Debunking Transphobia #1
Seven assertions, and no substance to be found.
TERFs — trans-exclusionary radical feminists — are somewhat infamous for their shaky relationship with the truth, but it should be said the memes (masquerading as FACTS, of course) circulating within their echo chambers give this a whole new meaning.
Oftentimes, these posts parrot taling points which, when taken at face value, can seem scientifically verifiable and grounded in solid fact…but dig a little deeper, and you find what any decent person would tell you all along: they’re just talking points. Arguments tailored to further an agenda, one in which truth doesn’t matter.
For what it’s worth, I really should rise above this kind of hateful rhetoric, but sometimes it’s worth going to hell and back just to prove a point.
Here I am, posting a (totally sourced and referenced) rebuttal to an image I found on Twitter, of a Facebook screenshot, of a meme. With a decent amount of likes and shares, of course. Let’s see what’s on the table today.
The Argument
[Note: normally, I would redact the writer’s name from the image, as I don’t really want people trying to start fights over the Internet with people they don’t know. However, this has been shared nearly 400 times and has made numbers on Twitter’s trans and anti-trans circles — if that’s how you found this article, chances are, you’ve already seen the image below. If ‘Justin’ is confident enough to post something like this, surely they can handle the tiniest modicum of criticism…right?]
On the face of it, it looks like your everyday transphobe’s go-to insult repertoire: a trans woman’s vagina is dirty, fetid, an open wound, it’s unhygienic, it’s unnatural…if you’re a trans woman reading this, you’ve heard all of this before. This is nothing new to you, nor is it to me. And yet, here it is again, slapping us in the face with its sheer doltishness and wilful ignorance.
So here I go, ready to debunk this pile of garbage spouted by an anonymous verbal flatulist known only to us as ‘Justin’.
The Fact-Check
In their piece, the writer has made seven assertions, all dressed up in flowery science-adjacent language to make their argument seem more robust. It should come as little surprise, then, that their argument only looks ever more absurd for having been presented this way — without corroborating sources.
Let’s have a look at each assertion in turn.
Assertion #1
“…must be dilated eight hours a day to be kept open”
It sounds outlandish, doesn’t it? Keeping a dilator in your vagina for eight hours a day sounds absolutely ludicrous. Perhaps, even too far-fetched to be true.
And as we all know, if it sounds too far-fetched to be true, it quite often is.
Professor Toby Meltzer of the University of California, San Francisco, outlined a detailed dilation schedule for transgender women, building on the work of renowned surgeons Dr. Michael Brownstein and Dr. Curtis Crane. Within this schedule, Meltzer instructs the patient to:
“Insert the dilator into the full depth of the vagina (until you feel moderate pressure or resistance) and leave in place for 10 minutes […] You may start using the next size dilator after three months of dilating [for no more than] 10 minutes”
Notice how “eight hours” doesn’t even appear in that schedule once. To add to the absurdity of the writer’s claim, Meltzer’s guide states that in the first three months for a trans woman to dilate three times a day. You don’t need to be a Cambridge graduate to know that three eight-hour periods in one day, equals one whole day. I don’t know about you, but I can’t be sat in bed with something inside me all day, I have things to do.
It’d be funny if the point the writer was trying to make, wasn’t so repugnant.
Verdict: FALSE
Assertion #2
“…cannot self-lubricate during sex”
The premise of this lie- I mean, this argument, is that trans womens’ vaginas do not have mucosa, and thus cannot self-lubricate.
This is a myth so outdated it wouldn’t look out of place on Susan’s Place (and if you don’t know what that is: trust me, you’re better off not knowing).
This is so outlandishly false, in fact, that a thesis published in 1966 — that’s right, fifty-four years ago — disproves this entirely. William Masters’ and Virginia Johnson’s Human Sexual Response asserted that:
“…it is impossible to differentiate the cells taken from the artificial vaginas of Subject ‘A’ (when under the influence of adequate hormonal replacement) or Subject ‘B’ from those of a normal vaginal mucosal smear.”
Additionally, Mary Jane Sherfey’s study of cis and trans women, published in 1972, resulted in Dr. Sherfey concluding that from a cellular standpoint, the skin grafts used in sexual reassignment surgery adapt to their environments, and become mucosa, with:
“the exact cytology, gross and microscopic, of a normal vagina.”
Verdict: FALSE
Assertion #3
“…cannot self-clean”
This is an example of a classic logical fallacy known as begging the question — assuming the truth of an argument’s conclusions before the basic premise is even finished. It’s a kind of circular logic, whereby an argument requires a conclusion to be true, in order for the argument to prove the conclusion, and so on; given its often baseless nature, this strategy usually falls apart on closer inspection.
Here, the writer is making a covert reference to Assertion #2, as they both posit the same idea: trans womens’ vaginas do not have mucosa. This, however, is untrue (see #2), making this point rather unnecessary, as not only is it incorrect, it also results in a logical feedback loop.
Verdict: FALSE, REDUNDANT
Assertion #4
“…grows internal bacteria because it’s difficult to keep sanitary”
More circular logic; this time assuming Assertion #3 to be true, which in turn, assumes Assertion #2 to also be true.
In this case, the writer attempts to reinforce the truth of Assertion #3 by inserting the line “because it’s difficult to keep sanitary”, referencing the asserted inability to lubricate and/or self-clean, stated in #2 and #3. We already know this not to be true, however, so in order to make it sound like its own distinct point, the phrase “grows internal bacteria” is deployed.
When you think of bacteria, what comes to mind? Usually, disease- and illness-spreading pathogens. The writer’s use of this phrase is an example of another rhetorical device, this time loaded language, influencing the audience by using a phrase with strong connotations to evoke an emotional response; in this instance, disgust.
I’ll say one thing, though. Trans womens’ vaginas do contain microbial bacteria. As do cisgender womens’ vaginas. It’s called microflora.
A 2009 study by Weyers et al for Ghent University Hospital showed that out of fifty trans women tested, forty-four displayed microbial bacteria contiguous with that frequently found in those of cis women, with a follow-up study soon to be carried out.
If they’d left out the last six words, I would judge it to be true, in spite of the arguments that immediately precede and succeed it. They hadn’t, of course, banking on the use of circular logic and negatively-connotated language. Because of this, I will judge accordingly…
Verdict: MISLEADING
Assertion #5
“…has hair growing inside it due to an inverted scrotum”
Which would actually be true, if there wasn’t a procedure in place to prevent this.
…
Wait, there is?
Oh, yeah. Electrolysis. Literally zapping the hair out of its follicle until it falls out, weakening it until it eventually loses functionality.
Professor Meltzer (as mentioned in Assertion #1) recommends in his 2016 essay Vaginoplasty Procedures, Complications and Aftercare, that prior to performing SRS, a surgeon must:
“perform scrotal electrolysis, at least three full clearings 8–12 weeks apart, depending on electrologist preference and hair type and distribution”
Verdict: MOSTLY FALSE
Assertion #6
“…has no feeling or sensation”
Which, of course, is nowhere near true. Dr. Marianne LeBreton’s 2017 study of twenty-five trans women, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, states that:
“sensations were tested on the clitoris, labia and vaginal opening…good genital sensitivity was reported by all participants”
LeBreton’s study also states:
“eighty percent had reached orgasm at least once since their procedure.”
Verdict: FALSE
Assertion #7
“Penetration of the neo-vagina cannot lead to orgasm.”
Sorry, I may need to repeat myself a little here. Says Dr. LeBreton:
“sensations were tested on the clitoris, labia and vaginal opening […] eighty percent had reached orgasm at least once since their procedure.”
Prof. Meltzer (who you may remember from his starring roles in #1 and #5) corroborates this study, stating:
“No major sensory nerves should have been divided during surgery, so sensitivity should not be adversely affected after vaginoplasty.”
In other words…the writer is wrong. Who’d have thought?
Verdict: FALSE
Author’s Conclusion
“A neo-vagina is a surgical wound which attempts repeatedly to heal itself.”
Verdict: YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT
And Finally…
“#TERF”
Well…at least they’re honest about something, right?
Verdict: I MEAN…TRUE, I GUESS…?
In Conclusion
Seven points, no substance. No sources to back them up, hardly a word of verifiable truth. And yet, this did absolute numbers on TERF social media. Not even questioning it, just taking it as fact because it appears to confirm their own beliefs (confirmation bias, yet another logical fallacy).
Be wary of posts like these — the authors, like ‘Justin’ here, are counting on you not knowing these things, or not finding them out for yourself. You owe it to yourself to question what you see, especially if you suspect a hidden agenda (i.e. transphobia) behind it.
Remember, folks: if you can be yourself, you can think for yourself, too.
