Female trans prisoner forced to live and shower with men in North Carolina - Sensationalist Headlines

Transsexual is an outdated term that the medical community at large has moved away from, not just trans- people. SRS is also starting to be switched to GAS as well, like you mentioned. It isn't so much 'repressing' as it is trying to be acknowledged as being the person you are (and have always been). You wouldn't call a married woman by her maiden name if she chose to adopt her partners name, correct? It is much less about being at peace with your past, and wanting to be properly recognized and not dismissed. This would be like telling a wartime veteran with PTSD to not get triggered when they hear a loud bang similar to a gunshot. As an aside, the people who generally bring up a person's deadname are the exact kind of people who do use it maliciously.

As someone that is a relative Facepunch newbie, I must ask why transphobia was ever considered 'acceptable' by any regard.

Because we were all stupid kids then.

That seems more like an excuse than a valid reason, but I get your point.

That didn't make it okay. But we were younger and the landscape of the internet was so different then. What we are as a community today is so much better than what we were.

Nothing makes sense anymore.

On the 'chromosomes' topic.. what does it matter exactly if it's not technically a sex change? At the end of the day it's about individuals who want to be happy, and recognizing what they'd prefer to be seen as seems pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things. Life is too short to get hung up on rather trivial details like that when there's plenty of other things in the world to worry about. Might as well be a good sport about it.

Because the mods were far more likely to ban someone for getting frustrated by transphobes than they were to take actions against the transphobes even when they were very blatantly trolling. They didn't really care at the time and some of them on occasion even took part in raiding the CD/TG thread to shit it up, later giving some bullshit excuse about "just being linked the thread by someone on Steam" or some garbage like that.

In this case isn't using her birth name more to show that the state still refers to her by birth name? Is that really that bad? Off-topic but does this happen any time someone mentions it? Even if they're specifically referring to your past and in no way saying it is who you are now?

Absolutely. Why would I want to remember being male? Besides, I was female then, just not presenting it properly. Again, with my example of a person changing their last name with marriage, would you change their name if you were referring to them before it?

I think it'd be better if the article stated that the state still uses her birth name, but didn't specify her actual birth name. That's not pleasant at all, but I won't speak up about it if someone does that. Referring to me specifically with my birth name is different and much worse.

So, women who carry male chromosomes and have non functioning reproductive parts are not female? Got it, thanks!

That is frustrating. Transgender and transsexual are two different things with important differences. Gender and sexuality are not, in any capacity, interchangable terms and using them as such is actively damaging to the lgbtq community. It creates further confusion when trying to explain these terms to people. It also doesn't feel fair to the transgender people who have no interest in becoming transsexual.

The medical community has never seen reason to consider them distinct from one another. They both essentially describe the same condition to varying degrees, but transsexual bears some negative associations and meanings (see:porn, prostitution, historical context of negative use). There is a reason why post-op, pre-op, and non-op are the preferred methods of distinction: they don't confuse the matter. Transgender and transsexual were interchangeable, which bears some issues with medicine because being able to readily identify between them is important for the welfare of a patient. No one is saying that gender and sexuality are interchangeable. I am also going to go on a leap here and assume you meant to say that gender and sex aren't interchangeable. But I very strongly believe that abandoning transsexual in favor of pre/post/non-op is much more easily understood and accurately descriptive.

Didn't some lady with those exact conditions sue texas because they tried to do just that?

Having genital surgery changes literally nothing about your trans status, dude.

Except you can be transgender with no intent of changing your sex. Transgender is it own distinct identity. It is why the DSM doesn't mark transgender as a mental disorder. It only becomes gender dysphoria if it makes them unhappy. Which is in turn where gender affirming surgery (sometimes) enters the picture.

I don't think you understand. Getting genital surgery doesn't make one transsexual. That's still transgender. Genital surgery doesn't really change your sex, anyway.

So are post menopause women not women then? What about people with chromosomal disorders like Klinefelters? Since when has "functional genitalia" been a qualifier for sex? It simply astounds me that people like you tout your arguments as being "scientific" when you lack any understanding of the actual science.

this is a literal nightmare scenario for me, reading this kept me up last night ^_^

People get cosmetic surgeries for things which psychologically distress them as well. Example:male gynecomastia removal surgery. All i am saying is there is no way to truly change sex via surgery currently unless we are redefining what the term sex means.

but why are you saying it, i don't think anyone disagrees with this, not to mention all the other stuff in your posts

You can go back a page and see where this started, but it seems many disagree

While I don't disagree with the fundamentals of what you are saying, you could try being less of a cunt with the way you word your opinions.

Sowwy

Why exactly are you restating the obvious as if it was some startling insight into the trans condition? No shit transwomen are infertile. Dilators are not actually a daily requirement either to my knowledge, and said "wound" does in fact work stunningly like an "real" vagina during sexual intercourse (other than the lack of self lubrication). I'm not currently aware of any "wounds" that can be stimulated into orgasm. Calling it a wound is a stupid reductionist statement, its like saying "humans are bags of meat and water". What exactly is your goal in this discourse? To "dispense the facts"?

Yeah and next time you interact with someone;s gender based on your ascertainment of their fucking chromosomes and not their 'cosmetic' experience get back to us. Or not.

Again to call SRS a "cosmetic surgery" is incorrect. SRS does in fact make a sexually functional orifice, which means that it is far from being purely cosmetic.

Tbh i didnt expect to reply this many times in this thread it was originally going to be a one and done response to the guy i originally responded to. No goal in particular. Im hungry.

Tbh what you said is factually wrong. Hell to go into more detail, the "normal female vagina"'s only purpose is in fact sex (and obviously part of the birth canal, but if you define that as essential functionality it would mean that sterile women do not have "real vaginas". Which means that, barring self lubrication, "fake vaginas" actually do carry out the same essential functionality. The actual reproductive bits that create a baby are further inside of a woman. Do you think babies are carried to term inside a womans vaginal cavity???