Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
If no one can provide an answer that has been asked more than once we can lock this thread and delete the posts.
IMHO Trans girls are girls. Non-binary people... well who knows, they don't seem to know either.
For me the main question is: Are trans women female if they still have male genitals? For me the answer is no and they should not be allowed in female only spaces; toilets, changing rooms etc... Once they no longer have male genitals then I have no objection. I appreciate that some folks like trans, she-males, lady boys etc... but for me it is a huge turn off. Gender can be fluid but sex is not, it is a biological fact.
The question seems to keep popping up every so often, and the general consensus seems to always be "No."
If some people would like a community that caters to this, then maybe you can create your own website, rather than trying to impose something there seems to be little to no demand for, on an existing site that does not exist for that purpose.
I am not looking for policy suggestions. I'm looking for someone to tell me whether one of the two points I posted above to her applies.
In my opinion if the woman identifies as non binary she should be kept here, unless she actually transitioned
As for the person posted by OP, this doesn't apply since she seems to have male genitalia
PS I think I have been shadowbanned, my comments no longer appear under pics, can you unban me ?
I agree with fp909's post above. As for Feng Xie, is one of the following true:
- Are they biologically male?
Just a reminder that this seemingly simple question isn't always simple.
Tons of people, who are likely NOT on this site, would view many MANY of the women here as "no longer biologically male" because of their use of hormones for muscle growth; hormones which are strongly associated with the development of visible sexual characteristics, and invisible behaviors associated with sex and gender.
Genetically and congenitally, intersex people are "about as common as red-heads", roughly 1.5% of the population. Some have chromosomal differences. Some have epigenetic differences due to events in utero. Many people will never know, especially if the genetic difference isn't expressed visibly.
Outside of genetics it's even harder. Not all cis women can get pregnant or have periods or have boobs. Not all cis men produce sperm. It's easy to define a "default baseline", but very hard to draw the boundaries, in terms of data as opposed to taste.
It's perfectly fine for each person to have their own taxonomy. It usually ends up being somewhat driven by one's own taste, politics, education, and experience. It's also fine for a site like this to make decisions based on non-medical definitions.
What I would fight is, people trying to stamp their own ideas with "this is the clear obvious science line between male and female". The more science you know, the more awkward this sounds.
Just advocate for what you think makes sense FOR THIS SITE, and let the admins work it out. They do a good job.
What do you know - the poster knows the name of the person but "forgot" to put it under the pictures. I wonder how many of these "mistakes" happen regarding this subject here.
I think many just don’t bother doing it, which is whatever, and some do it so they can get points but not have other people post for fake points. Not sure if it has anything to do with he thread subject tho
Just a reminder that this seemingly simple question isn't always simple.
Tons of people, who are likely NOT on this site, would view many MANY of the women here as "no longer biologically male" because of their use of hormones for muscle growth; hormones which are strongly associated with the development of visible sexual characteristics, and invisible behaviors associated with sex and gender.
Genetically and congenitally, intersex people are "about as common as red-heads", roughly 1.5% of the population. Some have chromosomal differences. Some have epigenetic differences due to events in utero. Many people will never know, especially if the genetic difference isn't expressed visibly.
Outside of genetics it's even harder. Not all cis women can get pregnant or have periods or have boobs. Not all cis men produce sperm. It's easy to define a "default baseline", but very hard to draw the boundaries, in terms of data as opposed to taste.
It's perfectly fine for each person to have their own taxonomy. It usually ends up being somewhat driven by one's own taste, politics, education, and experience. It's also fine for a site like this to make decisions based on non-medical definitions.
What I would fight is, people trying to stamp their own ideas with "this is the clear obvious science line between male and female". The more science you know, the more awkward this sounds.
Just advocate for what you think makes sense FOR THIS SITE, and let the admins work it out. They do a good job.
98.5% of people are born male or female. The vast majority of the other 1.5% generally identify as one or the other according to their most obvious physical characteristics (genitals). I don't think science blurs it at all. It makes it much clearer. 98.5% of people (probably more) are either xx or xy and have the corresponding physical characteristics associated with being male or female. That's just a biological scientific fact. Everything else is just human imagination and interpretation, more suited to the realms of sociology, philosophy and psychology. In a life threatening emergency situation if a person with a penis and testicles asked to be treated for a miscarriage do you think any doctor would seriously consider wasting time investigating this possibility? At some point womb transplants into men may be a possibility, but probably not in our lifetimes. The person in those photos looks suspiciously masculine to me and I would allocate them to a trans section or just delete them.
One thing I would add, is please don't conflate "intersex" conditions with the more recent trend of trans/gender/non binary etc. Intersex conditions such as Turners (females)Klinefelter's (males) Syndrome affect specifically either males or females, they don't produce a third biological sex. Actual "true hermaphrodism" (where ovarian and testicular tissue is present in the same individual and external genitalia is ambiguous ) has always been extremely rare.
Individuals with privately kept knowledge (as is their right) of intersex conditions who often find out about their personal physiology later in life (eg when they want to start a family) can rightly get very angry with this confusion being used for political cultural means.
Without getting too into the thick of it and debating the legitimacy of being non-binary...
I say no, shouldn't be allowed. If the point of this site is to showcase muscular women, then that should be the only group present.
Exactly. There's nothing left to be said on the whole gender debate that we haven't all heard ad infinitum for the past decade. The topic is exhausted. We're all exhausted of the topic. I'm all about live and let live, but the bottom line is people come here to look at fit, muscular women. Period. That's not to condemn anyone who has different preferences or lifestyles or whatever, but get your own site.
"Non-binary" is the participation trophy of the LGB+++ community.
Is the Girl with Muscle actually a biological female? Does she want her pictures posted on the site or not? That's the long and short of it.
I agree Bat22. This is a website dedicated to Women (Girls - Females of the Human Species) with muscle. Those that are essentially confused about their sexuality / identity (usually due to WWW influences) should be excised until they figure out what they are (and this all depends upon where the current Fad / Fashion takes them).
As always, Time will tell. This is, of course, a terribly unpopular opinion, but it has to be said.
- Are they biologically female but no longer identify as a woman to the point that they would probably be offended to be on a site called Girls with Muscle? In that case their pics should be deleted.
Would that be the case of trans men I suppose?
Would that be the case of trans men I suppose?
we have allowed photos up to (at least i think so) people started to find out about their transition. but i can only really think of samara buckler, who disappeared for over a year before resurfacing as Sam i think. those older photos are still up pre-transition.
but ya i can't really think of anyone else. and those photos are several years old now.
we have allowed photos up to (at least i think so) people started to find out about their transition. but i can only really think of samara buckler, who disappeared for over a year before resurfacing as Sam i think. those older photos are still up pre-transition.
but ya i can't really think of anyone else. and those photos are several years old now.
Yes, but I am also referring to trans men that not completed their transition (I.e. they still have female genitalia even if they show male secondary characters such as beards) and are actually developing muscles. Am I correct?
The mental gymnastics that some users perform to basically block any philosophical and sexual questioning of their desires is quite impressive.
It is quite obvious that this site harbours many individuals that have quite different opinions on what amount of muscle a women should possess to be attractive to them and where the line lies for them to be considered feminine.
What I find interesting is this metric of "desirability" is far beyond what the general population would consider to be attractive, as shown by a lot of comments on the athletes own social media.
As a normal person would say about any women who trains or about 99% of people on this site : "Man or woman?" "Lol she looks like a man" "stop training, you're starting to look like man"
And yet we STILL debate on what the standard of beauty should be here and what would someone consider to be too masculine.
If anything, the site girlswithmuscle should be an extremely open and welcoming community for anybody identifying as a feminine.
The whole non binary community isn't about an individual who "hasn't made up their mind". They simply do not identify as the characteristics society's wants them to be. A metric we still don't even know ourselves, even being more open than most common folks
Spot on:100%