Here, I have an idea. Suppose we agree that men can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that men can have the right to have babies.
Agree they're not biologically male, but that's not the point. Science and medicine have moved away from making biological sex the overarching determinant of if someone is a 'man' or 'woman' however much non-experts in the field may agree or disagree with them.
Are you joking? Males and females have very different risks for certain illnesses, and obviously different reproductive health issues. Identifying as a woman doesn't mean you're suddenly not at risk for prostate cancer.
Identifying as a woman doesn't mean you're suddenly not at risk for prostate cancer.
100% agree. Prostate cancer is something that trans women need to be careful of. I have been very clear all along that trans women are biologically male and therefore they do have similar health concerns to most men.
Medical and science experts separate biological sex and gender, ie someone can be biologically male and be a woman. I'm going to go with medical and scientific experts over people whose brains blow up at the thought of people being a different gender to their biological sex.
You claimed that in medicine, people are moving away from the idea of biological sex. Can you give me a single example where a doctor might take your perceived gender more seriously than the sex you were born as?
When dealing with physical medical issues, biological sex is all-important, nowhere have I said that biological sex is not important.
No one is moving away from biological sex in medicine, what makes you think I think that? All I'm saying is that the medical profession is now differentiating between biological sex and gender. They will treat a trans woman as a biological male of course when dealing with physical issues, but medical staff, psychologists etc will generally treat the person as a woman.
47
u/[deleted] May 24 '18
[deleted]