Why the term "sex change" (or "sex reassignment surgery") is an outright lie
Humans can't change sex. That's it, that's the post.
In my last post, [The "boxes" of grade-school biological sex], I covered why “feeling like a type of bodily function” was not logical grounds to conclude someone was a different sex than they actually were.
“But what if they get gender confirmation surgery / gender affirming surgery / gender / sex reassignment surgery (GRS / SRS)? They’ve gone all the way, often at great cost and peril to themselves. Surely that should be grounds or leeway to concede that they’re serious about wanting to live as the opposite sex?”
In Singapore, this is certainly the case:
"In 1973, Singapore legalised sex-reassignment surgery. A policy was instituted to enable post-operative transsexual people to change the legal gender on their identity cards (but not their birth certificates) and other documents which flowed from that. There was no specific provision in the statutes which allowed the Registrar to do this, so it existed probably only at the level of a policy directive. However, for over 20 years, this policy seemed to have operated smoothly." (Wikipedia)
I am personally thankful that Singapore does not allow for the changing of a person’s sex marker on their birth certificates - to do so is to effectively re-write and falsify history. Other countries, like the US, allow for birth certificates to be re-issued with the “correct” gender marker, regardless of SRS status in certain states. The UK also allows people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, or GRC, depending on the circumstances surrounding a person’s transition and the extent of said transition.
However, none of these measures address the real issue at hand, which is: should the category of “sex” then become determined by what someone’s external genitals look like or what someone feels like, instead of, you know, their actual sex? And can humans actually change sex, rendering the first question moot?
To which I say: does neutering a male animal make it a female animal?
Removing the secondary sexual characteristics of a male or female human does not make them the opposite sex
Outside of gender ideology, this concept is offensive to its core. Men who involuntarily lose their sex organs to illness or diseases, work accidents, or sexual mishaps, such as this local did to an unfortunate oyster, do not suddenly become “not men”. Men are often already ridiculed for being “less of a man” when they are feminine men, effeminate men, gender non-conforming men, or men with less-than-average-sized genitalia.
Gender ideology merely affirms this regressive way of thinking - that not having a penis and/or testicles literally can make you a woman.
The same is true for women who have involuntarily lost their sexual organs to diseases such as breast, ovarian or uterine cancer, or their genitalia to the barbaric practices of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in countries in Africa and the Middle East. It would be extremely offensive to call these female survivors of breast cancer anything but women.
Yet, gender ideology is causing young girls around the world to actively wish for breast cancer, so that they can get the “top surgery” (read: double mastectomy) they so desperately think they need and want on their HEALTHY breasts, because they think it would literally make them boys.
“Well, duh! They’re CIS people, it’s not the same!”
No one is “cis”. I direct you back again to my previous post explaining how no one can “identify as” a sex - they simply just ARE male or female based on biology, as well as another excerpt I wrote in another post:
(“Cis” is an offensive term used in gender ideology to denote someone who is “not trans”, i.e: “someone comfortable with their birth sex”. As many men and women of various lived experiences will attest, NO ONE is ever fully comfortable with the societal expectations and sexist stereotypes that come with being born the sex we are, whether male or female, nor fully with their physical bodies. Just look at the constant bombardment of ads promoting weight loss treatments and makeup to women, the sexual enhancements and hair treatments for men, and instagram, for one.)
“But the surgeries are completely functional!" They’re exactly the same as a cis person’s genitalia.”
Define “functional”.
The first sex reassignment surgery in Singapore was successfully performed on 30 July 1971 at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital (now known as the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital). The operation involved a 24-year-old man [sic] and was the first procedure of its kind carried out in Singapore. […] The 1971 operation was regarded as the first because it involved a surgical conversion aimed at functionally changing a person’s sex and appearance.
[…] After her [sic] successful operation, the patient went on hormone treatments and was functionally a woman, though she could not conceive or menstruate. (Source)
Read that last sentence again.
Not all women can conceive. Not all women menstruate. But only women - adult human females - are capable of menstruation, pregnancy and birth. Regardless of their being infertile, having experienced menopause, being sexually immature - only the female sex is capable of those feats based on their biology. Being incapable of those feats as a female does not make one any less female.
(Acknowledging that ONLY females are capable of those feats does not mean they are only useful for those purposes. Further reading: “You’re reducing women to their biology!”)
So what does “functionally a woman” mean here, then? Well, in that context, it simply meant that the man in question had his genitals surgically modified in a physical and visual manner to be a mimicry of the genitalia of the female sex, and “functionally a woman” meant the product of the surgery was being treated as nothing but a hole for the purpose of sexual intercourse.
If your immediate reaction to that was a gut-punch of, “But that’s incredibly sexist! Women are not just walking vaginas!” Then congratulations, you’ve understood why I’m outraged. I don’t think I need to point out the irony of said surgery literally reducing what a woman is to her genitals by saying that a male with genital modifications to make his ballsack look like labia, and a surgically created body cavity, is now one and the same.
If “gender reassignment surgery” was truly able to turn a male into a “functional” woman, that would include everything. Chromosomes, gonads, ovaries, uterus, sexually dimorphic differences - EVERYTHING. Not just the logistics of whether sexual intercourse via penetration was feasible. Humans cannot change sex, because every cell in their body is sexed, not just their genitals.
And that’s not even going into the details of what these “vaginoplasty” surgeries actually look like (hint: not at all like a vulva nor a vagina). Gynecologists have no idea what to do with them because their structures are entirely different. Or how constant, often painful dilation is needed to keep the neovagina from sealing up on itself, because the body does not recognize it anything but an injury. And especially how prone these surgeries are to multiple, severe complications (NSFW), which include but are not limited to strictures, prolapses, and necrosis.
The same is true for the reverse: female people getting “phalloplasties” and “scrotoplasties” are not actually getting a penis and testicles. The neophallus cannot get erect without aid of a pump. The neophallus has no need to be circumsized. The neoscrotal sac does not hold testes. The neophallus does not ejaculate sperm, often has limited sensation, and peeing through it requires risky re-routing of the urethra that has "a 51% urethral complication rate" (NSFW), with complications including strictures, UTIs, hair re-growth, or even parts of the neophallus rotting off (NSFW).
The list goes on. They are only facsimiles of the real thing.
“But gender dysphoria is a real thing!”
TransgenderSG has an entire page listing and detailing the various types of “gender affirming” surgeries performed for trans-identifying people, and even includes this paragraph:
Many trans individuals seek out various surgeries for reasons such as relieving their body dysphoria, blending into society, health concerns, personal safety, and qualifying to legally change their sex under Singapore law. Many other trans people are content with the changes from hormone therapy alone. Either way, surgery is not what makes you your gender – it just changes your body – and is something you should only seek if it is something you truly want and are comfortable with, rather than as the result of pressure from others’ ideas of what men’s and women’s bodies ‘should’ look like.
Which is correct. The surgery only changes your physical body. It does not actually change your biological sex.
I have no qualms with adults who want to do whatever they want to their bodies under informed consent - it’s their choice. If modifying themselves brings them relief, great. Live your best lives. But I have concerns that there are people who genuinely believe that these surgeries will actually make them a “woman” or a “man”, or give them “sex organs” that they desire under ill-informed consent, which is not true. That this is not explicitly stated is cause for concern.
It is not helped by the fact that Singapore does legally recognize those who have undergone operative measures to “change their sex” as actually having “changed their sex”, when this is not the case. This then results in some people who believe that the only way to actually “become a man or a woman” is to undergo invasive, irreversible, superficial procedures that are still largely experimental, with no long-term follow up studies, when the truth is there is no way to be a man or a woman, except to be born male or female respectively.
A female who has taken testosterone, removed her breasts, gotten a hysterectomy and installed a surgically created neophallus in her groin is no less female than she was before the procedures, because she is still female in every cell of her body, albeit a highly modified one. She might label herself a “transman”, sure.
But what is so wrong about being this type of “woman”?
Similarly for a male who has taken estrogen, inserted breast implants, gotten an orchiectomy and inversed his penis to form a man-made neovagina. He is just as male “post-op” as he was before he even realized he identified as transgender, just with elevated estrogen levels, because he is still male in all of his DNA. He might label himself a “transwoman”.
So what is so wrong about being this type of “man”?
TransgenderSG addresses these questions in their FAQ:
Q: Why can’t transgender people just be feminine men or masculine women? / Doesn’t this reinforce sexist stereotypes about what men and women ‘should’ be like?
Another common misconception conflates gender expression (being masculine or feminine) with gender identity (being a man or woman). People point out that just because a girl might enjoy stereotypically male activities like sports, it doesn’t mean she’s really a boy.
This is true. Many women are not feminine, and enjoy and excel in many things that society typically labels ‘male’. However, they still see themselves as women and wish to be perceived by others as such. When people refer to women, they feel included in that reference. When they think of the opposite sex, they think of men. When they are attracted to someone, they think about being their wife or girlfriend, not husband or boyfriend. When they think of their future, they see themselves as old women, not old men.
The same is true for transgender women. The desire is to be seen as a woman and/or have a typical female body, not to be feminine. Being a feminine man would thus do nothing to address the problem – all the more so if they would feel most right as a masculine woman.
Even if it were the case that all trans women were feminine and all trans men masculine, it would still not be fair to place more blame on trans people for asserting their gender identity. For instance, it would be a double standard to criticise a trans woman for wearing a dress and thus playing into female stereotypes, while not criticising a cisgender woman for doing the same.
As I’ve mentioned multiple times - “being a woman” is not gender stereotypes nor social constructs, it is merely biological fact. You cannot feel like “the sex whose organs are structured around the production of large gametes”. I do not “see myself as” or “wish to be perceived by others as”, I just AM. Someone calling me a man 100 times will not change the fact that I am female, whether I wanted them to do so or not.
A male who “feels like a woman”, no matter how strongly, is still male. In their own words: “The desire is to be seen as a woman”. It is forcing others to uphold the fantasy that they can be something that they are factually not.
A transwoman is criticized for wearing a dress not because “she” is wearing a dress, “she” is criticized because “she” believes “she” is a woman when he is in fact male.
A “cis” woman is not criticized for wearing a dress because it has been expected of her as per societal standards, the same way men are not criticized for wearing pants. They aren’t now because of decades long pushback and eventual normalization, but women certainly were criticized for trying to wear pants in history, even before chromosomes were discovered. (I’m fairly certain most of online transgender circles would be retroactively trans-ing these women as early transmen, instead of just accepting that they were women.)
A “cis” man wearing a dress in turn is criticized for not conforming to societal expectations of what a “man” should be, when a male should be free to wear whatever he wants, and not suffer judgement because narrow-minded sexist stereotypes. But all the men wearing dresses so far don’t seem keen on pushing for the narrative that men CAN wear dresses, only instead saying that they are actually women, or are non-binary, or gender-fluid.
Wear whatever you please if it makes you more comfortable. It’s your prerogative to get the surgery if you’ve considered all the information (including negative ones) thoroughly, and decide you’re still willing to go through with it for your peace of mind. Do whatever it takes to make yourself happy.
It just doesn’t change your sex, and you can’t force nor expect everybody to see you as what you want them to.
Further Reading:
Straits Times:
2014, Sex change operations dwindling in Singapore (Archive)
Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine:
Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health
Stats for Gender:
Surgery and Medical Transition
4W:
Four Reasons To Stop Saying “Gender Dysphoria”
4thWaveNow:
Nothing wrong with your body that the truth can’t cure: Guest post
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden