Marzipan
banner
marzipaniah.bsky.social
Marzipan
@marzipaniah.bsky.social
🇪🇺✝️
Harry Benjamin Syndrome/True Transsexualism Advocate ♂️🧠♀️
Those in between should, in my opinion, be offered a third ‘X’ marker.

But you can’t be naturally reproductively male (able to impregnate) and medically female at the same time - or naturally reproductively female (able to conceive) and medically male.
October 25, 2025 at 5:50 AM
How can an individual be regarded as ‘trans’(sexual) if they experience no incongruence between their intrinsic (neurological and/or psychological) sex and the discordant, opposite-sexed reproductive and anatomical features of their body?
October 25, 2025 at 5:39 AM
There are two axes ⬆️➡️: one for typology and one for function.
October 25, 2025 at 5:24 AM
The male seahorse phenotype — still organized around the production of small gametes — functions in such a way that the male fertilizes the female’s eggs after they have been transferred to his brood pouch.

Humans are not seahorses, and male seahorses do not conceive; they possess testes.
October 25, 2025 at 5:10 AM
Rights in what way? And how would that be possible?

How for example could you in any shape or form be considered a male in any real sense if you have capacity for pregnancy?

Sounds like you don’t understand why things like legal sex exist in first place.
October 25, 2025 at 4:40 AM
Moreover, their non-permanent transitional status means they cannot be medically categorized as the opposite sex.
October 25, 2025 at 4:35 AM
They’re going to need to collect statistics based on penis-holders versus vagina-holders, since one group represents potential impregnators and has a significantly higher risk of committing rape.
October 25, 2025 at 4:35 AM
“You’re missing something i said, bc i never said i just want symbolic rights.”

- Inadvertently you did. Because if I as a post-op female is considered the same as a non-op ‘male woman’, that means the government will have to default us both to male. 1/2⤵️
October 25, 2025 at 4:30 AM
“Cis women are also losing access to pregnancy prevention, due to cis men deciding women shouldnt have freedom like that.”

- Which just reinforces my point. Cis women are losing that access because they’re legally immutably considered female.
October 25, 2025 at 4:22 AM
“There have been cis women fired for being too masculine and existing in the womens restroom.”

- That’s NOT an issue with lack of legal recognition. That’s a socio-cultural issue with transvestigation.

The cissexual woman could sue and win.

The transsexual woman? Nothing.
October 25, 2025 at 4:19 AM
Are you from the US or UK?

A legal sex marker that doesn’t guarantee you’ll be treated as the sex your marker says you are? Yes, pretty much useless.

Imagine how many post-op transsexual females risk having their neovaginas wrecked in male spaces because of such legal fiction bs???
October 25, 2025 at 4:17 AM
This is a cissexual by typology - but transsexual according to function.
October 25, 2025 at 4:13 AM
The transitioned could theoretically include a cissexual who choose to become a functional transsexual, like this person, yes.

But that’s why I said, research needs to be divided by TYPOLOGY.

Legal affirmation by FUNCTION/phenotype.
October 25, 2025 at 4:10 AM
With proof of SRS* not without.
October 25, 2025 at 4:07 AM
No one would have to be tested. They would just need to be able to seek for such resignation without proof of SRS/permanent transition.

If non-ops want a legal fiction, that’s not my business.

But then we need to divide the two groups.
October 25, 2025 at 4:07 AM
So then my interests and needs to be protected and secure female rights as a post-op female, collide with your wants for symbolic recognition, which if taken away from you won’t hurt you - but could risk my safety.

So do you see why we shouldn’t be lumped into one?
October 25, 2025 at 4:03 AM
Legal fictions are mostly useless - and can be overturned at any moment and gives no guarantees or actual protections.

Because it’s not considered as defining material reality.
October 25, 2025 at 3:59 AM
No. Biomedical convention is legal sex recognition according to functional/phenotypic sex.

It is the reason intersex women with XY chromosomes such as CAIS and Swyer are legally considered female, and not retroactively changed to male.

Here’s an example:
October 25, 2025 at 3:56 AM
Cissexual people do not have their legal sexes threatened at any point.

There’s for example never a risk a cissexual female will have to sign up for selective service (in countries with a male-only draft policy) or be put into a male prison or relegated to male spaces.
October 25, 2025 at 3:49 AM
October 25, 2025 at 3:47 AM
As for bio-medical convention that would truly only be justified for permanently transitioned people, who can’t naturally revert back to natal biology.

So post-ops (or gonadectomized).
October 25, 2025 at 3:43 AM
For the brain and genetic research, the division would have to depend on typology. So you would have to have for example only study subjects who all fit 6/6 criteria and in actuality sub-divide between non-op (no reprod./genital incong. & dysph.) vs. pre-op (reprod./genital incong. & dysph). 1/2⤵️
October 25, 2025 at 3:40 AM
I’m advocating for transsexuals because when we’re lumped in with cissexual gender nonconformists, we get treated like cissexual gender nonconformists - not like people who are sex affirmed.

It takes away from us, not add to them.
October 25, 2025 at 3:30 AM