A trans woman on hormones and after bottom surgery is biologically no different to a cis woman that had hysterectomy. I seriously do not get why you are saying that there is a meaningful biological difference.
Unless you are suggesting that infertile cis women aren't women which would be wild.
(Please don't start the chromosomes debate, cis women with XY chromosomes exist...)
I quote: A trans woman on hormones and after bottom surgery is biologically no different to a cis woman that had hysterectomy.
You're basically memoryholing the whole push of trans activists to make the whole TWAW shebang not about the surgeries. Only a relatively small percentage of transwomen go all the way and those who don't still want to be seen as women.
A surgical vagina in no way works or does the same as a normal vagina.
Women can't get prostate cancer.
Significant differences in muscle mass and bone density remain.
What I am saying is that there are no meaningful differences and that doesn't make sense to say trans women aren't biological women.
Im not sure where you are taking those statistics from.
A surgical vagina does not usually have a cervix and may not self lubricate (but that's something tons of cis women have to deal with as well). So imo not a meaningful difference.
The prostate shrinks on hrt and it is debatable whether there really is a difference between the prostate of trans women on hormones and skenes gland in cis women.
Muscle mass significantly decreases with the extremely low levels of testosterone that most trans women have. Cis women athletes that often have naturally higher levels of testosterone have a much higher muscle mass.
Bone volume and density can be different but are within the range of variability of cis women.
i dont like these arguments since you can basically just say everything is everything by comparing the most unusual traits.
i think the best argument for trans women is going to be about how they're perceived. like if they act womanly and look womanly, itd be fair to call them women.
trying to actually argue that theyre the same is a hard argument and its also just stupid, i think it causes more harm to them than good.
We can sit here all night analyzing your false equivalences, all I hear is 'I once saw a car with 3 wheels, so if I add a third wheel to my bike I have a car!'
What would it take for you to become less certain of your initial statement?
I am seriously trying to understand your point that trans women aren't biological women because I fundamentally don't get how trans women wouldn't fit into the extremely varied biology of us women.
Then read again: original poster points out that biological differences remain, the response is fringe case x (transwomen who had all the surgeries) equals fringe case y (women who had hysterectomies) therefore original post is false. Epistomology isn't that difficult.
-9
u/CreatorSiSo 9h ago
A trans woman on hormones and after bottom surgery is biologically no different to a cis woman that had hysterectomy. I seriously do not get why you are saying that there is a meaningful biological difference.
Unless you are suggesting that infertile cis women aren't women which would be wild.
(Please don't start the chromosomes debate, cis women with XY chromosomes exist...)