The big question here that seems to not fully be addressed is whether or not full SRS is the major decision point when defined as "women".
Printable View
The big question here that seems to not fully be addressed is whether or not full SRS is the major decision point when defined as "women".
The big question here seems to be what exactly is your view on the issue. Are you suggesting that trans should be treated as men only if they have had SRS?
What I meant to sayQuote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
It has been addressed, by me, in another thread, as the difference between clinical and social definitions of Gender. For one of my friends who had SRS on the NHS a few years, surgery was without doubt the milestone that she regarded as essential to her definition as a woman -but the crucial act that completed her transition was registering for, and getting a new Passport identifying her as Female.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
At one time, SRS was absolutely crucial to the process of transition. In more recent years, the binary division which all of the M2F people I have known rigidly believe in, has blurred. F2M Trans people can retain their womb and thus insist they are at the time it happens, a 'Pregnant Man' begging the question -can a man have a womb? Or, Can a woman have a prostate gland?
If you take the social or cultural view that now prevails, there are no binary genders, and no reason to cling to an either/or approach, and this certainly allows people who do not wish to be identified as Male or Female 'a seat at the table' as it were, only equal rights for citizens now appear to be less than universal if the state does not recognize self-identification as valid in law.
Thus we have arrived at the position we are in: who identifies what Gender is? And, should it be the choice of the individual, or the choice of the State? And is it not curious how the formerly libertarian small-state ideologues like Trump and De Santis suddenly discover the State when it suits their agenda? And go further to argue the State should intervene in family life to impose its views, which they claim are based on the holy trinity of 'God, Family and Country'.
What happens when individuals escape the 'Prison-house of language'? Are they then free?