none of these transphobic losers who use autism to attack trans people even gives a flip about autistic people
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
95 points (95.2% liked)
Fediverse
32349 readers
573 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
none of these transphobic losers who use autism to attack trans people even gives a flip about people
Ftfy
Sex isn’t a “gender orientation” it is really simple biology.
Gamete size – its really simple.
Congratulations infertile people, you are now officially sexless.
That is usually how males and females of a species are differentiated in general: males have the small gamete and females have the large one. (As you said, some individuals may not produce gametes so it only applies in general).
Of course humans are a lot more complicated. We have a concept of gender which doesn't necessarily align with biological sex, and many people modify their sex characteristics to match their gender, so applying generalizations blindly gets you nowhere.
Indeed, just as gender is a spectrum so is sex. I love when someone says "Its basic biology" because the best response is "and this is intermediate biology".
With all due respect, sex is not a spectrum.
It's a clearly a binary. Yes, there are many exceptions and edge cases, but they are all based around a universal binary biological structure.
You don't have say three distinct sexes required for reproduction outside of sci-fi. It is a binary with some edge cases and variations in how exactly the two parts of the binary interact.
It is a binary with some edge cases
So in other words, not a binary? What you're describing is more accurately described as a bimodal distribution.
It's far closer to a binary distribution than a bi-modal distribution. You can be pedantic, but that's not a real arguement. I admitted there are edge cases.
This is not tied to pure outcomes and is derived from actual earth bio-chemistry.
There is no triple helix or quadruple helix as a foundational system of genetic bio-chemical reproduction.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
I admitted there are edge cases.
Then it's not binary.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
Absolutely. For day to day life, "there are two outcomes" is safe way to describe coin flips. But given that a coin landing on its side can happen, it's not a binary system. It only becomes binary when we ignore the edge cases. Just like sex...
And that's before we get to the point that there isn't even a single definition of sex that accounts for all scenarios. People can change their legal sex, people can change their morphological sex, "genetic sex" isn't foolproof, as it doesn't always correlate with morphological sexual characteristics, or even gamete production.
Calling sex binary is either a generalisation, or something you want to be true. At no point is it reality of the situation though...
I strongly disagree. I am only happy for people to be the best version of themselves and to feel comfortable in their skin.
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
I already mentioned that there are edge cases. Edge cases do not discredit foundational frameworks that define reality.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework. This has been true for hundreds of millions of years. There is no such things as a triple helix or quadruple helix in terms of reproduction. Even trees and plants have a binary sex.
You claim that this is something I want to be true. I would argue the same (on a vice versa basis) for you and that you're framing the discussion using irrelevant examples (how is a morphological change in sex even relevant to what we are discussing).
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
Of course they're relevant. Sex being immutable, easy to define and binary is at the core of the tactics that transphobes use to exclude and legislate against trans folk.
So the fact that it's not easy to define, has multiple definitions in different contexts, and has no single definition that works in all instances is very relevant.
You talked about "genetic bio-chemical reproduction" earlier. There are women who have literally given birth, who have XY chromosomes. Similarly, there are XX men with SRY genes. Using your "genetic sex is the truth" approach, they are both folks with a different genetic sex to their physical and legal sex. A transphobe would catch those people and throw them under the bus too whilst they target trans people.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework
Yep. I'll agree with that. But the framework it is built on is not the end result. There is no meaning or intent behind the framework. There is nothing about it that is more "real".
The real part isn't the genetic plan that was used to create someone. The real part is the body they're actually walking around in.
To you, this is all an interesting argument. You're arguing about things in black and white, because none of it actually matters to you. So you can argue for how you think things should work.
The very same arguments you are using are being weaponised and turned against gender diverse folk and intersex folk. Your re-use of them, arguing about some sort of ideal that exists only in your head isn't harmless. The fact that sex is nuanced, that gender is nuanced, that they both have multiple, contradicting definitions, and neither have a single definition that is more true than the others is incredibly important, because the only reason to ignore that is either to hurt people, or because you're so far removed from the reality of what's happening, that you place a higher priority on things being neat and tidy than on the people that false belief hurts.
Let me take a step back for a second.
We are not discussing the strategies used by the far right to demonize trans folk (or anyone else). We are discussing something completely different that has no bearing on the strategies used by the far right. What will me moving away from what you call "my ideal" change in this world?
Let's say we have some deus ex machina method to close the discussion around the nature of sex and make everyone believe that sex is a spectrum.
Do you really think this will magically get rid of transphobia? I would even go as far as saying a lot of the people who claim to be concerned about "trans issues" don't actually care about them and they are simply being led by oligarch propaganda. And oligarch propaganda will leverage anything that they think will have an impact.
So how will me rejecting my understanding of genetic bio-chemical reproduction (as is proven by hundreds of millions of years of life on earth and the a reproductive framework that span millions of species) change anything?
Do you see what I am getting at?
I feel like you are conflating "the different combinations of directly reproduction-related traits which can occur in species which have sexes" and "the kinds of viable gametes which exist in creatures that have sexes".
It seems like your definition of the sex framework is based on "the kinds of viable gametes of creatures which have sexes" (I do think this is a binary, let's call this X), while other people are arguing for a definition more like "the combinations of traits in these creatures of which certain combinations are directly responsible for the creation of viable gametes" (there are more than two of these, and it's not clear how to enumerate them).
That said, I might be wrong about what you are arguing and what other people are arguing. I'm sorry if I've wasted your time in some way.
Also (a pedantic complaint) you said these things:
they are all based around a universal binary biological structure
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework
There are multiple species of terrestrial fungi which use "mating systems" which aren't sex-based and aren't necessarily binary.
Again, I'm sorry if I've wasted your time in some way.
We are not discussing the strategies used by the far right to demonize trans folk (or anyone else). We are discussing something completely different that has no bearing on the strategies used by the far right.
Yes we are. The only reason these discussions come up in the first place is because of that.
You thinking that this has nothing to do with the far right doesn't make it so. Normalising the idea that sex is black and white, and conversations about that only occur in a wide spread way because there is political reward in presenting things that way. 10 years ago you weren't having these discussions. Today, you are, because the politics of transphobia has made it happen.
You are the one who claimed that I was diverting in to irrelevancy. I bring up the political context, because it's not irrelevant.
This whole conversation, the thread you are talking in, exists, because a transphobe was using the same talking points you are arguing for, to normalise transphobia. You doing it, also normalises transphobia, whether that is your intent or not.
You want a sex binary to exist. It doesn't, unless you smooth away the edges and ignore some of the data and the lived realities of people. Evolutionary biologists don't share your perspective. Geneticists don't share your perspective. This whole conversation exists for political reasons, designed to push exclusion. In a topic about a person using these exact talking points to push for exclusion, you have arrived, repeated the talking points, and then tried to argue that actually, it's ok, because your perspective is correct, so long as we ignore some of the details.
Which is exactly what the next transphobe will do too.
Even if you don't agree with me, and to you, this is all about the purity of ideas, your choice of getting involved in this discussion, in this context, isn't removed from reality. It's not detached. It's actively empowering the exclusionary voices by talking over and fighting with the people pushing back against that exclusion. That's a choice you made that has nothing to do with the truth of your idea
Stop confusing young autistic vulnerable people.
— Date Unknown
I'm old and autistic and not confused by the fact trans women are women. Hope that helps.
I don't understand why people don't keep such comments to their anonymous, unofficial accounts. You can hold such views in private and still treat people with respect, but saying these things officially changes everything. The co-organiser is in a space where she should know better. She then even doubled down
When asked whether she still held her more problematic views in a follow-up comment, Young responded ambiguously with “I fully stand by the statement you are commenting on.”
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
I agree but also very unlikely it would make a difference if they were only sharing from their personal account.
Would you if it's something you care about and want to be vocal about? I'd rather know that she's full of shit and now out of the whole thing than supporting someone who spews against trans people on a secret identity.
Would you if it's something you care about
Did you forget a word?
I'm having trouble with the rest of your post too. Autocorrect must've struck or something.
Sorry, English is not my first language, bit I thought the post is somewhat clear?
I didn't forget a word, maybe a comma - in the given context, the meaning is "Would you keep your opinion for yourself if it's something you care about?" as the post I replied to suggested exactly that.
No worries, as a European, English isn't my first language either :P
And as a response: if my job depended on being on the "right side of things" I wouldn't make such controversial statements. Not only is it dumb in the moment, but also for the future. People are very polarised and even if she had changed her mind by now, there'd still be outrage "omg, look at what she said years ago! I don't trust that she changed!". Of course she supposedly doubled down, which is even dumber IMO, but you get the point.
I use this anonymous account because what the opinions I express here will probably evolve and I don't want any future employer putting me into a box due to a comment made in jest, rage, or whatever. Revealing your identity online for anything other than business is just asking for trouble.
In pshych 101 they teach that sex and gender are two different things.
That's great. Since when and does everybody take psych 101?
And just to give a wider perspective (regardless of her origins), not every language makes the distinction and some up until recently did not. Look at the translations on (wiktionary). Many of them are transliterations of the English word. Which is not a surprise since the concept of gender is quite recent (1950-1960s) and was most likely very US-centric.
We didn't make a distinction in english until about ten? years ago. Most people used the terms interchangeably. That's part of why people got so pissed off about the whole thing. Suddenly they were being screamed at by a militant tumbler user for using the wrong word when they were using it that way their whole life.
I'm a bit confused about this, isn't the whole lgbtq movement advocating for the distinction between terms "sex" and "gender" exactly the same way as those quotes do? Or do lgbtq people advocate for equating "sex" to "gender"? Honestly, this whole thing is always a huge mindfuck to try to comprehend.
Posting from another thread:
Her comments cover everything from “trans women are mostly autistic boys who have been gaslit” to “there are only two sexes” to “trans people are unfit to play in their gender’s sport.” However, there are far worse comments floating around out there that talk about genital mutilation and all kinds of other heinous shit.
It wasn't just "I have a different opinion, we can agree to disagree", it was full-fledged unhinged stuff that all followed the TERF playbook.
I was a bit confused too, but OPs answer to your comment clarified it quite well.
And after thinking a bit on it, and from my very basic knowledge of lgbt movment, here's what i think they advocate for (pls correct me if i say bs) : sex and gender are indeed different, they aee not necessarily connected and both are spectrums rather than binary options. This means you could have a lot of options between what sex you are (male/female/intersex), what gender you are (a lot of options) and what gender you were assigned at birth (generally either male or female). Some trans people need their "physical" sex identity to match their gender, other don't.
The problem in this case seems to me that she advocates for a strict binary conception of sex identity and that she pushed for it to be more important than gender in social situations such as sport. Part of the confusion also comes from the fact that she acknowledges parts of what the lgbt movment fights for but she fights against the rest, which happens frequently in TERF rethorics afaik
Yup pretty much. It's... complicated if you really dive into it. I'm saying this as a trans person - there are biological differences between people. In literally everyone, though - it's not just a sex thing. No two males, females, intersex, or otherwise are alike biologically. Everyone's biological stats are different. Even twins are different.
These categories exist in science to easily communicate basic ideas based on medical observations. But once you get to the nitty-gritty of a person's personal medical history it's really hard to categorize certain things. You can have "true" females with more male hormones than "true" males and vice-versa. You can be born without any sex organs and still develop into an adult.
Bodies are weird. Medical science is very complicated and interesting. We really don't know what we're doing still or how a lot of our biology operates. Can you attribute someone's sports prowess to their hormones? Maybe? I don't know. I don't think it matters in the grand scheme of things. I think someone's determination to do something is a bigger indicator of how well they'll do in the end.
Nothing's certain in science. Disproving something is easy. Proving things is a lot harder lol.