Opinion Five lies TERFs tell about the trans community – debunked

Link (Archive)

Five lies TERFs tell about the trans community – debunked​

Sadly, there is still too much misinformation that targets trans and non-binary people in service of an anti-trans agenda.

Many of the arguments made to justify transphobia stem from either a misguided gut feeling about how humans are supposed to function, or conspiracy theories spawned from discredited studies or reports.

However they come about, no lie is bigger than the claim that trans people either don’t exist or aren’t valid.

We’ve debunked just a few of the myths that transphobes and TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) rely on when attempting to explain away the existence of trans and non-binary folks.

1. Autogynephilia​

Through the 1980s and 1990s, controversial American-Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard published a series of psychological papers on the typology of transsexualism that, to this day, is used by trans-exclusionary groups to define trans women as men.

In his research, Blanchard claimed that transgender women could be categorised as either “homosexual transexuals” – individuals who he claimed are attracted to men while presenting feminine – and “non-homosexual transsexuals” or “autogynephiles” – individuals who Blanchard claimed are sexually attracted to the idea of wearing feminine clothes.

Despite the research being widely dismissed – including by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) – as the flawed findings of a researcher who would later go on to tell VICE that he believed trans people should be defined by their biological sex alone, the terminology is still used by so-called ‘gender-critical’ groups across the world.

The false notion that social transition is a byproduct of sexual orientation or fantasies has been debunked multiple times, including by prominent biologist and activist Julia Serano who said the theory promotes “male-centric presumptions” about women and LGBTQ+ people.

In a report from July 2020, Serano noted that Blanchard never took cisgender women into account when conducting his research. Later studies would find that 93 per cent of cisgender female subjects had experienced fantasies consistent with Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia.

“Given that sexualisation is a tried-and-true tactic to dehumanise and socially exclude marginalised groups, it is unsurprising that social and religious conservatives – who routinely condemn women and LGBTQ+ people for their failure to conform to gender and sexual norms – increasingly invoke autogynephilia in their attempts to disparage transgender people,” Serano said.

2. Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)​

The Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)conspiracy theory was first introduced in 2016 after physician Lisa Littman hypothesized a “potential new subcategory” of gender dysphoria which arises through a nebulously defined ‘social contagion’.

The theory and the research it stemmed from were so discredited upon publication that Littman herself was forced to issue a corrective statement effectively admitting that ROGD should not be used as a formal mental health diagnosis.

Despite this, many gender-critical publications and groups use ROGD as justification for disregarding the needs of trans youth.

One of the biggest glaring issues with the research was that Littman had not interviewed any trans youth for a study about trans youth.

The research was purely built on the observations of parents who had been found through biased websites that suggest gender dysphoria or gender identity could be “socially contagious”.

Transgender academic and activist Florence Ashley has criticised and disregarded the findings, saying they came from parents who were “already encourage to view their children’s identities as false beliefs”.

“[The] biggest problem with the study is that Littman fails to consider alternative, more plausible explanations for her obervations,” Ashley wrote.

“One of the main findings of the study is that children’s mental health and parent-child relationships deteriorate after coming out. Littman interprets this as evidence of a new subgroup of trans adolescents for whom social and medican transition may not be indicated.

“However, parental acceptance of gender identity is a well-know predictor of mental wellbeing for transgender people and children who are not supported in their identities are unlikely to want to maintain a good relationship with their parents.”

3. ‘There are only two genders’​

Anti-LGBTQ+ bigots who use this argument usually do so under the guise of ‘basic biology’. They claim trans and non-binary people can’t possibly exist because even the most simplistic biology textbooks either say there are only two genders, or being transgender is never mentioned.

Proprioception is also rarely mentioned in school-grade biology textbooks about human senses, but it is a valid and true sense regardless.

People who use this argument tend to confuse the term gender – which is a social construct and always has been – with biological sex, which they believe is scientifically immutable.

But even this isn’t true. Not only do intersex people exist in nature, but species across the animal kingdom have shown signs of either changing between sexes or consisting of multiple sex distinctions. For some, it is even an innate part of their reproductive cycle!

One example of this is gynandromorphic stag beetles, which have both male and female sex characteristics. Since stag beetles have noticeable sexually dimorphic traits – the scale of different characteristics between two sexes – this can be abundantly clear when seeing one.

Humans, on the other hand, display relatively limited sexual dimorphism compared to other species, meaning that the distinction between male and female sex characteristics – characteristics, not gender – is significantly less pronounced.

Sexual dimorphism is also far more complicated than simply comparing characteristics between sexes, since, again, intersex people exist. It turns out biology might go a bit further than the school-grade biology textbooks anti-trans bigots constantly urge people to read.

4. Being trans is a phase​

Detransitioning is a tricky topic because of the reputation it has received for being used as a way to discriminate against trans people. Regardless of what anyone says, detransitioners are still valid, so long as they respect that being transgender is a real, legitimate thing.

That being said, detransitioners constitute such a small portion of those who apply for gender affirming care that, regardless of the validity of detransitioning, it should not be used to outright reject trans and non-binary people.

In the UK alone, a survey of more than 3,000 gender identity clinic applicants found that 0.47 per cent experienced transition-related regret and even fewer actually went on to detransition.

Statistics are less clear in the US, with anywhere from 2-8 per cent of respondents to a 2015 survey of 28,000 people saying they had detransitioned in some capacity.

What is clear, however, is that a whopping 62 per cent of respondents to that survey detransitioned not because their identity was a phase, but because of the maliciousness of transphobia.

Additionally, the idea that being trans is a phaseoften leans on the ‘social contagion’ conspiracy theory.

Anti-trans naysayers argue that children often pretend to be superheroes, but parents wouldn’t fuel the so-called ‘delusion’ that it was true. This, in itself, is a red flag since it is built on the idea that being trans is all just make-believe.

Trans youth care gender specialist Darlene Tando said in 2020 that much of the disbelief about the validity of being trans is because “cisgender people can’t really envision living life as a different gender”.

“They think if they tried they would ‘change their mind’ because it would not be authentic,” Tando said, “which is ironic if you think about the fact that all transgender people are really trying to do is be authentic.”

5. Trans people aren’t valid​

Yes, they are.

Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary people are valid.
 
Despite the research being widely dismissed – including by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)
Yeah and I am sure research on soda by coca-cola wouldn't lie to tell me that Soda is healthier than a veggie drink.

As for the list
1. true
2. true
3. true
4. true
5. true

Not seeing any lies here.
 
TRAs can't tell the difference between fact and opinion. Surprise, surprise!

No, they're not valid. Saying "yeah they are" with no proof is just an opinion, and a misinformed one at that.
 
x things people say about troons deboonked
X- "A true Fact"
This fact is untrue and has been deboonked by our troonology troons so that is FALSE
.
 
I'll never support TERFS. I could never support any organization that has the word "Radical feminists" in its name.
90% of the people being called TERFs aren’t actually Radical Feminists though. It’s just a buzzword thrown at people who question any part of Trans ideology. It’s like how “Nazi” or “Fascist” gets thrown around at anyone who criticizes the left.
 
There are only two genders, naturally. Humans produced via incest can have multiple genders due to their extremely damaged chromosomes trying to compensate for the damage fucking their grandfather/father/mother/aunt/ uncle/ sister/brother did to the gene pool. Surprisingly, fucking your cousin won't cause this defect, unless your cousin is also produced via incest, then you're just asking for XXXXYY children with webbed feet.
 
#5 isn't even a statement that can be debunked, because it's subjective and not objective. "trans people are valid" isn't a statement of fact, it's one of opinion. It's like saying "cats love it", or "jesus saves", or "that color looks nice."

1-4 are just cringe, avoiding reality sort of liberal song-n-dance.
 
Sexual dimorphism is also far more complicated than simply comparing characteristics between sexes, since, again, intersex people exist. It turns out biology might go a bit further than the school-grade biology textbooks anti-trans bigots constantly urge people to read.

Intersex people are less than .5% of all births. They’re exceedingly rare and shouldn’t be used as a marker for a ‘normal, healthy person’ insomuch as a baby born with a congenital heart condition is considered normal and healthy. True hermaphrodites aren’t found in mammalia at all.

That being said, detransitioners constitute such a small portion of those who apply for gender affirming care that, regardless of the validity of detransitioning, it should not be used to outright reject trans and non-binary people.

Weird how they’re willing to use intersex people as evidence of true trannies, but then go on to say 11% of ‘transwomen’ who regret their transition don’t fucking matter. Almost like they’ve got an agenda or something.

Trans youth care gender specialist Darlene Tando

That’s a lot of words, and not one of them ‘doctor’, for what is nothing more than a fucking therapist. You can check out this quack’s practice here. Her entire shtick is that she works with children and specializes in ‘affirming’ kids whose parents want them to be transgender for California Points or whatever. A majority of her practice appears to be comprised of troons, as well.

I wonder how many kids go to her practice (or telehealth, because this brave talk therapist is still afraid of the coof) without seeking ‘gender affirming care’ and then wind up being told they’re trans anyway by some dude in a dress wearing makeup.

That being said, this abomination’s pronouns are hilarious:

B66374D1-8A8A-4661-B7CE-664CE21CAEAD.jpeg


Lmao.
 
There are only two genders, naturally. Humans produced via incest can have multiple genders due to their extremely damaged chromosomes trying to compensate for the damage fucking their grandfather/father/mother/aunt/ uncle/ sister/brother did to the gene pool. Surprisingly, fucking your cousin won't cause this defect, unless your cousin is also produced via incest, then you're just asking for XXXXYY children with webbed feet.
OK THAT one trigger me ngl.

Human sex determination scheme is XX / XY. XX individuals will make gametes all with sex-determining chromosome X, XY individuals are going to make gametes that are either X or Y. Fucking this up through a nondysjunction event doesn't invalidate the sex determination system, it just means you have some poor unfortunate cripples with aneuploidy disorders.
Also, most intersex people still have either an XX or XY genotype, because a lot of intersex disorders involve androgen insensitivity, constitutive activation, or some other downstream problem.

I'm going to kill them for mangling Biology like this one day I swear.
 
I wasn't any kind of "radical feminist" when I got called a TERF and SWERF the first time.

These are not radical ideas:

1) You can't change your sex by wishing it so.
2) Prostitution is morally degrading and physically risky for both participants and should be opposed, not celebrated.
3) Pornography is bad for everyone involved, from the "actors" to the consumers (and is even worse for women than men, because of disparities in how sexual acts impact women's bodies vs. men's).

These are opinions that would be at home in your grandmother's kitchen, as long as she was willing to talk about these topics at all. Any normal, working, salt-of-the-earth human from anywhere on the planet would be likelier than not to agree with all three of these statements.

Now of course, some of the people who believe in them are super-feminists. But a much larger chunk are just normies. Regular people. Remember those? They do still exist but they're not terminally online so you won't find them on Twitter.

Calling these opinions "radical" was a masterstroke for the trans movement, for two reasons. First, once something's called radical, you assume there must be some radical ideas behind it. When the troons say "they want to exterminate us, that's what's radical about it," normies go "doesn't sound like me, I don't want to be involved with that.

Second, when women got called TERF, a lot of them thought the only place you could find a home for your opinions was by becoming part of a group of radical feminists. These groups are inevitably full of backbiting and infighting and man-hatred that sucks a lot of people in who started out as normies but thought that they had to radicalize because objective truth now put you into a radical group.

Both these successes for the trans movement have resulted in discrediting of some of the most fundamental, basic, normal opinions of normal people on these cultural topics. It'd be brilliant if it was intentional, but I think describing these beliefs as "radical" was just basic projection, engaged in on a near-unconscious basis.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo