Okay, then it makes sense to have a spot on the intake forms to denote biological sex, or assigned sex at birth, or whatever term you want to use for it.
Otherwise a doctor seeing a new patient won’t know the appropriate questions to ask.
There should also be sections to mark any medications one is on, including hormone therapy, and any prior surgeries, including organ removal.
So instead of saying biological sex is a useless concept that only transphobes use, why not mention what your preferred terminology is so that people who actually care about being affirming can use the correct term?
why not mention what your preferred terminology is so that people who actually care about being affirming can use the correct term?
Oh, if you actually care about being affirming, the correct term is gender. What you say to your doctor is private. Gender is the public facing bit. It’s the relevant bit for which toilets you or I go in, which is what we’re discussing.
Oh, if you actually care about being affirming, the correct term is gender.
The correct term is not gender, because gender is different from sex.
This post is about public gendered spaces. A toilet doesn’t have gonads. Your derailment into medical treatment is not helpful and the opposite of affirming. If your trans friend, should you be capable of retaining one, complains about access to toilets following this development, interrupting them to tell them that they’re always going to have to mention their sex assigned at birth to the doctor is deeply unsympathetic at the very least.
I wasn’t speaking in reference to bathrooms. A commenter said “biological sex is a transphobic dogwhistle” and I pointed out that that’s not always the case.
It’s a transphobic dog whistle in the context of this guidance.
Even if private conversions with your doctor and registration forms were relevant in a discussion about using a term like “biological sex” in guidance about gendered spaces, still in 2026, if your doctor’s registration has “Biologocal sex: M/F” and nothing else, your doctor is transphobic asshole who has decided to mistreat (in both senses) a persecuted minority.
And really? Someone called this “transphobic apologia” and permabanned me from several communities that I’ve never participated in anyway?
Really. If you can’t see how derailing the topic and pontificating about what your doctor needs to know in a discussion about who is allowed to use the toilets in peace, then you lack empathy.
I’m no mod. I don’t have the time or the inclination to clean up the worst shit on the site
I didn’t ban you, but I’d be shocked if a comm or instance designed as a safe space for trans people wanted you showing up there banging on about their birth sex. Prebanning you stops you from showing up there to sealion the same stuff they’re absolutely sick of hearing, because I promise you, you aren’t the first nor the first thousandth person to debate “biological sex” in the context of trans people’s rights.
I pretty clearly distinguished that what I’m saying is not transphobia,
Your assertion means so much less than your behaviour. All three racist things I ever heard were prefixed by “I’m not being racist, but” and the weirdest thing ever said to me by a retailer was was prefixed by “I’m not being funny, but”.
but I suppose if you lack any nuance then it could be hard to tell the difference.
It is genuinely very hard indeed to tell the difference between someone on the autistic spectrum turning up in a post about trans people and arguing something unhelpful, unsupportive and upsetting to trans people at length out of pedantry without realising that they’re derailing the conversion and upsetting trans people, and a sealioning transphobe.
If you aren’t transphobic and you aren’t autistic, I would expect you to adjust how you speak in this kind of context.
I get it, there’s a lot of transphobia in the world and that probably makes you see it where there is none, but golly, permabanning from several unrelated communities is petty as hell.
Didn’t do it, but I understand it, and the fact that you can’t seem to understand why it happened is the same reason they wanted to do it.
I didn’t leave a top-level comment. I replied to someone who made an excessively broad statement lacking any nuance. They didn’t say “it’s being used as a transphobic dogwhistle in this context,” they suggested that it can only be used as a transphobic dogwhistle. So I provided a counterexample.
Ignoring the fact that my comment was a reply to someone else’s, and responding as if I was leaving a top-level comment, means you’re the one ignoring context.
If your trans friend,…, complains about access to toilets following this development, interrupting them to tell them that they’re always going to have to mention their sex assigned at birth to the doctor is deeply unsympathetic at the very least.
I don’t just randomly blurt out “doctors need to know their patient’s anatomy!” in irrelevant situations. My response was a reply to someone saying “biological sex” has no useful meaning except as a transphobic dogwhistle. How is that so difficult to understand?
If my friend wasn’t talking about the bathroom, but said “biological sex is just a transphobic dogwhistle” without qualifying it as “in ____ specific context”, then I would push back and say “then how will a doctor know whether to ask a trans man if he’s pregnant?” And so far no one has been able to provide a good answer to that, so that tells me you’re just using “transphobia” as a dismissive thought-stopper because you’re uncomfortable with considering a reality that feels taboo (specifically because it’s treated as “transphobic dogwhistle” in all contexts, leaving no room for nuance).
If you can’t see how derailing the topic and pontificating about what your doctor needs to know in a discussion about who is allowed to use the toilets in peace, then you lack empathy
It’s not derailing or pontificating because it was in response to a different comment which was attempting to make an overly-broad judgement. If you think I’m making this about toilets then you need to reread what I said, because nothing I said has been about toilets.
I didn’t ban you, but I’d be shocked if a comm or instance designed as a safe space for trans people wanted you showing up there banging on about their birth sex.
Yeah, except it wasn’t just trans comms, several of them were completely unrelated. Some mod saw my comments and decided to be petty and ban me from every comm they’re a mod on. That’s what’s ridiculous.
Also, I don’t just show up in trans comms talking about bathrooms and birth sex. That would be psycho. This isn’t even a trans comm. And what I said was relevant to the discussion.
And nothing I’ve said has been sealioning, people are just refusing to address the very legitimate point that I made that doctor’s need to know what sex someone was born as in order to ask the right questions and screen for the right things.
I’m not “debating” biological sex. The fact that you think that’s even a debate is kinda dissociated from reality. I acknowledged the difference between sex and gender in my first comment, and said we shouldn’t conflate the two. At no point did I say anything like “gender must match sex,” or “there’s only two genders,” or “there’s only two sexes.” All those layers of interpretation have been added on by other people to uncharitably lump me into the category “transphobe” just so they don’t have to think about what I said. That’s a strawman.
All three racist things I ever heard were prefixed by “I’m not being racist, but”
Except I didn’t prefix what I said with “I’m not transphobic, but.” I didn’t say I wasn’t transphobic until after someone accused me of being transphobic. It was a simple rebuttal, because nothing I said was transphobic. You saw a shadow of a tree and thought it was freddie kruger.
If you aren’t transphobic and you aren’t autistic, I would expect you to adjust how you speak in this kind of context
Great, so you’re assuming I’m not autistic. Neurotypical defaultism is ableist.
and the fact that you can’t seem to understand why it happened is the same reason they wanted to do it.
Oh, I can understand why it happened. It’s because someone was being petty and trigger-happy without caring to stop and think critically for a moment. I didn’t say I don’t understand how this could happen. I just called it petty.
I didn’t leave a top-level comment. I replied to someone who made an excessively broad statement lacking any nuance. They didn’t say “it’s being used as a transphobic dogwhistle in this context,” they suggested that it can only be used as a transphobic dogwhistle
No, they didn’t, they just said (and to repeat, they said it in the context of this guidance about access to gendered spaces) “it’s a transphobic dog whistle”, which is absolutely what it is in this context, and you strawmanned that up to “it’s always transphobic dog whistle in every context, even if you omit the unnecessary oversimplifying adjective ‘biological’” and made the argument about that.
very legitimate point that I made that doctor’s need to know
Correction, very irrelevant point in this context.
If you aren’t transphobic and you aren’t autistic, I would expect you to adjust how you speak in this kind of context
Great, so you’re assuming I’m not autistic. Neurotypical defaultism is ableist.
No, there’s an if at the start of that sentence and an and partway in.
and the fact that you can’t seem to understand why it happened is the same reason they wanted to do it.
Oh, I can understand why it happened. It’s because someone was being petty and trigger-happy without caring to stop and think critically for a moment. I didn’t say I don’t understand how this could happen. I just called it petty.
I think it’s rational to ban someone who refuses to accept that their lengthy sealioning is unwelcome from a comm designed to be free of exactly that kind of sealioning.
You act like you’re unable to understand why those comments were unwelcome. If you do understand why they’re unwelcome, stop. If you don’t understand why they’re unwelcome, don’t claim to understand.
It would explain an emphasis on definitions and a deemphasis from the social consequences of debating the definitions in a particular social context.
The person I was talking to admitted that it can be hard to tell the difference between transphobia and an only accidentally offensive post. I was providing a rationale for how the latter could have occurred.
theyre not ignoring it?
No one has addressed the situation even though I’ve mentioned it twice in this thread now. That seems like ignoring it, no?
Is it transphobic for a doctor to ask a trans man if he might be pregnant, or no?
no
if they are, at the time, able to be pregnant, it makes sense and is not transphobic
Okay, then it makes sense to have a spot on the intake forms to denote biological sex, or assigned sex at birth, or whatever term you want to use for it.
Otherwise a doctor seeing a new patient won’t know the appropriate questions to ask.
There should also be sections to mark any medications one is on, including hormone therapy, and any prior surgeries, including organ removal.
So instead of saying biological sex is a useless concept that only transphobes use, why not mention what your preferred terminology is so that people who actually care about being affirming can use the correct term?
Oh, if you actually care about being affirming, the correct term is gender. What you say to your doctor is private. Gender is the public facing bit. It’s the relevant bit for which toilets you or I go in, which is what we’re discussing.
Removed by mod
This post is about public gendered spaces. A toilet doesn’t have gonads. Your derailment into medical treatment is not helpful and the opposite of affirming. If your trans friend, should you be capable of retaining one, complains about access to toilets following this development, interrupting them to tell them that they’re always going to have to mention their sex assigned at birth to the doctor is deeply unsympathetic at the very least.
It’s a transphobic dog whistle in the context of this guidance.
Even if private conversions with your doctor and registration forms were relevant in a discussion about using a term like “biological sex” in guidance about gendered spaces, still in 2026, if your doctor’s registration has “Biologocal sex: M/F” and nothing else, your doctor is transphobic asshole who has decided to mistreat (in both senses) a persecuted minority.
Really. If you can’t see how derailing the topic and pontificating about what your doctor needs to know in a discussion about who is allowed to use the toilets in peace, then you lack empathy.
I’m no mod. I don’t have the time or the inclination to clean up the worst shit on the site
I didn’t ban you, but I’d be shocked if a comm or instance designed as a safe space for trans people wanted you showing up there banging on about their birth sex. Prebanning you stops you from showing up there to sealion the same stuff they’re absolutely sick of hearing, because I promise you, you aren’t the first nor the first thousandth person to debate “biological sex” in the context of trans people’s rights.
Your assertion means so much less than your behaviour. All three racist things I ever heard were prefixed by “I’m not being racist, but” and the weirdest thing ever said to me by a retailer was was prefixed by “I’m not being funny, but”.
It is genuinely very hard indeed to tell the difference between someone on the autistic spectrum turning up in a post about trans people and arguing something unhelpful, unsupportive and upsetting to trans people at length out of pedantry without realising that they’re derailing the conversion and upsetting trans people, and a sealioning transphobe.
If you aren’t transphobic and you aren’t autistic, I would expect you to adjust how you speak in this kind of context.
Didn’t do it, but I understand it, and the fact that you can’t seem to understand why it happened is the same reason they wanted to do it.
I didn’t leave a top-level comment. I replied to someone who made an excessively broad statement lacking any nuance. They didn’t say “it’s being used as a transphobic dogwhistle in this context,” they suggested that it can only be used as a transphobic dogwhistle. So I provided a counterexample.
Ignoring the fact that my comment was a reply to someone else’s, and responding as if I was leaving a top-level comment, means you’re the one ignoring context.
I don’t just randomly blurt out “doctors need to know their patient’s anatomy!” in irrelevant situations. My response was a reply to someone saying “biological sex” has no useful meaning except as a transphobic dogwhistle. How is that so difficult to understand?
If my friend wasn’t talking about the bathroom, but said “biological sex is just a transphobic dogwhistle” without qualifying it as “in ____ specific context”, then I would push back and say “then how will a doctor know whether to ask a trans man if he’s pregnant?” And so far no one has been able to provide a good answer to that, so that tells me you’re just using “transphobia” as a dismissive thought-stopper because you’re uncomfortable with considering a reality that feels taboo (specifically because it’s treated as “transphobic dogwhistle” in all contexts, leaving no room for nuance).
It’s not derailing or pontificating because it was in response to a different comment which was attempting to make an overly-broad judgement. If you think I’m making this about toilets then you need to reread what I said, because nothing I said has been about toilets.
Yeah, except it wasn’t just trans comms, several of them were completely unrelated. Some mod saw my comments and decided to be petty and ban me from every comm they’re a mod on. That’s what’s ridiculous.
Also, I don’t just show up in trans comms talking about bathrooms and birth sex. That would be psycho. This isn’t even a trans comm. And what I said was relevant to the discussion.
And nothing I’ve said has been sealioning, people are just refusing to address the very legitimate point that I made that doctor’s need to know what sex someone was born as in order to ask the right questions and screen for the right things.
I’m not “debating” biological sex. The fact that you think that’s even a debate is kinda dissociated from reality. I acknowledged the difference between sex and gender in my first comment, and said we shouldn’t conflate the two. At no point did I say anything like “gender must match sex,” or “there’s only two genders,” or “there’s only two sexes.” All those layers of interpretation have been added on by other people to uncharitably lump me into the category “transphobe” just so they don’t have to think about what I said. That’s a strawman.
Except I didn’t prefix what I said with “I’m not transphobic, but.” I didn’t say I wasn’t transphobic until after someone accused me of being transphobic. It was a simple rebuttal, because nothing I said was transphobic. You saw a shadow of a tree and thought it was freddie kruger.
Great, so you’re assuming I’m not autistic. Neurotypical defaultism is ableist.
Oh, I can understand why it happened. It’s because someone was being petty and trigger-happy without caring to stop and think critically for a moment. I didn’t say I don’t understand how this could happen. I just called it petty.
No, they didn’t, they just said (and to repeat, they said it in the context of this guidance about access to gendered spaces) “it’s a transphobic dog whistle”, which is absolutely what it is in this context, and you strawmanned that up to “it’s always transphobic dog whistle in every context, even if you omit the unnecessary oversimplifying adjective ‘biological’” and made the argument about that.
Correction, very irrelevant point in this context.
No, there’s an if at the start of that sentence and an and partway in.
I think it’s rational to ban someone who refuses to accept that their lengthy sealioning is unwelcome from a comm designed to be free of exactly that kind of sealioning.
You act like you’re unable to understand why those comments were unwelcome. If you do understand why they’re unwelcome, stop. If you don’t understand why they’re unwelcome, don’t claim to understand.
agreed, except that how is autism relevant?
It would explain an emphasis on definitions and a deemphasis from the social consequences of debating the definitions in a particular social context.
The person I was talking to admitted that it can be hard to tell the difference between transphobia and an only accidentally offensive post. I was providing a rationale for how the latter could have occurred.