ESSAY: The Road to de la Chap-Hell is Paved with Female-Only Spaces
This image from @alexalicit, left on @mrkhvoice’s Gettr, has been making the rounds. It is a visual slippery-slope argument that roots the original sin of feminism in separating men and women to protect women from males. This language is sloppy, of course, as female-only spaces protect girls, too, not just adult female humans, otherwise known as women (or so the legend goes!). And the girls are separated from the boys, too, and not just the men. The exception is when the male is an extreme juvenile and is actively chaperoned by an adult female human who can extend to him a sphere of privacy regarding sex (which is less discernible the younger the child) and can take responsibility for his behavior while in the female-only space and for whom there exists a clear and present danger if he were to be left unattended to preserve the female-only space.
The space exists for the benefit of all women, including mothers, which extends to their children while dependent juveniles. I support single-stall, unisex, disability family bathrooms, however, with a door that locks, because even traditional multi-stall female-only spaces are less safe for mothers attending to young children. Mothers should have a door that locks so they can focus on their children, such as while changing a diaper, and so they can have an additional layer of protection from being targeted by male predators for being mothers with children. People with disabilities also need this additional layer of protection. In many places, it fortunately already is mandated.
Back to the drawing, though. So this drawing somehow starts at female-only spaces, continues with excluding some trans from female-only spaces, continues towards hell via excluding even true trans, randomly starts stigmatizing women who look like Exulansic (because, perhaps, they might be trans?), or who have detransitioned like Exulansic, or women with ovarian cysts like Exulansic has talked about having (they took out my healthy appendix!), and ends with de la Chapelle syndrome being female.
What in the dicot nonsense is this? Some people have also criticized my criticism of the graph on Gettr by claiming that the fact that 5-ARD is near the kink in the graph proves that the creator believes that they are unequivocally male - by what standard? - and that the horizontal line represents “reality” whereas the slope represents the “descent into unreality.” However, please notice that “start stigmatizing virilized/masculinized women” is solidly on the horizontal line, before “declare 5-ARD to be male.” Does that mean the author agrees with stigmatizing virilized/masculinized women? Is the graph creator saying that’s reasonable?
No, clearly the entire graph is meant to represent some inevitable road to intersex perdition, de la Chap-hell, I’m calling it, starting from the original sin of seeking to segregate the sexes (recognizing that the sexes are segregable). They believe we are sex-racists, after all, seeking “pureblood womanhood.” Womanhood is, of course, a developmental circumstance, one which is mutually exclusive from manhood, in humans. It is not a gene nor is it a superficially-organized race, but a category defined by function and rooted in development.
Ultimately, this graphic is a concession. Remember that their original objection is that I sought to have a clear and consistent definition of sex that applied to everyone. I rooted this definition in gonadal sex determination, as my position is that sex is a developmental phenomenon, and must be considered independent of possible genetic determinants that may not have necessarily played a role in the sex determination of that particular individual. I define it this way because I believe a woman who tests positive for a Y chromosome on a cheek swab is entitled, scientifically, to due process, to determine whether the individual is an XY CAIS male with testicles or a 1% XY/99%XX chimera who developed as a female, ovulates, and just has a small section of cheek that tests positive for Y.
This chart relies on the theory that my definition of maleness might change in the future. That’s the only way you get from “Exulansic thinks CAIS are male because of testicles” to “Exulansic thinks XX males with testicles are female.” I would need to be inconsistent about whether having testicles makes you a male, and I am not. That’s what promoted Aaron Kimberly’s ovotestis to full testicle - argumentum ad Exulansic is a secret hypocrite and I’ll expose her with this thought experiment based on a lie. They also acknowledge that some women are virilized, yet act like only XX males being female would ‘open the door to women having penises.’ What do they think stage 5 Prader scale looks like?
Women do not have testicles, though. An empty scrotum is expected in the case of ovaries because no amount of testosterone makes ovaries descend1. Testosterone is also needed for testicles to descend2. Since testicles only need to descend recently, due to evolutionary pressures3, testicles descend relatively late in fetal development4, 3which is why premature babies are often born with undescended testicles that later descend. They are testicles for quite awhile before they descend, developmentally.5
The best part of this graph is that the flames appear to be hand-drawn.
1 Huston, John M. “Is the ovary in an inguinal hernia 'descended' like a testis or not?” Journal of Pedatric Surgery.
2. Baty, Katrine. “Testicular descent: INSL3, testosterone, genes and the intrauterine milieu.” Nature Reviews Urology. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrurol.2011.23
3 Yin, Steph. “The Evolutionary Origin of the Descending Testicles.” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/science/descending-testicles-evolution.html
4 S. F. Nemec, U. Nemec, M. Weber, G. Kasprian, P. C. Brugger, C. R. Krestan, S. Rotmensch, D. L. Rimoin, J. M. Graham JR, D. "“Male sexual development in utero: testicular descent on prenatal magnetic resonance imaging.” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Prayerhttps://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/uog.8964
5. Hatch, David A. “Normal Development of the Testis and Scrotum.” Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine. http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/meded/urology/nltstscn.htm
I still can't hold the dsds names in my head, or what developmental differences happen for each dsd. However reading the essay with the graph, clearly shows the desired direction of travel. Also the percentages with Cais dsd's, it sounds like a justification for a position, that will overwhelmingly benefit men. The fact that they got sucked into the trans lie, with someone that didn't know their stuff, by a man that is exploiting vulnerable people to cause trouble, and elevate himself and his channel as edgy. Then getting an adult human female banned from youtube. Your you-tube channel wasn't only important for showing the abuse of children and young people by the system. It was also a gathering place for many strong women, and often young, women that your stand empowered to shout out. Like the attacks on Karen, because we rally together with strong women. We grow power for our own selves, and not, by or for men, but solidly, by and for women and girls.