeries and take hormones they cleary do not need just because they "feel like" the opposite sex ???

Z6IIAB wrote:Mamma Immo, I think the point is: you wouldn't say it's okey for bulimic/anorexic people to have bariatric surgeries or eat so little they are always in a starving state, even if they feel they are obese. Why would you say it's okey for people with sex/gender dysphoria to have "sex change" surgeries and take hormones they cleary do not need just because they "feel like" the opposite sex ???

Well, to begin I think this is an unfair comparison. Starving oneself doesn't have a 'risk' of starvation, it guarantees it. That's the whole point.

Meanwhile, these cosmetic surgeries do have a wide range of risks, yes, but they are actual risks, not definites.

And finally, who on earth are we to decree what these people do or do not need? Just because you do not see the need for it does not mean the need is non existent.