@freemo I guess that's the divide between the "liberal" wing of transphobia and the conservative wing. They're down for the first but not two and three.
Im not sure i have any experience with the "liberal wing of transphobia""... Ive seen plenty of vile toxic behavior from liberals, but hating on someone for not looking feminine enough is not something I've personally witnessed from the liberal community in any proportion.
Do you have an example maybe of what you mean?
@freemo What I meant is they don't think trans women are women, but muscular and tomboy cis women are women. It comes down to how one thinks about gender and what one even thinks it is.
Ahh ok. I have not personally met a liberal type who wouldnt admit that a trans-womans **gender** is that of a woman. They might rightfully point out that sex and gender are different, if saying so is relevant to the conversation. But generally recognize them as gendered as women.
That said I dont want to minimize your experiences. If you met many liberals who treat trans-women that way that is very much ashame.
One could argue you can change your sex from whatever it is to intersex, but never to one of the actual sexes. Typically sex is defined as a combination of features include: Genetics, sexual characteristics, hormones, etc. When all your characteristics line up with one sex or the other, thats the sex you are. You can change some but not all of those properties and thus when you do have mixed characteristics and would effectively more like an intersexed person at that point, albeit through artificial means.
That said the important part here is actually about how you treat someone, not what they "are" in a semantic definition. We agree on the most important part is that GENDER and not sex is what dictates our language and how we treat someone. Typically in language we mean gender, as we should, and not sex. Sex really only applies in medical contexts.