TanyaJLaird

Some bitches just love drama.

When people say things like hair plugs are gender-affirming care, they're really showing they don't get the concept. Gender-affirming care is just that - something that affirms your gender. Male-pattern baldness is a male secondary sex characteristic. Reversing it is anti-gender-affirming care, if anything. Nothing wrong with getting hair plugs if you want, but hair plugs are not gender-affirming care. They're just cosmetic surgery.

Breast reduction for cis men? That would be gender affirming. Breast enlargement for cis women? Also gender affirming.

If a cis person gets a treatment that reinforces the secondary sex characteristics of their natal sex, then that treatment is gender-affirming care. Not every cosmetic treatment is gender-affirming care.

Exactly. It's fun to joke, but people are reading the order way too literally. It doesn't say, "those who at conception can produce a large reproductive cell." It says something like, "those who at conception belong to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell." Any court will be able to see that the clear interpretation is that sex is defined by genetics and that anyone with XX chromosomes belongs to the female sex.

You can't produce reproductive cells at conception. But if you asked most people, they would still have no problem referring to the sex of a zygote or fetus. They would simply be operating off of the genetic definition of sex.

Yeah. Dating sits and social media sites need to be kept separate. If someone is in a poly or open relationship, more power to them. But the vast, vast majority of the population, including most trans people, don't have any interest in that sort of thing. And most people in monogamous relationships would see their partner being on a dating app to be a huge betrayal of trust and fidelity. To try and blur the line between dating apps and social media just seems like a terrible idea.

And even then, it goes beyond gender. Even the idea that you can't change your sex is laughable. "Sex," despite what some TERFs insist, is not traditionally or in practice today determined by DNA. We've learned that chromosomes play a primary factor in determining sex, but your sex isn't your DNA. A blueprint isn't a house; a house is a house. The blueprint just tells you how to build a house.

Physical sex is really about primary and secondary sex characteristics. If a trans woman undergoes SRS for example, her sex is literally female. She has the same anatomy as an infertile woman, or woman whose had a hysterectomy.

And this is the traditional way of defining sex. We referred to people's "sex" for generations prior to discovering DNA. And even today, we sex infants entirely based on their genitalia. Actual genetic screening is incredibly rare.

Bigots just latch onto "sex==genetics" because it allows them an easy cudgel. But in reality, if your primary and secondary sex characteristics are of a certain sex, you are that sex. Does the initial cellular blueprint indicate a different sex? Assuming you're not intersex, sure. But again, DNA is just a blueprint.

The example I always like is the house/boat example. Imagine you owned a wooden boat. That boat was made by a particularly prideful boat builder, and every plank of the boat is stamped, "Smith's shipbuilding co." One day you get tired of sailing the waves, so you take your boat, disassemble it, and use the planks to build a house. You now live in a house where every board is stamped "Smith's shipbuilding co."

Imagine the absurdity of someone coming to your home and telling you, "you live in a boat! Every board clearly labels this building as a boat. Therefore, you must live in a boat."

That is the fallacy of relying on genetics to define sex. Chromosomes are just the initial blueprints or the equivalent of the "Smith shipbuilding co." stamp.