Do you consider women that used to be men as women?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you consider women that used to be men as women?
Assuming that they look, sound, act 100% female and have female genitalia.

Yes, because they are women.

G.

Yes.

This.

Also, I consider a women to be anyone who considers them self to a woman, regardless of genitalia, voice, etc. etc. I think that doing otherwise is profoundly disrespectful.

Personally, I hate the idea that transgender people are one gender, then transition to the other.
The definition of transition is arbitrary. People just are how they identify.

Biological markers aren't even binary. For example, a person with complete androgen insensitivity, has a Y chromosome, but a female body. Does that make them Male or Female? All that matters is how people identify themselves.

Yes, even if they haven't transitioned. If they see regard themselves to be female then I will also think of them as female.

Yes of course. Anyone who identifies as female is a woman as far as I am concerned.

If someone identifies herself to me as female I treat her as female. And vice versa.

Their genitalia (mentioned in OP) are none of my business.

How someone self-identifies is what counts.

I strongly disagree with this. If somebody identifies as Napoleon, it doesn't mean they're right. If simply identifying as the other sex makes you trans, then the strandards of care for transition wouldn't exist. Because sometimes people are wrong about who they are and they end up regretting transition.

If they look, sound, and have the body parts like a woman then I see them as women. It's like that saying "if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck..." Too bad so many people think otherwise even when that person was completely miserable and suicidal before their change.

Gender is a socio-cultural construction, sex is biological. Sexuality is on a spectrum - either pole or any point in between.

Personally, if a 6'5" 275 lb baritone woodcutter said 'he' was 'she', I'd try to remember that that person identifies as 'she'. It matters not to me. Definitely if someone is transgendered, it is just another part of one human's story - and female body parts just help to remember the 'she' part - identifiable 'markers', as it were. I was young and now I am middle aged. We all change. Life is too short to worry. Short of the long: yes.

LM

There's a difference (a vast one) between identifying as an historical figure and identifying as male or female, and I'm not performing surgery on them, I'm treating them as human beings who have a right to tell me who they are rather than have me tell them who they are. Maybe they're wrong. That doesn't mean they have no right to live as they choose, as regards identifying as one gender or the other. I'm basically applying the Golden Rule. That's all. I don't pretend to be a psychiatrist.

Amen

Yes, and also it is plausible that a person's brain could be wired in a cross-sex/gendered way. OTOH, the odds that a person has their brain wired to match that of a historical figure makes no sense and is effectively zero.

I konw that identifying as a certain gender is very different from identifying as an historical person. What I'm saying is: identifying as something doesn't automatically make you what you identify as. I do believe trans people exist and should be allowed to live as they please, but what makes them trans is how their brains is wired, not what their identity is.

I do.
Besides, many transexuals born male have XX chromosomes, and vice versa. A certain type of hormone unbalance in the womb, can cause the growth of male genitals, instead of female ones, and vice versa.