We're talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are "likely not trans", that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren't. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were "80% sure" that someone wasn't trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren't.
All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can't access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the "Excuse you".
The judgement of whether or not someone is trans is if they say they are. I frankly don't understand what I said that makes you think I think it is acceptable for anyone to dictate someone's gender or whether or not they are really trans, but I absolutely don't believe that. I edited my original comment with a clarification.
The story sounds inauthentic to the trans experience and I think they made it up. I don't think the OP isn't trans, I think their made up story doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The leading theory for what causes people to be trans (or gay for that matter) is hormonal fluctuations at critical points of fetal development. So we are born this way. People can be gender fluid as well, and they may have a different relationship with their gender(s) than I since I am not.
The leading theory for what causes people to be trans (or gay for that matter) is hormonal fluctuations at critical points of fetal development. So we are born this way.
The evidence for this is really poor, the entire field of the hormonal theory of sexuality (and gender) is garbage
There's lots of good literature on transmedicalism
Anyway someone who subscribed to that theory would say that a micropenis would be consistent with low fetal testerone and this story would be readily believable by them - far more than a trans woman who was born with a macropenis.
No someone wouldn't, because a core tenet of that theory is the critical points part, there is a separate point that influenced genital development and a separate point that influenced mental gender development.
I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that "I'm trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin' sucks," your internal response would be "This person is trans, but doesn't understand why they are trans." [Or that it is likely that they don't understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]
Is that a more fair representation of your view?
(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)
The word "likely" is just me acknowledging the potential for this view of trans people as being born trans, which is based on research, could change as more research is done.
We're talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are "likely not trans", that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren't. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were "80% sure" that someone wasn't trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren't.
All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can't access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the "Excuse you".
The judgement of whether or not someone is trans is if they say they are. I frankly don't understand what I said that makes you think I think it is acceptable for anyone to dictate someone's gender or whether or not they are really trans, but I absolutely don't believe that. I edited my original comment with a clarification.
The story sounds inauthentic to the trans experience and I think they made it up. I don't think the OP isn't trans, I think their made up story doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The leading theory for what causes people to be trans (or gay for that matter) is hormonal fluctuations at critical points of fetal development. So we are born this way. People can be gender fluid as well, and they may have a different relationship with their gender(s) than I since I am not.
The evidence for this is really poor, the entire field of the hormonal theory of sexuality (and gender) is garbage
There's lots of good literature on transmedicalism
Anyway someone who subscribed to that theory would say that a micropenis would be consistent with low fetal testerone and this story would be readily believable by them - far more than a trans woman who was born with a macropenis.
No someone wouldn't, because a core tenet of that theory is the critical points part, there is a separate point that influenced genital development and a separate point that influenced mental gender development.
I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that "I'm trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin' sucks," your internal response would be "This person is trans, but doesn't understand why they are trans." [Or that it is likely that they don't understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]
Is that a more fair representation of your view?
(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)
Yes, exactly.
The word "likely" is just me acknowledging the potential for this view of trans people as being born trans, which is based on research, could change as more research is done.