Which gender are you?

[slomo]

Epigenetics is a thing, like quantum mechanics is a thing. But I think it's becoming the biological equivalent of "quantum physics.." In other words, when the speaker or writer wants to pitch some woo about biology or genetics that isn't supported by the known data, it becomes "epigenetics."

I agree. The magical thinking around OMG! the environment changes your genome! is an example of this. However, imprinting is a well established mechanism, it is not within the realm of this epigenetics magical thinking. This, more than anything else, I can assert with 100% confidence.

[jakell]

Epigenetics is a thing, like quantum mechanics is a thing. But I think it's becoming the biological equivalent of "quantum physics.." In other words, when the speaker or writer wants to pitch some woo about biology or genetics that isn't supported by the known data, it becomes "epigenetics."

I agree. The magical thinking around OMG! the environment changes your genome! is an example of this. However, imprinting is a well established mechanism, it is not within the realm of this epigenetics magical thinking. This, more than anything else, I can assert with 100% confidence.

To use that expression can lead lead to magical thinking because it's rather bald and inaccurate, it needs fleshing out when people misunderstand the concept.

The environment cannot change your genome, except in rare cases of mutation (chemicals, radiation). What it can change is your genome's expression, but not the genome itself.

There is a possible caveat to this going forward though, a change in gene expression can affect reproductive choices and instances, and therefore affect the genomes of offspring. So, the environment cannot alter the genome of the individual, but possibly the genetic make-up of a group or species,

[slomo]

Epigenetics is a thing, like quantum mechanics is a thing. But I think it's becoming the biological equivalent of "quantum physics.." In other words, when the speaker or writer wants to pitch some woo about biology or genetics that isn't supported by the known data, it becomes "epigenetics."

I agree. The magical thinking around OMG! the environment changes your genome! is an example of this. However, imprinting is a well established mechanism, it is not within the realm of this epigenetics magical thinking. This, more than anything else, I can assert with 100% confidence.

To use that expression can lead lead to magical thinking because it's rather bald and inaccurate, it needs fleshing out when people misunderstand the concept.

The environment cannot change your genome, except in rare cases of mutation (chemicals, radiation). What it can change is your genome's expression, but not the genome itself.

There is a possible caveat to this going forward though, a change in gene expression can affect reproductive choices and instances, and therefore affect the genomes of offspring. So, the environment cannot alter the genome of the individual, but possibly the genetic make-up of a group or species,

More specifically, epigenetics concerns chromatin marks, DNA methylation, and (sometimes, depending on who you talk to) micro RNAs, all of which influence gene expression.

The data for chromatin alterations or changes in DNA methylation due to the environment are vastly over-interpreted. Mostly happens in-utero (or possibly stem cells in a mature organism, leading to cancer). There might be more room for environmental influences (in mature organisms) on micro RNAs, but RNA expression is harder to measure stably than DNA methylation (which is where most of the human data comes from), so I think the jury is still out.

The Lamarckian interpretations by uninformed are just woo. (I often like woo, but not in this case.)

[guruilla]

Transgender pupil, eight, in battle with primary school for recognition after being told: 'You can't be called a boy, you're a girl'
School in North West said it's 'too early' for child to make up its mind

MP Mark Pritchard has said children are not equipped to make decision
Group of 13 British schools face possible legal action over gender rows
Schools reported to helpline for Equality and Human Rights Commission
By SANCHEZ MANNING AND SIMON MURPHY FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
27 December 2015

An eight-year-old pupil who was born female is locked in a battle with a primary school where staff are refusing to accept the child’s request to be treated as a boy.

The school is one of more than a dozen across Britain facing a potential legal challenge for stopping pupils from changing their gender.

Another pupil, aged 13, is at an all-girls school but now identifies as a boy, yet staff insist that wearing a skirt is obligatory as uniform policy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -girl.html

Also this:

Children could be taught about transgender issues using penguin story books

Nicholas Reilly for Metro.co.ukMonday 21 Sep 2015 2:57 pm

http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/21/children- ... s-5401433/

Children could be taught about transgender issues using penguin story books
The Penguin tales book could be used to teach kids about LGBT issues (Picture: SWNS)
Children as young as three could soon be taught about transgender issues by reading story books about penguins.

The Gender Identity and Research and Education Society has called on schools to teach their children about trans issues by using the Penguin Land stories, which feature adult penguins reassuring younger penguins about transitioning.

In one of the stories, a younger character is told: ‘We can’t always tell if you’re a boy or if you’re a girl.

‘But either way we love you just the same. So we will have a party and all your friends will come.

The book being used to introduce children to the idea of transgender people. See SWNS story SWGENDER; Transgender people should be ìcelebratedî in lessons for children as young as three, MPs have been told ñ because more and more youngsters are trapped in the wrong sex. An inquiry by a parliamentary committee has heard evidence that ìthe numbers of very young children transitioning in primary school are increasing rapidlyî. But schools ìusually avoidî the issue and the department for education (Dfe) has failed to take a lead, a charity working with transgender people warned. Now the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) is calling for the challenges facing transgender people to be ìincluded at all levels of the syllabusî.

‘We’ll tell them you are Sally and were never really John.’

The calls came as the society gave evidence to the Common’s Women and Equalities Committee, which is the first inquiry in Britain to investigate prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.

In evidence to the committee, the society said: ‘The numbers of very young children transitioning in primary school are increasing rapidly, so information and reassurance needs to be given at the earliest stage.

‘The Penguin Land stories, for instance, will help teachers to put simple messages across to children.’

In the books, young readers are told the story of a penguin called Polly who was ‘always really Tom’ and another about a penguin named John, who is now known as Sally.

The Gender Identity Research and Education Society also accused the Department for Education of not doing enough to promote transgender issues, and claimed that the concept of gender transitioning should be ‘included at all levels of the syllabus.’

[Heaven Swan]

http://glosswatch.com/2015/12/29/the-year-in-sexism-notes-from-sexism-incs-2015-agm/

The Year in Sexism: Notes from Sexism Inc’s 2015 AGM

This year Sexism Inc held their AGM at a top secret location in the south of England. With the help of my undercover contacts I was able to get hold of the transcript of their CEO’s closing speech, which has been reproduced below.


Well, what a year it’s been! An exhausting one but, as I’m sure you’ll agree, one of our most successful.

The market has seen some tough times lately, what with the resurgence of interest in feminism since its early noughties slump. There was a time, two or three years ago, when some of you expressed concerns that we might not get through it. Certainly there was a need for some restructuring but, while we were all sad to see Mr Clarkson and Mr Buchanan go, I know that they, too, saw the need for sexism to move with the times.

It’s important for any organisation, even one that doesn’t prioritise the subjugation of half the human race, to stay nimble and flexible. That’s why in May this year I was absolutely delighted to announce the acquisition of Libfem Corp and its subsidiaries, Everyday Feminism, Amnesty and NUS Women. While these will now operate as part of Sexism Inc family, they will retain their unique brand identities, finding new ways to market objectification and sexual exploitation to women without recourse to the more “traditional” messaging favoured by our more established brands.

Of course, this year’s biggest news has been the launch of Patriarchy 2.0. P2, as those of us close to the project like to call it, has been several years in the making, so it’s been wonderful to see it rolled out in full.

I’m sure most of you are aware of the project objectives – line managers, I’m looking at you! – but just to recap, the purpose of Patriarchy 2.0 has always been to maintain the key benefits of being male in a patriarchal society (e.g. the exploitation/appropriation of female reproductive, sexual, physical and emotional labour) while ironing out many of the bugs (e.g. compulsory heterosexuality, enforced masculinity, female people still being able to organise as a political group). While Patriarchy 1.0 is something of which we’re all very proud — and yes, this model will still remain on the market, both online and in real life, for the foreseeable future — Patriarchy 2.0 is, we think you’ll agree, a huge step forward, making sexism available at a much lower cost to anyone born with a penis.

As you all know, Patriarchy 1.0 used the Heterosexual Marriage operating system as a way of establishing paternity, appropriating female reproductive power and claiming ownership of other human beings. For a long time now our market research has been telling us that many of our users found this clunky, with far too many restrictions placed on what they should wear, who they should sleep with, how they should present themselves etc. etc.

With Patriarchy 2.0 you don’t need to worry about all that. Now, the material exploitation of female bodies is available on a pay-as-you-go basis. Want sex? You’ll be doing sex workers a favour. Want to father some kids? Take your pick from a wide range of overseas surrogates. Need your kids to be white? Buy the eggs elsewhere. The key word here is choice. Choice and self-validation. Remember, it’s all about you.

The operating system used by Patriarchy 2.0 is Queer Theory. It did require some tweaks from the original version presented by Ms Butler – Ms Serano did some sterling work on this – but I think we’ve found something every modern-day patriarch should like. The fundamentals of sex-based exploitation are still in place – we all know the anatomy of the people who’ll be doing most of the world’s unpaid work – but our special override function renders them indescribable. It’s ingenious (any problems with the online version can be dealt with by pressing caps lock and typing TERF).

Special mentions go to Mr Jones in sales and Ms Lees in marketing for their contributions to the UK launch. Globally we’re doing especially well in the US and Canada. Other parts of the world are still favouring Version 1.0 but we’ll be discussing a migration and rollover strategy in the New Year.

In the meantime, I think we all need to give ourselves an enormous round of applause (members of subsidiary teams are welcome to use jazz hands). Here’s to another year of sexism success!

[§ê¢rꆧ]

...
I am a transwoman in transition, but a rather large and ugly one, so realistically, I am like some baffling mythological beast that people see out in the wild but just can't wrap their heads around so they pretend it's not there. Are there any other trans Riggies (haven't read the whole thread) out there?

I started reading Jeff's blog around Katrina and was on the first discussion board, too. I've never posted a whole lot, but I check the board regularly, especially when Strange Things happen. I really value the insight and intelligence of the community. cheers!

Hi BSK! I'm a trans woman in transition, too, and another longtime lurker. I just came around today to see what RI may have on the recent Oregon militia wildlife refuge occupation, beyond the obvious commentary. Didn't see anything interesting, but I couldn't resist this thread. What a can of genitalia we have here!

I love your baffling mythological beast simile. Transition is a bewildering, liminal space, sometimes bordering on uncanny valley. But alien can be beautiful, too. I bet you are not an "ugly" woman at all.

What's with the poll options? IMO, the misunderstandings start here. Why not at least, trans female, trans male, genderqueer, and other? The list need not be long as PW so epicly posted, (although, admittedly, there is contention in the trans community about just what terms are best used to describe our diversity of experience with gender, that's no reason not to at least try and use some agreed upon norms).

It's interesting to me that very few of you really posted any significant reflections on your own gender, which is, after all, the title of the thread. Except for PW, Slomo, BSK, SLAD, KUAN, and a few others.

Props to AD, Rocketman, DrEvil and some others for providing some voice of reason in this thread, and AD for also sharing personal accounts of real people they know. Remember when arguing these contentious ideas we are talking about real people, a tiny minority perhaps, presently over-represented in the media certainly, but real people whose lives are hurt and sometimes ended by transphobia.

[Heaven Swan]

§ê¢rꆧ wrote-

Props to AD, Rocketman, DrEvil and some others for providing some voice of reason in this thread, and AD for also sharing personal accounts of real people they know. Remember when arguing these contentious ideas we are talking about real people, a tiny minority perhaps, presently over-represented in the media certainly, but real people whose lives are hurt and sometimes ended by transphobia.

Presently over-represented is quite an understatement. Try setting up an alert on the New York Times site to be notified for articles about "Trans" and you'll read several gushing, fawning highly supportive articles per week, not to mention the glut of sympathetic TV shows and movies. Since when has a liberation movement been treated like this by establishment and their media? And- Is this the first medicalized liberation movement?

My interest in this issue is not abstract or purely political. I'm in a relationship with a transperson, who BTW almost died last year from health complications from hormone use.

https://www.schmidtlaw.com/testosterone ... m-lawsuit/

Also, I'm a woman and thanks to legislation, politeness and political correctness that caters to trans women, women are losing our right to define ourselves as an oppressed class, talk about our anatomy, and be safe in restrooms, shelters and prisons.

Of course I support the basic rights of trans people but I want to abolish gender and gender stereotypes, and be free to express myself outside of codified gender dress and behavior. Be myself, that is, not 'a woman.' I look forward to the day when I'll wake up and be able to go through my day as my unique self and not be constantly reminded, by pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, comments and possible danger on the street, less access to jobs and other areas of life, that I am part of an oppressed group.

[Heaven Swan]

Jaden Smith, son of Will Smith, has been playing with his wardrobe, but apparently this is not OK.


https://purplesagefem.wordpress.com

Today in daft nonsense: Men wearing dresses are oppressive to transwomen

Posted on January 5, 2016

In case you needed to reach your peak peak peak peak peak peak trans today, check out this article published in The Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/will-smiths-son-as-the-new-face-of-louis-vuitton-womenswear-might-seem-progressive-but-its-a6797461.html


“Jaden Smith as a new face of womenswear might seem progressive – but he’s on transgender territory

People like Jaden are starting to wear the trans uniform without actually stating that they are transgender, and they’re claiming it for themselves under the guise of gender-neutral fashion.“
Okay so if you are a man wearing women’s clothing, you are not just a man wearing women’s clothing, you are a cis overlord wearing the uniform of the oppressed transwomen and therefore appropriating something that doesn’t belong to you. Okay. No men can put on a dress for fun anymore I guess, or else 100,000 transwomen will probably die.

“So, it’s been announced that 17-year-old Jaden Smith, son of American actor Will Smith, is to be the new face of Louis Vuitton clothes. To be more specific, the womenswear section. And I didn’t even know they had an old face – clearly I’m out of the fashion loop.

But what a great publicity stunt for Louis Vuitton. So many people thought their fashion offerings were confined to handbags – whoever knew that they were actually selling womenswear for men?

Jaden seems to be up for this gender-neutral, equal clothing rights thing which allows men to wear women’s clothes without any fear of ridicule. But there is another, more important issue afoot.”

Wait. Don’t trans activists want it to be okay for men to wear women’s clothing? Aren’t they trying to smash the gender binary? Wouldn’t the world be safer for transwomen if there was no punishment for men wearing feminine attire?

“There’s a reason why men wear men’s clothes and women wear women’s clothes, and why they are generally so different. OK, I know women have been wearing trousers for decades but they’re usually a femme version of the male equivalent – and I’m not talking about unisex clothes like jeans and t-shirts.

I’m talking about basic clothes norms that depict which gender is wearing them, even in the modern world. Stereotypically, men wear trousers and women wear dresses and skirts. That’s the ‘norm’ and it’s more than that – it’s a uniform.”
Whoa. So trousers are a male uniform and skirts are a female uniform? Really? And women’s pants are a “femme” version of men’s pants, really? This person has obviously never met a lesbian because some of us wear actual men’s pants.

“When you get out of bed in the morning the most important thing you have to do all day is tell the world what your gender is, because from that, everything else flows. You may think that your job is to be an office supervisor or a stockbroker or police officer but these are all human constructs. Deep down your real job is to reproduce, and showing other humans your gender is the first step on that path.”

This paragraph gets 6000 trophies for THE DUMBEST PARAGRAPH EVAR!!! When I get out of bed in the morning, the most important thing I have to do all day is work for wages so I can have money to pay my rent and food. Never have I ever woken up and thought, “How can I express my gender today?” Normally I try not to express any gender, actually, because I hate gender. How daft to think that everything flows from my gender. What the fuck? And the icing on the fucked up cake is “your real job is to reproduce.” What?? First of all, no, my job is not to reproduce. I will never reproduce. I don’t give a shit about being a mother and I’m not that keen on small children. But secondly, if transwomen want to reproduce, pretending to be female is not the best way to make that happen, because the only way they can reproduce is by fertilizing an ovum from a female with his sperm.

“So, to help make it plain for anyone to see which gender you are, you put on a uniform. Men put on trousers and have men’s haircuts, and women put on dresses and skirts, feminine tops and tights and women’s shoes to show their femininity and declare to the world that they are female.

They have women’s hair-dos and they put use cosmetics to make themselves look nicer and more presentable and to reinforce the female uniform a bit more.”

I hate to break this to you, daft writer of this article, but there are men with long hair, and women with short hair, and there are men who wear bright flashy colours, and women who wear loose, comfortable clothing. And there are women who shave their heads and wear men’s clothes. I am in a relationship with one. It turns out that both males and females enjoy a variety of clothing and styles.

I hate to break another thing to you, but wearing makeup can’t actually “declare to the world that you are female” if you are male. Everyone can see that you’re a man wearing makeup. That’s because males and females actually look different. Being female is a biological reality, it is not just an outfit.

“So, when some people come along and want equal clothing rights, that upsets the apple cart a bit.

Male-to-female transgender people rely on props like clothes, shoes, make-up and hairstyles to create the gender identity they want to portray to the world because most of the time their bodies alone are unable to do that. There are a few lucky ones who don’t have to do a thing to put across a female persona, but most trans women have to work hard at it.”

You saw it right here, folks! Trans activists actually DON’T want males to be able to wear feminine clothing. They want ONLY FEMALES to wear feminine clothing so that men who believe they are women can use these stereotypes to their advantage. That’s because it’s obvious that their bodies are male.

“The danger for trans women is that if wearing what are traditionally women’s clothes becomes the norm for men too, then trans women will no longer be able to rely on these props to help them display a female gender identity – and for many, that could be a serious problem.”

So it would be a serious problem if it was okay for males to wear feminine clothing because then males who wear feminine clothing would look…normal. *headdesk*

What could the “serious problem” actually be? No one would know he has a “gender identity” because suddenly there’s no actual need to call your clothing choices a “gender identity” anymore? Wouldn’t that be a good thing, if you could just be who you are, without having to convince everyone of your “identity”?

“Of course it will take time – a long, long time even – for things to change to the extent where men wearing skirts and girly stuff will be totally acceptable.

But trans people should be aware that well-known faces like Jaden Smith are starting to encroach on our territory. They’re starting to wear the trans uniform without actually stating that they are transgender, and they’re claiming it for themselves under the guise of gender-neutral fashion. All of which begs the question: where does that leave us?”

Yeah, it will take a long time for society to accept men wearing skirts as long as we keep holding on to traditional gender stereotypes, AS YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW.

What do you mean, “encroach on our territory”? Since when do trans people “own” certain clothing styles? Any person can wear any clothing they want.

There are generally two types of MtF transgender. There are gender-non-conforming men, who are often gay, and there are fetishistic cross-dressers. If we stopped punishing men for being feminine, the gender-non-conforming men would benefit. But as long as we keep punishing men for being feminine, the fetishists can get off pretending to be part of an oppressed class of people. That oppressed class of people is the female sex class.

[Heaven Swan]

HUD proposed regulation forces homeless women and girls to bunk and bathe with men who claim to feel psychologically female: January 19 deadline for public comment

January 6, 2016

Julian Castro, the US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (and the likely Vice Presidential running-mate of Hilary Clinton) has announced his agency’s intention to eliminate the legally protected category of sex in homeless shelters nationwide, eliminating the right of vulnerable women and girls to shower, sleep and toilet separately from homeless men.

HUD had previously issued a non-binding “guidance” document back in February 2015 suggesting that physical sex be redefined as “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics” and prohibiting those providers of homeless services who receive HUD funding from inquiring about the physical sex or sexual orientation of service recipients. Kind of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision. Providers were instructed to assess clients on the basis of adherence to sex-role stereotypes and make their own determination of the client’s transgender status. Those suspected of possible cross-sex identification were to be advised that the agency provides placement based on “gender-related characteristics”, and not physical sex: “where a provider is uncertain of the client’s sex or gender identity and that information matters for the determination of placement, the provider informs the client or potential client that the agency provides shelter based on the individual’s gender identity.”

HUD’s non-binding February 2015 “guidance” was similar to those recently issued by other Federal Obama administration agencies [such as the DOE’s “guidance” overturning Title IX protections for women and girls, and the DOL’s “guidance” eliminating privacy for women in workplace accommodations] which attempt to reinterpret existing protected sex categories into a cluster of unspecified psychological characteristics which the government redefines as the core human reproductive trait, overriding biology (or any other objective measure).

The proposed new rule is a modification of the previous “guidance” that HUD issued and will change federal law, officially removing sex as a protected category and creating precedent for other agencies to bypass the legislature, judiciary, and public debate in eliminating the legal category of sex under which women’s rights are protected. (HUD Secretary Julian Castro actually cites the DOE’s recent highly controversial reinterpretation of physical sex -as a subjective psychological self-perceived essence- under Title IX as the governmental authority which sets the precedent justifying his own agency’s move to elevate its internal “guidance” into federal regulation.)

Julian Castro’s new HUD rule will be the first official elimination of legal sex-based protections for private citizens under federal law by agency regulation, and homeless impoverished women in crisis- largely women of color with children, most of them survivors of male violence- are the first targets. Under this new law legal sex status will be redefined by the US government as “gender identity” defined as such:

“Gender identity means the gender with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.” ...

Read full article here:

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/hud-proposed-regulation-forces-homeless-women-and-girls-to-bunk-and-bathe-with-men-who-claim-to-feel-psychologically-female-january-19-deadline-for-public-comment/

[American Dream]

What sort of better future would you like to see, Heaven Swan?

[§ê¢rꆧ]

Jaden Smith, son of Will Smith, has been playing with his wardrobe, but apparently this is not OK.

I totally agree with you, Heaven Swan--that article is rubbish. Gender fluidity is no doubt the way of the future, and constitutes a more enlightened position on gender, trans or cis. I think Ms. Glover, the author of the piece, didn't put much thought into this and wrote this article because trans women are having their day in the media, and this was an easy sell with a celebrity hook. Although, if you look at some of her other work on that site, you can get an idea of where she's coming from, such as "Why I'm happy for Caitlyn Jenner to be my spokesperson." My experience with 99% of the trans women I've met is that they roll their eyes at Caityln. She does not speak for us. Sure, Caitlyn's media splash made it a little easier for some cis folks to relate to us. When I came out to my sister, she was like "oh, like Caityln Jenner, hehe." And I wanted to say NO, but you know what? I was happy that at least my sister had a point of reference, however wrong, to help her accept me.

Another of Ms. Glover's benighted musings on that site "Why it's time to take the T out of LGBT" -- wait, what? It seems to me that Ms. Glover is closer to the HBS (Harry Benjamin Syndrome, a somewhat outdated take on transgenderism IMO) side of things: she seems to reject her gender-queer and trans man siblings' experiences. HBS women hold the elitist position that they are the only "true" trans women. They are a separatist faction, many of whom don't even want to be associated with the transgender movement itself!

tldr: That article you posted about Jayden Smith is not representative of the trans woman experience, and it is irresponsible and disingenuous of Ms. Glover to pretend that she speaks for trans women as a whole. I find this woman's ravings as absurd as you do.

[American Dream]

This may be of interest:

THE PODCAST

Sylvia Rivera


Episode Summary
Transgender activist Sylvia Rivera is often compared to Rosa Parks. She became famous, in part, for participating in the Stonewall riots, and she spent her life campaigning bravely, stridently and vocally for the rights of gay and transgender people. Read the show notes here.


Listen here: http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3 ... rivera.mp3

[§ê¢rꆧ]

HUD proposed regulation forces homeless women and girls to bunk and bathe with men who claim to feel psychologically female: January 19 deadline for public comment

As a trans woman in poverty who faces the risk of homelessness, I am thankful for the HUD changes and feel a little more safer should the bottom fall out for me (I am currently unemployed and struggling to make ends meet). I can understand the fear cis women might feel as a result of these changes, but I urge everyone to feel some compassion for the very real violence trans women face being housed with men.

New HUD Rule Strengthens Protections for Trans People in Shelters

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey, released in 2011, found that nearly a third of those who attempted to access homeless shelters were denied access on the basis of their gender identity, and 42 percent were forced to stay in facilities designated for the wrong gender. Of those who stayed in a shelter, 22 percent reported being sexually assaulted there, and 47 percent reported having to leave a shelter because of harassment or assault. More...

[Sounder]

Thanks Heaven Swan for that 'Independent' article. Wow.

This is a point of evidence for the thesis that this current trans rights push is a divisive operation with no authentic concern for the actual lived experiences of trans folk. Why else would big media use such a clueless individual as a trans people spokesperson?

“When you get out of bed in the morning the most important thing you have to do all day is tell the world what your gender is, because from that, everything else flows. You may think that your job is to be an office supervisor or a stockbroker or police officer but these are all human constructs. Deep down your real job is to reproduce, and showing other humans your gender is the first step on that path.”

This paragraph gets 6000 trophies for THE DUMBEST PARAGRAPH EVAR!!! When I get out of bed in the morning, the most important thing I have to do all day is work for wages so I can have money to pay my rent and food. Never have I ever woken up and thought, “How can I express my gender today?” Normally I try not to express any gender, actually, because I hate gender. How daft to think that everything flows from my gender. What the fuck? And the icing on the fucked up cake is “your real job is to reproduce.” What??

Thank you Secrets for the reminder about other/your relation to this situation.

Unfortunately, as long as our normative conceptual models of reality treat the other as a threat, (rather than as essential co-creators in the unfolding of events), scapegoating and poor treatment of minorities will continue.

[Heaven Swan]

§ê¢rꆧ wrote-

As a trans woman in poverty who faces the risk of homelessness, I am thankful for the HUD changes and feel a little more safer should the bottom fall out for me (I am currently unemployed and struggling to make ends meet). I can understand the fear cis women might feel as a result of these changes, but I urge everyone to feel some compassion for the very real violence trans women face being housed with men.

A big problem is that maybe you and some other trans women may be wonderful and wouldn't hurt a flea but there are plenty of others who are violent and abusive plus other men who might throw on a wig and claim to be trans in order to enter women's bathrooms and shelters including domestic violence shelters. There is no real clear definition of who is trans, at this point anyone can claim it.

For example, the hulking (intact) trans woman that robbed and victimized my F to M friend is now in residence at a women's homeless shelter in our town. And Stephonknee, the (intact) 50 year old man who identifies as a 6 year old girl lived for a time in a woman's shelter in Toronto (while apparently owning a building).

And having a gender-neutral single stall bathroom is usually not good enough. When the single stall is offered the trans women balk and fight to be allowed into the women's rooms. Too tired to get the citation now but that is what I heard is happening in California, where a new law is being proposed that trans must have a third bathroom, but trans advocacy groups are demanding more i.e. breaking our boundaries and trying to set us back a century or so. The first wave feminists who fought for women's voting rights fought for women's public toilets as we were expected to stay home and didn't have them.