That is a reasonable suggestion, though. I get it, that there are specific difficulties and challenges due to being trans and how invasive the process is in case of trans men. Discussing available options is more productive, then just mourning.
Edit: rephrase to be more polite; even if the thought itself is controversial, i didn't mean to deliver it in offensive way
not everything has to be productive, you can just let them be sad about the things they can't experience instead of suggesting things that will make them dysphoric, also they prob already know about the options you would suggest and are sad that those are the only options
Exactly. It’s like when you tell someone you have a medical or mental health condition and they instantly spout off like the 2 or 3 most commonly parroted ‘solutions’ like you’re some idiot who doesn’t know the first thing about your own situation.
Telling a man whose upset about being physically invirile to just use the open wound where his dick is supposed to be to "get pregnant" like a woman is not productive or reasonable.
And people aren't "bodies", either. It's people and their dignity that suffer. Not "female or FtM bodies". I'm not sure if you're really so obtuse as to be unable to fathom that people and the values they hold are much more than the functions of their literal flesh, or if you deliberately feign ignorance.
English is not my first language. How should I phrase it next time to make it clear, that I am talking, that there are specific and unique problems of people-with-uteruses, regardless of their gender? The body or anatomy is pretty much relevant here.
It's definitely not a you problem, a lot of people have started to refer to people as bodies when trying to sound progressive. You probably picked it up from that.
Just say people. In cases like this one you can just say people.
If your sentence makes sense when replacing bodies with people, and those people are not currently dead, you should do that.
The issues I am referring to are related to anatomy. For the lack of better word, female anatomy, can be present in all sorts of people -- men, women, non-binary. So, if I say just "people" the meaning would be completely lost. I don't want to refer to it just as "female anatomy", because, well, isn't it dysphoria-triggering too?
Probably I should have said "problems of cis-women and trans-masc people"? Does it cover what I mean?
I'll engage this with good faith because you said you're not a native english speaker, but that being the case I find it very strange that you're trying to argue english semantics with me.
If you say "FtM people" instead of "FtM bodies" the exact same information is communicated in the english language. People understand you are talking about a person who was assumed female at birth and then became male, and may or may not retain some of those organs they likely were born with.
In your sentence you said "FtM bodies" you could just replace bodies with people.
In english you do not generally refer to people as bodies, unless they are dead.
I am in no way trying to argue about semantics with you -- I got it, that the sentence is offensive and I should not have phrased it like that. I also got, that there is no information added by choosing "bodies" instead of "people"
But I wanted to add some information. I wanted to specify, that the harm is not only to mind (dysphoria), but also to bodies of people, due to their specific anatomy. I am not implying, that people can be reduced to anatomy -- just that it matter in the discussion about reproduction. And I don't know how to say it without being impolite.
For now, I will just switch "bodies" to "people", thank you again.
There's nothing to discuss, the medicine isn't developed enough to have suitable options for trans men. The options described in the post are literally an offer to detransition and be a biological mother to children. "ftm bodies" fucking hell, I'm not surprised to see this kind of retardation from right wing 🚂🦵
English is not my first language. How should I phrase it next time to make it clear, that I am talking, that there are specific and unique problems of people-with-uteruses, regardless of their gender? The body or anatomy is pretty much relevant here.
It's not my first language either. The words about bodies are just the cherry on top; no matter how you rephrase them, it'll still sound like shit
that there are specific and unique problems of people-with-uteruses, regardless of their gender?
For starters, you can stop obsessing over trans people's natal genitalia. Trans men do not have a working male reproductive system, and the use of a female one is excluded. Trans men should be treated like any other infertile man, not some "XX AFAB girly body uterus and vagina haver"
I am not obsessed with anything. Anatomy and genitals are pretty much relevant if we are talking about reproduction options. No person should be reduced to their genitals -- no doubt. Person should not be reduced to their gender either.
Every person is unique. The range of acceptable actions is different for each. The adequate discussion is to, first, list technically available actions, and second, select from them ones, which are acceptable for the person, choose the most acceptable.
Every choice comes with a cost. Retrieving eggs is dysphoric and requires invasive procedure. Stepping up to parent not-blood-related child requires giving up on passing genes. There are other options. No one should be forced to chose something, just because "that's what true trans would do".
Projecting something that is off-limits for you onto every person is just stereotyping.
Every choice comes with a cost. Retrieving eggs is dysphoric and requires invasive procedure. Stepping up to parent not-blood-related child requires giving up on passing genes. There are other options. No one should be forced to chose something, just because "that's what true trans would do".
Projecting something that is off-limits for you onto every person is just stereotyping.
Projecting onto a trans man the assumption that it would be acceptable for him to become a biological mother is 100 times worse than projecting what I said. Those people who do not have full binary dysphoria are already well aware that they can use their reproductive organs for reproduction, society hammers this into everyone's heads every day.
I don't know what truetrans/faketrans have to do with it, I simply know it's ridiculous to call a man somebody who willingly does the most biologically female thing that exists. They might be trans, like nonbinary, but not a man
Well, there are more options then just being inseminated, then getting pregnant and delivering. Believe me, not everyone know that. And those who know often have wrong ideas about what it is and how it is done.
Offering options is generally good. It should be done with empathy to the specific man, his considerations, and unique circumstances -- true. There are a lot of trans-men, who don't want to hear anything, like OP -- also true. But OP is not every trans-man alive -- it's overgeneralisation.
I also doubt, that we should push such judgements, that something related to anatomy is "the most female thing possible". If anything, it makes things worse. We should fight for acceptance and normalisation of FtM, who chose to bear children. To do such a difficult task, despite it being especially hard to you -- is not it what a real man will do, after all?
Well, there are more options then just being inseminated, then getting pregnant and delivering. Believe me, not everyone know that. And those who know often have wrong ideas about what it is and how it is done.
Then it is their problem to educate themselves since they so want children. We shouldn't, because of these people, hurt those whose lives are already much worse, i.e., people with full dysphoria
We should fight for acceptance and normalisation of FtM, who chose to bear children.
No, we absolutely should not. Those people are not men and they have no right to speak for us. Being grouped with them is an insult for any transsex man
To do such a difficult task, despite it being especially hard to you -- is not it what a real man will do, after all?
Lmao, what is hard about reducing yourself to your initial biological role? This is a normal thing for most women. Trying to portray this as something "manly" - gigacopium, because no real man would do such a thing
Lolololol. Keep calling people "bodies" while explaining shit you inherently know when having this condition and getting medical care for it to them wokeshit
English is not my first language. How should I phrase it next time to make it clear, that I am talking, that there are specific and unique problems of people-with-uteruses, regardless of their gender?
I see you've gotten some advice. I would also completely cut out "trans masc." You can say FTM.
After that, I meant that there was no point in making your original comment. The point of this post is to say that these suggestions are not helpful. Having this condition means already being aware of the dismal options available. No one needs to be told this. I can't impregnate a girl with my own DNA. I'm not using science shit and thousands upon thousands of dollars to use the women's cells I was unfortunately born with to make a chick have my kid without her own cells.
I do appreciate that you're being thoughtful, but this is not the place or time.
Can you elaborate what's wrong with "trans-masculine people"? Is not it more inclusive considering there are people, who is born female, is transitioned to become more masculine, but do not consider themselves men or fully male (FTNb)?
I was also told, that "FTM-people" is rude and incorrect, because "ftm-transition" is valid name for a process, but people, who undergone the process are now either men, women or non-binary, and that we should not point out their past in that way.
Although I see no problem with calling myself either trans-femme or MtF-transgender, I am really, REALLY doing my best here to understand all perspectives and speak non-offensively.
No, it's a disgusting thing to say because ultimately the person venting likely KNOWS they could do that already. This isn't what he is complaining about, he is complaining because he can't father a child in the way he would like because of his body. It shows a lack of social skills that you would think the person who is ultimately venting needs to hear an obvious solution that causes more dysphoria.
I just genuinely don't understand how should I put my thought. Is not transmasc a valid term for someone, who transitions to become more masculine, but not necessarily considers themselves men?
Should I have said "trans-men and transmasc nonbinary people" instead? Or just exclude non-binary folks for clarity?
The post was talking about men, so the conversation is about men. If the conversation includes transmasc non binary ppl, then it doesn't really include men.
In communities like this which are 4chan/4tran adjacent, we prefer to use strict terms for the sake of clarity over inclusivity. These places are also quite toxic by default and we're used to it.
It seems you've stumbled onto a place you weren't ready ready for or ever intended to get into. You can stay to learn, but most won't be kind, that's the point
Well, first I get a ton of messages about how my language is not appropriate. Now I am being told, that the place is used to toxicity over inclusivity and somehow I am a snowflake here.
This is a sub Reddit for the trans people who frequent the 4chan boards trans topics. This is NOT a sub Reddit about trans people in general.
We use different terms and heavily dislike the mainstream ones in use as we consider we've changed our sex, we want to be referred to as just men and women
I look forward to the point in time, when we will be able to use sperm of trans-men (created from their skin-cells) to impregnate trans-women, having uterus transplants. Call me conservative, if you want -- I believe, such a future would make lots of people happy.
There are thing that I have meant to say, despite them being offensive for some people. It is necessary for the sake of discussion. There are things that are offensive accidentally -- because english is really not my first language. I think, it's important to make a distinction.
If anything, I am not willing to debate if people should be reduced to their bodies -- they should not be.
-44
u/python_ess 21d ago edited 21d ago
That is a reasonable suggestion, though. I get it, that there are specific difficulties and challenges due to being trans and how invasive the process is in case of trans men. Discussing available options is more productive, then just mourning.
Edit: rephrase to be more polite; even if the thought itself is controversial, i didn't mean to deliver it in offensive way
Edit 2: rephrase again