View Single Post
  #106  
Old 05-11-2019, 08:26 AM
RingsOfPylon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 139
Oh, lordy. Leave it to a bunch of mostly bio males to tell us what it means to be a woman and who should be unquestioningly accepted as a female, how they should be accepted, and how ciswomen should feel about it (or shamed into it).

It is not unreasonable to assume that a biological male may have advantages that result from their male physiology. There haven't been a lot of convincing studies either way about whether hormone therapy mitigates all of those differences, and most people who claim that there are definitive studies usually cherry-pick those that support their own biases. I've encountered some conflicting studies when trying to satisfy my own curiosity on the topic.

There are good studies on brain differences between males and females, but not a lot yet on whether or not those differences hold true with people who are transgender. On the other hand, there's not a huge population of transgender people available for comparisons, so I expect things to be murky for time being.

Until a body of fairly convincing studies are put together, we will have to believe our lying eyes. It does seem that some noticeably masculine-looking women are running away (heh) with a number of titles when competing against supposedly talented ciswomen. And, they seem to win consistently and overwhelmingly. Coincidence?

Why shouldn't ciswomen be cynical about it?

RadFems are crazy, but they do have a point there. Just how much accommodation has to be made? And, do we accommodate and compromise ourselves to the point where we no longer have these venues or to where they simply become meaningless venues meant to showcase the talents of former males who couldn't cut it in the male venues?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but why is it always women who have to make these big accommodations and sacrifices?

How much disdain do you have to have for ciswomen to demand compliance based on something that is counterintuitive to them and flies in the face of their experiences? Is that what you really think of ciswomen when they voice reservations and concerns?

The thing that makes it difficult for ciswomen is the very thing that is also their strength in forming alliances with other women. Women have their own culture, in a manner of speaking, and a lot of that is predicated on biology and our shared experiences in those uniquely female biological processes - menstruation, child-bearing and child-rearing, peri-menopause, menopause - and we rely on the understanding and experiences of other women when it comes to these topics. To varying degrees, we share a lot of life phases with most other ciswomen. We consult with each other about personal experiences, ask for advice, and share information about our concerns with regard to these things. We take a measure of comfort from other women's experiences and the equally important commiseration with each other.


Maybe it's a metaphorical menstruation hut of sorts, and maybe people view menstruation huts as bad things, but they might be missing some observations. They provide an opportunity to get away, maybe form alliances with other women without male interference, and to simply take care of yourself out of the sight of male judgment. Even more so when you have difficult and painful menstrual periods. You don't feel especially loving and social when uterine contractions and very disruptive hormonal swings take over your body. You don't feel social when, every time you stand up, blood and tissue come gushing out from between your legs and make yet another mess. There is nothing pleasant and engaging about that at all.

In other words, we bond with other women due to the things we know about each other based on our shared physicality. Women are more trusting of other women. Surprise! We're playing an odds game and it generally works out better for us that way. You can't completely eliminate risk, but a woman will generally feel more comfortable with a strange woman than a strange man.

Which leads to the bathroom/locker room thing. While it is ostensibly about safety, because no 5 foot tall woman feels completely at ease if the person sharing their facilities during undress and/or toileting is a tall, broad-shouldered, intimidating stranger, I really think it is about the sex-segregated privacy that you are expecting when you use a specifically-marked facility. Maybe sex segregation and safety are intertwined, but they could probably be considered somewhat separate concerns in a way.

I want sex segregated privacy for personal things when it is available. If you indicate that a facility is sex-segregated, that's what I expect to get. Otherwise, I'm being asked to trust based on absolutely nothing at all. In case no one has noticed previously, trusting others with male anatomy hasn't always worked out well for women.

If I would hesitate to get into a personal vehicle alone with someone who gives off a male vibe, or if I had to think twice about walking alone down a a sidewalk where a male-like person was the only other person in the area, why would I want to share a disrobing event in their presence?