I guess, because its very hard for biological women to get abs like that. The muscles are just different. Not impossible, but way, way harder then for men and therefore quite rare.
And we all know, its very scary for bigots to even look at trans people. They might have to wash their eyes with soap now.
just wanna add that it is easier to get them with testosterone. i think it makes sense to make that distinction here since there are literal cis women body builder who take it as performance enhancing drugs.
There is absolutely some muscle loss when on hrt. A study suggests transfems are comparable to cis women after about 2 years on hormones. Dunno if transfems have an easier time having visible abs, though.
depends on the order. if you build abs on testosterone (t) then go on estrogen (e) then you just can with relatively easily upkeep them. if you went on e before working out, its just as hard as for cis women. so hardcore cis women body builder go on t for a short time (some weeks) to get big muscles easier before retuning to e.
So, it’s not exactly easily available for workout purposes, but, much like antibiotics, aquarium and fish farm suppliers are not bound by the normal laws of pharmaceuticals but are bound by food safety to make sure the stuff is pure and uncontaminated.
I think it’s less that the muscles are different, and more about body fat percentage and maybe distribution. You could have the strongest core in the world, but if there’s a layer of fat on top of your abs, they won’t have this visible definition.
Also… Really rare to have boobs that big AND such low body fat, but all sorts of women get implants.
The simple fact that you don’t know people’s genetic material, maybe. Just use “cis women“ if you want to talk about cis women and avoid heavily transphobic wording. Gender isn’t related to (assumed) chromosomes
so, basically you have the right to tell what’s transphobic or not (you’re saying “innocent” here, that’s a judgement), but me, a trans person, have to lick any boots or be a nazi, just by asking for clarification about a wording? Yeah sure.
I interpreted “biological” in this context to refer to women who’ve been impacted by the difference i hormones, i.e., a cis woman with average amounts of estrogen / testosterone would qualify, as would a trans woman who has been on estrogen for a couple years. Sort of a “people for whom the following statement is relevant” kind of an adjective.
In future I’d advise using the term cis woman instead of biological woman because biological woman has a history of being used as a transphobic term by TERFs to delegitimise trans people, especially in the UK.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure about how to differentiate it. English is not my natural language.
I disagree about using “cis” in this context though. I wasn’t sure how much of the effects are hormonal and if it is the same for trans men. And its also true for non binary and genderfluid persons. So cis seemed to exclude many.
I got curious and looked into it and there were some helpful comments too. It turns out it’s mostly about the estrogen. So this means cis women, xx-chomosome non binary and gender fluid people (as long as they are not substituting hormons), trans women on estrogen and trans men who do not substitute testosterone.
So that would mean instead of “biological women” it would be “hormonal female” I guess, or what is the correct for that?
What part of this great picture got them scared?
I thought it was a little unsettling that their legs appear to be on backwards.
I guess, because its very hard for biological women to get abs like that. The muscles are just different. Not impossible, but way, way harder then for men and therefore quite rare.
And we all know, its very scary for bigots to even look at trans people. They might have to wash their eyes with soap now.
just wanna add that it is easier to get them with testosterone. i think it makes sense to make that distinction here since there are literal cis women body builder who take it as performance enhancing drugs.
Interesting. I wasn’t sure if it gets harder for trans women, when they are on estrogen. Do they loose the abs?
There is absolutely some muscle loss when on hrt. A study suggests transfems are comparable to cis women after about 2 years on hormones. Dunno if transfems have an easier time having visible abs, though.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref
depends on the order. if you build abs on testosterone (t) then go on estrogen (e) then you just can with relatively easily upkeep them. if you went on e before working out, its just as hard as for cis women. so hardcore cis women body builder go on t for a short time (some weeks) to get big muscles easier before retuning to e.
I’m gonna ask for t for totally cis reasons now. I’m definitely a body builder and absolutely not an 🥚.
So, it’s not exactly easily available for workout purposes, but, much like antibiotics, aquarium and fish farm suppliers are not bound by the normal laws of pharmaceuticals but are bound by food safety to make sure the stuff is pure and uncontaminated.
(source: I have family who work in fish farming)
I think it’s less that the muscles are different, and more about body fat percentage and maybe distribution. You could have the strongest core in the world, but if there’s a layer of fat on top of your abs, they won’t have this visible definition.
Also… Really rare to have boobs that big AND such low body fat, but all sorts of women get implants.
Could you clarify for a sec what you actually mean by “biological women”?
People with XX chromosomes and no hormonal therapy.
What’s not to understand?
The simple fact that you don’t know people’s genetic material, maybe. Just use “cis women“ if you want to talk about cis women and avoid heavily transphobic wording. Gender isn’t related to (assumed) chromosomes
We are talking about sex, not gender here! What did you gain with this comment?
The first comment used “women” which is a gender identity
Removed by mod
are you trans?
Removed by mod
so, basically you have the right to tell what’s transphobic or not (you’re saying “innocent” here, that’s a judgement), but me, a trans person, have to lick any boots or be a nazi, just by asking for clarification about a wording? Yeah sure.
Removed by mod
xx chromosomes is not the best predictor here, cis woman hormone levels would be closer. see de la chapelle
I thought it was just regular old sexism; woman getting stronk has the men with fragile egos feeling scared.
What do you mean by biological women?
I interpreted “biological” in this context to refer to women who’ve been impacted by the difference i hormones, i.e., a cis woman with average amounts of estrogen / testosterone would qualify, as would a trans woman who has been on estrogen for a couple years. Sort of a “people for whom the following statement is relevant” kind of an adjective.
In future I’d advise using the term cis woman instead of biological woman because biological woman has a history of being used as a transphobic term by TERFs to delegitimise trans people, especially in the UK.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure about how to differentiate it. English is not my natural language.
I disagree about using “cis” in this context though. I wasn’t sure how much of the effects are hormonal and if it is the same for trans men. And its also true for non binary and genderfluid persons. So cis seemed to exclude many.
I got curious and looked into it and there were some helpful comments too. It turns out it’s mostly about the estrogen. So this means cis women, xx-chomosome non binary and gender fluid people (as long as they are not substituting hormons), trans women on estrogen and trans men who do not substitute testosterone.
So that would mean instead of “biological women” it would be “hormonal female” I guess, or what is the correct for that?
sweaty 6 pack made their pants tight, and monkey brain confused as only men should have 6 pack abs…ergo they may have caught the gay