nods In my case, possibly literally. There's a lot of scary stuff up there.
[RD] Ask a trans person II: 2 trans 2 sexual
- Thread starter schlaufuchs
- Start date
nods In my case, possibly literally. There's a lot of scary stuff up there.
Sorry if I'm being repetitive - didn't read the whole thread, but I'd like to repeat a couple of questions I made before, that were answered kind of nonchalantly, and that I was hoping to hear from someone who approaches the themes more reflexively. Maybe this is the thread?
The first is about the ethics of a successful transition. if it is successful enough that you can pass as someone born with a body coherent with your inne identity - I assume that is the goal - when do you feel it's proper to disclose that you transitioned? First dance? First kiss? Hooking up? I mean, it is potentially a deal-breaker piece of info, and although you guys have right over privacy, true, isn't it mitigated by the right of making an informed decision by the possible partner?
I'm curious about the position you'll have, both personal and the position if the community.
The second question I have is philosophical rather than medical. By my understanding, transition is done when there is dysphoria, there is, a mismatch of the inner and outer identities. By and large, the solution for those diagnosed with that condition is to surgically change the body to match the psyche. And any proposal of adjustment of the mind is considered unethical and abhorrent. My question is: why? I mean, if the issue is the misalignment, shouldn't any alignment that works be equally acceptable? Why the psychological reference point is adopted as preferable?
Regards
.
The first is about the ethics of a successful transition. if it is successful enough that you can pass as someone born with a body coherent with your inne identity - I assume that is the goal - when do you feel it's proper to disclose that you transitioned? First dance? First kiss? Hooking up? I mean, it is potentially a deal-breaker piece of info, and although you guys have right over privacy, true, isn't it mitigated by the right of making an informed decision by the possible partner?
I'm curious about the position you'll have, both personal and the position if the community.
The second question I have is philosophical rather than medical. By my understanding, transition is done when there is dysphoria, there is, a mismatch of the inner and outer identities. By and large, the solution for those diagnosed with that condition is to surgically change the body to match the psyche. And any proposal of adjustment of the mind is considered unethical and abhorrent. My question is: why? I mean, if the issue is the misalignment, shouldn't any alignment that works be equally acceptable? Why the psychological reference point is adopted as preferable?
Regards
.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Because it turns out (from past disasters in brain experiments) that erasing or altering part of someone's brain is a stupendously bad idea that tends to far exceed in unpredictable impacts any side effect of transition.
Because it is the general commonly agreed notion that our brain - our thoughs, feelings and ideas x is the core of who we really are, not our body, and there's not a single shred of a single decent reason why it should be different for us (other than cis discomfort, which is not decent).
Because in every other imaginable case, if at all possible to fix a mismatch between brain and body, we try to change the body (prothesis, transplant, plastic surgery, make-up, tatoos, piercings, etc) to fit the brain rather than the brain to fit the body and there's no decent reason why we should be an exception.
(As for disclosure, I'm very openly trans because I don't care enough to hide it; so question not applicable to me and no ethical stance should be derived from this)
Because it is the general commonly agreed notion that our brain - our thoughs, feelings and ideas x is the core of who we really are, not our body, and there's not a single shred of a single decent reason why it should be different for us (other than cis discomfort, which is not decent).
Because in every other imaginable case, if at all possible to fix a mismatch between brain and body, we try to change the body (prothesis, transplant, plastic surgery, make-up, tatoos, piercings, etc) to fit the brain rather than the brain to fit the body and there's no decent reason why we should be an exception.
(As for disclosure, I'm very openly trans because I don't care enough to hide it; so question not applicable to me and no ethical stance should be derived from this)
Last edited:
fy00sh
Nonbinary | Peaceful Builder
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
- Messages
- 728
currently, as an afab-looking amab nonbinary person, i tend to disclose what genitalia i have to people around the same time i'd say that i'm polyamorous and already in relationships with 3 other ppl currently, since at that point im getting potentially deal-breaking info out of the way already. although, often i'll first ask if the person has a genital preference in the first place, and if they say they dont, or they say they do but that no genital set is a complete deal breaker, i dont bother disclosing unless they then ask me to.
i only bother doing this because my genitalia are incongruent with my appearance. if i had transitioned such that my genitalia were congruent with most people's expectation of what i'd have, i would not bother disclosing that i had transitioned at all unless they asked, assuming theres no extenuating circumstance that actually makes that info matter.
but thats not really something i'd ever deal with, since as of right now my genitalia are incongruent with my appearance, and after i get the surgeries i want to get (phallus preserving vaginoplasy without orchiectomy, plus possibly breast enlargement) my genitalia will be incongruent with basically everybody's expectations.
id like to add that transition is not only done when there's dysphoria regarding the person's current body state, but also when theres potential euphoria regarding a potential future way for their body to be. i, for instance, dont feel bad about having my current body per se, but rather i would be very happy to have my body another way instead. it's like saying "this way's fine, but we can do better, can't we?". thats an equally valid way of being trans.
as for the question you actually asked, i think evie's answer above is very good
Is there a way to articulate/explain the distinctions between "what my brain says" in this context and "what I want"?
Not easily. I mean, sexual orientation would seem to be another situation needing that distinction. Or maybe introvert/extrovert? Try participating (or not participating) as the other for weeks, months, years, and see if privacy and isolation or lots of continuous social interaction is what your brain says or just what you want. Some people will be exhausted or near suicidal, others will be able to handle it for a half-century especially if they don't realize they have an option to adjust their participation level.
I'm thinking gender identity is on one of those middle ('psychological') layers of Maslow's little pyramid.
Sorry if I'm being repetitive - didn't read the whole thread, but I'd like to repeat a couple of questions I made before, that were answered kind of nonchalantly, and that I was hoping to hear from someone who approaches the themes more reflexively. Maybe this is the thread?
The first is about the ethics of a successful transition. if it is successful enough that you can pass as someone born with a body coherent with your inne identity - I assume that is the goal - when do you feel it's proper to disclose that you transitioned? First dance? First kiss? Hooking up? I mean, it is potentially a deal-breaker piece of info, and although you guys have right over privacy, true, isn't it mitigated by the right of making an informed decision by the possible partner?
I'm curious about the position you'll have, both personal and the position if the community.
The second question I have is philosophical rather than medical. By my understanding, transition is done when there is dysphoria, there is, a mismatch of the inner and outer identities. By and large, the solution for those diagnosed with that condition is to surgically change the body to match the psyche. And any proposal of adjustment of the mind is considered unethical and abhorrent. My question is: why? I mean, if the issue is the misalignment, shouldn't any alignment that works be equally acceptable? Why the psychological reference point is adopted as preferable?
Regards
Evie and fy00sh have already said it well, but I'll throw my similar opinion in.
The first question is purely theoretical for me, as I will probably never be passable, and besides that I'm very "out". But if I was fairly straight, vanilla, passable, pre-GRS (bottom surgery), and not asexual, I'd... probably just give up on dating. There's no good answer there - too early and one is attracting chasers, too late and one is inspiring sexual fears, rage, and betrayal in man that one is about to be intimate with. If I was post-surgical, it gets even uglier. It's vaguely akin to having been a sex worker for a while, or perhaps being a convicted (but rehabilitated) felon - in theory it should make no difference to a partner, but when it does it really does. When (if ever) would you propose someone reveal their sexual or criminal history to a possible partner?
To the second question, it is a medical condition but also an element of my identity. It's as difficult for me nowadays to feel comfort in presenting masculine as it likely is for you to walk into court wearing panties under your no doubt sharp-looking suit. Note, comfort, not sexual thrill. If there was a pill that eased the effects of gender dysphoria I'd consider taking it but not if it also took away my occasional bursts of gender euphoria. All that aside, one is currently preferable to the other because one is available (to varying degrees), and the other is not. Nowhere have I seen anyone (with a legitimate view of this) seriously think that therapy is an adequate treatment for gender dysphoria, and there's no neurosurgical options on the table.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
Imagine waking up one day to find that you're an alien or another species. Everyone around you is that same species. You have no memories of being human but you still have a human mind, just now in the body of another species. You don't know why, but you have a sense that there's something wrong with your body. You can't explain it and if you try, everyone else just tells you that you're crazy and the problem is with your mind.
Another way to think about it, which is something I've said before because I've thought about it for years, is to think about werewolves. A human changes into a wolf and becomes a monster. Is a werewolf a monster because that's what a wolf is, or is it that it's a human forced into becoming a wolf, forced into becoming something it's not, and so the only way it can cope with having a body that's not their own is to act like a monster? Take that idea and imagine it a bit different. A wolf is born into the body of a human. The wolf will only know the world as a human. Everyone around this wolf is human telling the wolf that they're human and the world around them is telling them that they're human, but they have a sense that something is wrong. They can't explain to them because how can they explain it, but they know there's something wrong with them. Then they find out there's a way to change into a wolf, there are other people with wolf minds who have successfully changed into wolves and living better lives without harming anyone, but because the commonly held idea is that a werewolf is a monster, everyone will tell this wolf that wanting to go through this transformation is wrong. Even after the wolf goes through this transformation, everyone will still want to point out that they're crazy for wanting to go through the transformation because all werewolves are monsters. They just needed to cure their mind so that they can think like a human, not like a wolf.
Ok. First of all, thanks for the responses. I'd like to comment a little, but first I'd like to contextualize where I'm coming from.
Also, I must tell the mods I'm not starting a debate here. This is my actual contribution, the first one was just me setting up premises. I won't respond to any reply for this one, except if specifically asked to.
With those out of the way, I gotta say that I'm a very traditional cis-gendered male in a relationship that is almost 30 years old, and have a kid. So, the reality of your experience is completely alien to me in that dimension.
However, I'm also a lifelong atheist in a country that is overwhelmingly religious, and married to a religious woman. So I do have experience in navigating a world that perceives fault where there is none, both in societal and in personal relationships, and have people, even well intentioned ones who like me, that want to change me. In that dimension, your own struggles are very relatable to me.
I am also, as my avatar implies, versed in law (local law anyway) and in the ethical conflicts that derive from obligations x expectations of societal agents.
This particular combo puts me, I feel, in a unique position to comment, because I'm in the spot of several both similar and opposed pressures and influences, but without a horse in the race to skew my view to either way.
I'm also an impartial perfectionist. This is a term I coined in a discussion in this very forum over a decade ago, in a debate in which I disagreed from a person with a disability that said that fixing her issue would changed her so fundamentally that she didn't want to do it; and I argued that yes, that might be true that she would change, but there is a difference between accepting your limitations and being happy despite them, and glorifying them as part of your own identity, specially if the change is objectively advantageous (like, getting your hearing back instead of being deaf).
I'll point out that the conversation was not an hypothetical. The context of that discussion was a lesbian couple that met in a support group for deaf people, that asked a male member to impregnate one of them. As both were deaf due to a genetic recessive trait, the kid would have an 100% chance of also being born deaf. The couple engineered that, regarding the limitation as being “part of their cultural identity”, and wanted a kid that matched them. Quite abhorrent reversed eugenics, IMHO.
That context given, lemme give my commentary to the responses
About the dysphoria issue:
Well, first, medical recomendation is a perfectly reasonable answer to my question. And, out of the bat, I'd like to point out that I don't have a preferred resolution to the topic, and would be perfectly fine with the medical consensus that changing the body is the adequate response.
However, as I agree with the monist theory of the brain, I do think that altering brain functions is still just changing the body. Where I'm going here is to point out that fixing issues of health by altering the brain chemistry is a perfectly feasible solution to cognitive problems, and is done quite extensively for issues like bipolar disorders, hyperactivity, aggression, etc. You could change the body to remove functions (try being hyperactive without legs), but that would obviously be wrong and over the top, and most importantly for this thread, shows that there is a continuum of available appropriate responses for issues of perception (self, and of the world).
Note that I'm arguing that this, the dysphoria, is a medical condition like any other - I'll deal with euphoria later - and we should be impartial to any resolution that the medical consensus deem the least harmful.
I think this comment is important because I agree that many heavy handed attempts to "fix" people in the past were, indeed, prejudiced and biased, focusing on the discomfort of the traditionally oriented and in social expectations, rather than in the well being of the patient. That approach is obviously wrong and will do much more harm than good, but what I worry is that denouncing those wrongs of the past might create a skewed perception of legitimate approaches, and close avenues of research that would be otherwise quite legitimate. I've seen articles about such issue popping up in other hot topics as well, like drug companies being unable to offer different products for people of different ethnicities out of fear of being labeled prejudiced, even in the few stances it made chemical/biological sense.
Every time I had an opportunity to address this topic - and to be fair they weren’t many - my impression of the responses were that they were very guarded; that the past experiences have settled definitively that altering brain chemistry is an inherent evil, that it corrupts, in your words, “the core of who we really are, not our bodies (…)”,and this passionate response that postulates an insurmountable distinction between body and mind (dualism) evokes me a feeling of over correction, of committing the same mistake as those who defended the other solution – giving full prevalence of one aspect over the other – just with a reversed priority.
I wonder if in reality there actually aren’t different “best solutions" for each case; some, mental, some physical, each overlooked due to biased societal politics at each moment in time...
This is the point in which I acknowledge I might be working from a false premise; maybe there is a very definitive research consensus that mind realignment is an objective worse solution than body realignment. Considering the complexity of the mind, it’s certainly feasible. But so far, people defending it, at least to me, only managed to show it is better than a “first generation” of misguided attempts of “fixing" people for the wrong reasons. I am certainly open to be educated on the issue.
But than, I leave you with an hypothetical; considering that the body alteration is a very invasive, onerous predicament, if a new theory of the mind came about that allowed drugs to effectively, cheaply and non -invasively resolve the dysphoria with no discernible side effects, would you consider that an acceptable solution?
(As you didn’t engage with my first question, I’ll jump to the other replies if you don’t mind)
An “afab-looking amab nonbinary person”! Now, that is a mouthful. Hehehe. What Afab and Amab mean?
The point about euphoria was interesting. First time I hear it. I’ll try a little exploration, but forgive me if my opinion on the topic is not fully formed.
My problem with equating euphoria and dysphoria as reasons for transition, is that dysphoria is clear medical condition. Euphoria… not so much. I mean, if it is something that will harm the person if refused, it’s dysphoria.
In that case, I think an euphoria transition might clash with the Hippocratic oath, no? It is, I repeat, a very invasive procedure that involves altering body functions and potentially removing organs and parts thereof. That is the legal definition of aggravated body harm.
What if someone is part of a cult that worships Ganesha, and honestly and genuinely thinks sewing an elephant trunk in the forehead in honor of the deity will bring joy to his life? Should a doctor do it because of a declaration of preference?
As I argued before in this forum, I feel ethics is a mix of experience and consensus. My initial feeling for your argument is disagreeing that it is an equally valid reason, that you can risk invasive procedures to fix illness to any degree, but as means of self expression, I think a proportion should be observed. It’s ok to pierce your nipples; removing your genitals might be a tad too far to ask for the medical community…
Maybe if one day it can become trivial procedure, I’ll change my mind.
As for the question proper, if you don’t mind, I’ll answer you and Igloodame simultaneously.
There really isn’t a perfect answer here, and your point about it actually be a way to attract creepers if you reveal too soon is a fair point that haven’t occurred to me before. Most of my reasoning was dealing with a symmetrical ethical relationship that one could break by withholding crucial information. You introduced a different asymmetry that now I’ll have to take into consideration.
In that sense, I was equating your experience with mine of revealing that I am an atheist, information that can be deal breaker in several relations, and my proposed answer would be that you have to disclose the information as soon as you think it might bear relevance, and if later you find out it was too soon, it is an (unfair) fact of life one has to bear with.
For example, I never spoke in my job that I was an atheist, until my coworkers started inviting me to religious gatherings, and continued after a few denials. Than I gave my reasons. But with my girlfriend (now wife), I informed her as soon as I learned she was religious, even if at the time I didn’t know if she would be ok with that or not. I always take the high road in those instances.
So I guess if I was trans and looking to hook up with a guy, I’d stop in my tracks and informed him as soon as I perceived interest in physical intimacy, before anything happens. Again, this is not to challenge your right to privacy, it’s to balance it with the other part’s right to an informed decision, even if the decision is not to my benefit. The high road, with it’s unfortunate drawbacks.
However, your issue about “chasers” gave me pause. I can see how that is a problem. I guess I’d act differently depending on the environment. If attending the pride parade, I’d be ok with not upfronting it and expecting people to be ok. In a church sale, I’d assume it is relevant info to give beforehand. It is imperfect and might still cause accidents, but in most environments I’d have to choose caution even at the price of having to deal with some unsavory people. Again, life is not fair, but we can be.
Lemme just reiterate, is there some kind of consensus or unwritten rule the LGBT and trans communities accept for that? Or is it entirely down to individual ethics?
Regards.
Also, I must tell the mods I'm not starting a debate here. This is my actual contribution, the first one was just me setting up premises. I won't respond to any reply for this one, except if specifically asked to.
With those out of the way, I gotta say that I'm a very traditional cis-gendered male in a relationship that is almost 30 years old, and have a kid. So, the reality of your experience is completely alien to me in that dimension.
However, I'm also a lifelong atheist in a country that is overwhelmingly religious, and married to a religious woman. So I do have experience in navigating a world that perceives fault where there is none, both in societal and in personal relationships, and have people, even well intentioned ones who like me, that want to change me. In that dimension, your own struggles are very relatable to me.
I am also, as my avatar implies, versed in law (local law anyway) and in the ethical conflicts that derive from obligations x expectations of societal agents.
This particular combo puts me, I feel, in a unique position to comment, because I'm in the spot of several both similar and opposed pressures and influences, but without a horse in the race to skew my view to either way.
I'm also an impartial perfectionist. This is a term I coined in a discussion in this very forum over a decade ago, in a debate in which I disagreed from a person with a disability that said that fixing her issue would changed her so fundamentally that she didn't want to do it; and I argued that yes, that might be true that she would change, but there is a difference between accepting your limitations and being happy despite them, and glorifying them as part of your own identity, specially if the change is objectively advantageous (like, getting your hearing back instead of being deaf).
I'll point out that the conversation was not an hypothetical. The context of that discussion was a lesbian couple that met in a support group for deaf people, that asked a male member to impregnate one of them. As both were deaf due to a genetic recessive trait, the kid would have an 100% chance of also being born deaf. The couple engineered that, regarding the limitation as being “part of their cultural identity”, and wanted a kid that matched them. Quite abhorrent reversed eugenics, IMHO.
That context given, lemme give my commentary to the responses
About the dysphoria issue:
Well, first, medical recomendation is a perfectly reasonable answer to my question. And, out of the bat, I'd like to point out that I don't have a preferred resolution to the topic, and would be perfectly fine with the medical consensus that changing the body is the adequate response.
However, as I agree with the monist theory of the brain, I do think that altering brain functions is still just changing the body. Where I'm going here is to point out that fixing issues of health by altering the brain chemistry is a perfectly feasible solution to cognitive problems, and is done quite extensively for issues like bipolar disorders, hyperactivity, aggression, etc. You could change the body to remove functions (try being hyperactive without legs), but that would obviously be wrong and over the top, and most importantly for this thread, shows that there is a continuum of available appropriate responses for issues of perception (self, and of the world).
Note that I'm arguing that this, the dysphoria, is a medical condition like any other - I'll deal with euphoria later - and we should be impartial to any resolution that the medical consensus deem the least harmful.
I think this comment is important because I agree that many heavy handed attempts to "fix" people in the past were, indeed, prejudiced and biased, focusing on the discomfort of the traditionally oriented and in social expectations, rather than in the well being of the patient. That approach is obviously wrong and will do much more harm than good, but what I worry is that denouncing those wrongs of the past might create a skewed perception of legitimate approaches, and close avenues of research that would be otherwise quite legitimate. I've seen articles about such issue popping up in other hot topics as well, like drug companies being unable to offer different products for people of different ethnicities out of fear of being labeled prejudiced, even in the few stances it made chemical/biological sense.
Every time I had an opportunity to address this topic - and to be fair they weren’t many - my impression of the responses were that they were very guarded; that the past experiences have settled definitively that altering brain chemistry is an inherent evil, that it corrupts, in your words, “the core of who we really are, not our bodies (…)”,and this passionate response that postulates an insurmountable distinction between body and mind (dualism) evokes me a feeling of over correction, of committing the same mistake as those who defended the other solution – giving full prevalence of one aspect over the other – just with a reversed priority.
I wonder if in reality there actually aren’t different “best solutions" for each case; some, mental, some physical, each overlooked due to biased societal politics at each moment in time...
This is the point in which I acknowledge I might be working from a false premise; maybe there is a very definitive research consensus that mind realignment is an objective worse solution than body realignment. Considering the complexity of the mind, it’s certainly feasible. But so far, people defending it, at least to me, only managed to show it is better than a “first generation” of misguided attempts of “fixing" people for the wrong reasons. I am certainly open to be educated on the issue.
But than, I leave you with an hypothetical; considering that the body alteration is a very invasive, onerous predicament, if a new theory of the mind came about that allowed drugs to effectively, cheaply and non -invasively resolve the dysphoria with no discernible side effects, would you consider that an acceptable solution?
(As you didn’t engage with my first question, I’ll jump to the other replies if you don’t mind)
An “afab-looking amab nonbinary person”! Now, that is a mouthful. Hehehe. What Afab and Amab mean?
The point about euphoria was interesting. First time I hear it. I’ll try a little exploration, but forgive me if my opinion on the topic is not fully formed.
My problem with equating euphoria and dysphoria as reasons for transition, is that dysphoria is clear medical condition. Euphoria… not so much. I mean, if it is something that will harm the person if refused, it’s dysphoria.
In that case, I think an euphoria transition might clash with the Hippocratic oath, no? It is, I repeat, a very invasive procedure that involves altering body functions and potentially removing organs and parts thereof. That is the legal definition of aggravated body harm.
What if someone is part of a cult that worships Ganesha, and honestly and genuinely thinks sewing an elephant trunk in the forehead in honor of the deity will bring joy to his life? Should a doctor do it because of a declaration of preference?
As I argued before in this forum, I feel ethics is a mix of experience and consensus. My initial feeling for your argument is disagreeing that it is an equally valid reason, that you can risk invasive procedures to fix illness to any degree, but as means of self expression, I think a proportion should be observed. It’s ok to pierce your nipples; removing your genitals might be a tad too far to ask for the medical community…
Maybe if one day it can become trivial procedure, I’ll change my mind.
As for the question proper, if you don’t mind, I’ll answer you and Igloodame simultaneously.
There really isn’t a perfect answer here, and your point about it actually be a way to attract creepers if you reveal too soon is a fair point that haven’t occurred to me before. Most of my reasoning was dealing with a symmetrical ethical relationship that one could break by withholding crucial information. You introduced a different asymmetry that now I’ll have to take into consideration.
In that sense, I was equating your experience with mine of revealing that I am an atheist, information that can be deal breaker in several relations, and my proposed answer would be that you have to disclose the information as soon as you think it might bear relevance, and if later you find out it was too soon, it is an (unfair) fact of life one has to bear with.
For example, I never spoke in my job that I was an atheist, until my coworkers started inviting me to religious gatherings, and continued after a few denials. Than I gave my reasons. But with my girlfriend (now wife), I informed her as soon as I learned she was religious, even if at the time I didn’t know if she would be ok with that or not. I always take the high road in those instances.
So I guess if I was trans and looking to hook up with a guy, I’d stop in my tracks and informed him as soon as I perceived interest in physical intimacy, before anything happens. Again, this is not to challenge your right to privacy, it’s to balance it with the other part’s right to an informed decision, even if the decision is not to my benefit. The high road, with it’s unfortunate drawbacks.
However, your issue about “chasers” gave me pause. I can see how that is a problem. I guess I’d act differently depending on the environment. If attending the pride parade, I’d be ok with not upfronting it and expecting people to be ok. In a church sale, I’d assume it is relevant info to give beforehand. It is imperfect and might still cause accidents, but in most environments I’d have to choose caution even at the price of having to deal with some unsavory people. Again, life is not fair, but we can be.
Lemme just reiterate, is there some kind of consensus or unwritten rule the LGBT and trans communities accept for that? Or is it entirely down to individual ethics?
Regards
.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I'm sorry, but the suggestion that removing someone's legs would stop them from being hyperactive is...utterly and completely disconnected from what hyperactivity (and more broadly ADHD as a whole) is. At most it would stop some of the most obvious sign of one particular symptom of attention deficit/hyperactivity, and far from the most significant or impactful one ; at best just the most annoying one from the perspective of an outsider.
Altering someone's body to match their gender, though, does address dysphoria from the internal perspective.
More generally, there are certainly situations where brain issues result from the specific lack of certain hormones or chemical ; making up for those deficiencies by providing these hormones or chemicals is entirely reasonable. This is the case with the better ADHD treatments. But then, that's precisely what hormone therapy for trans people is - provide the trans brain with hormones it needs, that have a clear-cut positive impact on the brain in question, but which it is unable to produce itself (or obtain from the body). So, not exactly a strike about the current approach to treating trans people.
Finally there's a slim category of situations where medications really do alter the brain chemistry beyond just providing for a missing hormone or chemical. These should be considered fundamentally invasive and potentially harmful (and they generally are), to be used only in great necessity and should notably not be done if changes to the body can instead fix the problem.
As for behavioral therapy, there's plenty of mounting evidence that even the ones we consider currently reasonable to use (eg, Autism) are extremely traumatic experience that leave deep long-term mental health ill effects - and that's the ones we're still accepting! The rest of that batch (eg, conversion therapies, which is precisely what you would be looking at by trying to get the queer or trans out of someone's brain) are increasingly and rightly considered unscientific quackery (it doesn't fix the person, it only makes them hide who they are - and there's increasing discussion that the same applies to autism behavior modification) and torture, and are increasingly being criminalized. So, not a promising pathway of research.
Altering someone's body to match their gender, though, does address dysphoria from the internal perspective.
More generally, there are certainly situations where brain issues result from the specific lack of certain hormones or chemical ; making up for those deficiencies by providing these hormones or chemicals is entirely reasonable. This is the case with the better ADHD treatments. But then, that's precisely what hormone therapy for trans people is - provide the trans brain with hormones it needs, that have a clear-cut positive impact on the brain in question, but which it is unable to produce itself (or obtain from the body). So, not exactly a strike about the current approach to treating trans people.
Finally there's a slim category of situations where medications really do alter the brain chemistry beyond just providing for a missing hormone or chemical. These should be considered fundamentally invasive and potentially harmful (and they generally are), to be used only in great necessity and should notably not be done if changes to the body can instead fix the problem.
As for behavioral therapy, there's plenty of mounting evidence that even the ones we consider currently reasonable to use (eg, Autism) are extremely traumatic experience that leave deep long-term mental health ill effects - and that's the ones we're still accepting! The rest of that batch (eg, conversion therapies, which is precisely what you would be looking at by trying to get the queer or trans out of someone's brain) are increasingly and rightly considered unscientific quackery (it doesn't fix the person, it only makes them hide who they are - and there's increasing discussion that the same applies to autism behavior modification) and torture, and are increasingly being criminalized. So, not a promising pathway of research.
Though I'll honor my claim of not engaging in debate except if specifically required, this one point needs clarification for apparently I didn't do a good enough job at communicating what I was doing, and set me up for a strawman that just happened.
Not once I claim that to be a solution of ADHD. My point was exactly mocking past solutions that cared only with supressing symptoms, with limited success, and didn't have the patients well being in mind. Thus I chose the dumbest example I could think of that fit the bill, but apparently the hyperbole was not clear enough.
That said, carry on.
Regards
.
When it's safe to do so. My general advice is to disclose early on, and to have the conversation in a public location.
The second question I have is philosophical rather than medical. By my understanding, transition is done when there is dysphoria, there is, a mismatch of the inner and outer identities. By and large, the solution for those diagnosed with that condition is to surgically change the body to match the psyche. And any proposal of adjustment of the mind is considered unethical and abhorrent. My question is: why? I mean, if the issue is the misalignment, shouldn't any alignment that works be equally acceptable? Why the psychological reference point is adopted as preferable?
Regards
There would be nothing unethical about treating dysphoria as you propose, if such a method existed. Things like this are often suggested as viable alternatives to transitioning when in reality they're hypotheticals. If dysphoria-Prozac existed, I think most of us would have opted for that route.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
I reject the dichotomy. Gender identity isn't based on any one thing, but a confluence of the factors I listed above. Part of that is genitalia, part of that is psychology, part of that is genetics, part of that is culture and socialization. As Julia Serano pointed out in Whipping Girl, the error a great many groups have made - from sexologists to radical, marxist, and postmodern feminitsts, to misogynists, to gender essentialists and truscum, is in seeking to ascribe gender and sex to some singular fundamental quality or essence. It simply doesn't work that way. You are a man "because you say you are," just as I am a woman "because I say I am," but that is simply to metonymize a complex web of factors and influences both internal, external, genetic and experiential, all manifesting in the reifying declaration that "you are a man."
It's a big part of why I personally hate the phrase "trapped in the wrong body." My body is my body, just as your body is yours, and in the same way yours is a man's body because you say you are a man, mine is a woman's body because I say I am a woman. There are certain aspects of my body that I am not happy with, or haven't been happy with in my life (a not uncommon experience among women), which I seek to rectify with procedures and treatments. In this respect I am no different than a man who is unhappy with his receding hairline, or a woman who is unhappy with the amount of hair on her upper lip. We do not say these people are "born in the wrong body," even though theirs is the same struggle with the confluence of genetics, culture, and the self that drives me to seek estrogen injections or laser hair treatments, or that the treatments they seek constitute a special category of permanent, life altering dangerous experimental gender affirming care to which they cannot be trusted to freely consent without maximal "safeguards." I am seeking to change my body because certain changes will make me happier and more comfortable in my body, I am not seeking, nor do I have any interest in, discarding my body or having it replaced with a different body.
Rather than assuming, you should ask
.In this case it would be an incorrect assumption. Or rather, I think you are making a conflation between (1) passing - that is, to be intrinsically and infallibly perceived by others as a cisgender person, and (2) to arrive at physical and chemical arrangement that makes you happy and at ease with yourself. These are very different things, and while it is the case that some people do view passing (as defined in (1)) as the end goal of transition, many people do not. I mentioned in another answer, but one important lesson a lot of trans women (cannot comment on other trans identities due to lack of experience) learn (or fail to learn to their own peril), is that "passing" and "being hot/pretty/looking good" are two different things, not always aligned. Some trans people absolutely do want to pass, but other trans men and women come to love their trans self, and find that being visibly trans is a component of themselves that they really like and want to retain. Likewise, many nonbinary presentations are premised on very explicitly *not* passing according to the confines of cisnormativity, but rather to elicit such a confusion in the extending of cissexual privilege as to render the viewer incapable of categorizing the person at all. There was a pretty funny demonstration of this a few months back, when Jordan Peterson gave an interview about how usually he can sort people into men and women and knows how to interact with them according to those stereotypes, but some people are so difficult to sort that he doesn't know how to treat them and is driven to give up altogether. He cited this as an example of the danger inherent to breaking with gender norms, but the nonbinary people on twitter I saw were all responding with some variation of "yes! that's the point!" Treating them as neither male nor female or else leaving them alone is the goal.
So it actually took me a minute to realize what question you were asking. This is not a matter I think about, like at all, outside of interactions with cis people. When I think about disclosure, my mind goes to family, friends, co-workers, potential employers, neighbors. Who do I tell? How and when? What is my risk exposure here? Are they likely to get really weird and/or center themselves and their own feelings if I talk frankly about trans issues? Am I going to have to spend a lot of time coddling and educating this person in order to reasonably expect them to not be horsehockey to me? And is that going to be worth the time and spoons? It took me 2 years to get my parents to stop misgendering and deadnaming me. It was an excruciating process. I spent a lot of nights crying myself to sleep over it, but I decided it was worthwhile to work at because I wanted a relationship with my parents, and I could tell their horsehockytiness was out of a lack of understanding or interaction with trans people, rather than out of malice. By contrast, I had to effectively shut out an uncle whom I was quite close to when I was younger because I found it unlikely he was going to come around on this, and I didn't feel it was worth enduring the awkward refusals to touch me or be in my presence on the off-chance maybe one day he'd actually hug his fudging niece. In general I avoid disclosing to strangers or acquaintances if I don't have to. Cis people have an uncanny ability to forget everything about you the instant they learn your birth pronouns or your deadname, and get really weird and go from never misgendering you to being seemingly incapable of referring to you as anything but. Typically if I'm talking to someone in person about trans issues or my identity it's because I trust that person very deeply.
On the matter of disclosure in dating, as I said, it's not something I really think about? Generally I wouldn't file this under a question of ethics or privacy. For me this is a question first of safety, and second of avoiding time-wasting. I'm not straight or bi, so I don't have a lot of experiences with dating cis men, but here are some common experiences I know of:
- A trans woman is dating on the apps. Her bio has a trans flag, she says multiple times that she is trans, that chasers, time wasters, and transphobes need not inquire. She makes sure to include at least one picture with the trans flag in the background or some other indication of her trans status.
- A cis man responds and his first question is about her genitalia <- best case scenario. he can be safely unmatched
- A cis man responds, they chat, in which she mentions multiple more times that she is trans, they arrange a date. They sit down, trans woman, either up front explicitly, or later in the date off-hand again mentions she is trans. Cis man tells her he can't/doesn't date trans women and leaves. <- she has just wasted a bunch of time and energy
- A cis man responds, they chat, in which she mentions multiple more times that she is trans, he says he knows and is ok with it, fully supports trans rights, etc. They arrange a date
- a) They sit down, the man quickly outs himself as a transphobe and what ensues for the next hour is an exhausting conversation about her right to exist <- she has wasted a bunch of time and energy, and feels like horsehocky about herself
- b) They sit down, they have a great time, she invites him back to her place, he gets really fudging weird and breaks down crying, can't "force" himself to "go through with it" etc. He goes home. <- she has wasted a bunch of time and energy, feels like horsehocky about herself, and now this dude knows where she lives
- c) They sit down, they have a pleasant time, she invites him back to her place, it quickly becomes apparent this man is a chaser (assuming she didn't catch the flags during the date; chasers are really good at playing on trans women's insecurities because they often have *a lot* of practice), and the night gets *really* weird. <- Assuming she ends up spending the night with him, she's wasted a bunch of time and energy, feels like horsehocky about herself, and now this potential stalker risk knows where she lives
- d) They sit down, they have a pleasant time, she invites him back to her place, they have a wonderful night, they have more dates and enter a steady relationship. Dude is super sweet and affirming and very into her...in private. Refuses to be seen in public with her, hold her hand or touch her in any way, introduce her to his friends, go on additional public dates, etc. He strings her along, but she sticks around because dating as a straight trans woman *sucks* (maybe she's young and is insecure and terrified of being single). <- she wastes *a lot a lot* of time and energy, has torpedoed her self-esteem for an extended period of time, etc.
- e) They sit down, they have a great time, they spend the night together, have a good time. Guy invites her to his place or a secluded location for a second meet-up. She arrives to find a bunch of his buddies (or just himself) who proceed to: assault her and/or rape her and/or murder her. <- a not uncommon experience. See Gwen Araujo for a particularly extreme example. He can cite a trans panic defense, and maybe he gets off scot-free
- A trans woman chooses not to disclose until during the date it becomes apparent that sex is on the table
- a) The man politely balks <- time is wasted, trans woman feels horsehockey about herself
- b) The man rudely balks, yells at her for tricking him, possibly throws a drink in her face <- time is wasted, the trans woman feels horsehockey about herself and is publicly humiliated
- b) They sit down, they have a great time, she invites him back to her place, he gets really fudging weird and breaks down crying, can't "force" himself to "go through with it" etc. He goes home. <- she has wasted a bunch of time and energy, feels like horsehocky about herself, and now this dude knows where she lives
- c) They sit down, they have a pleasant time, she invites him back to her place, it quickly becomes apparent this man is a chaser (assuming she didn't catch the flags during the date; chasers are really good at playing on trans women's insecurities because they often have *a lot* of practice), and the night gets *really* weird. <- Assuming she ends up spending the night with him, she's wasted a bunch of time and energy, feels like horsehocky about herself, and now this potential stalker risk knows where she lives
- d) They sit down, they have a pleasant time, she invites him back to her place, they have a wonderful night, they have more dates and enter a steady relationship. Dude is super sweet and affirming and very into her...in private. Refuses to be seen in public with her, hold her hand or touch her in any way, introduce her to his friends, go on additional public dates, etc. He strings her along, but she sticks around because dating as a straight trans woman *sucks* (maybe she's young and is insecure and terrified of being single). <- she wastes *a lot a lot* of time and energy, has torpedoed her self-esteem for an extended period of time, etc.
- e) They sit down, they have a great time, they spend the night together, have a good time. Guy invites her to his place or a secluded location for a second meet-up. She arrives to find a bunch of his buddies (or just himself) who proceed to: assault her and/or rape her and/or murder her. <- a not uncommon experience. See Gwen Araujo for a particularly extreme example. He can cite a trans panic defense, and maybe he gets off scott-free
- A trans woman meets a guy in the bar, the strike up a flirtatious conversation, she at some point during the conversation discloses her status
- He politely balks, little time is wasted, perfectly normal interaction, maybe she feels a little bit horsehockey about herself
- He rudely balks, yells at her, possibly throws a drink in her face <- has actually happened to a person I know from twitter, it messes her up for at least a week, she is publicly humiliated
- All the additional above things about chasers, horsehockey boyfriends, potential rape and murder
- A trans woman has a date/meets a dude at a bar, they go back to her place, she discloses prior to the bedroom
- He's cool with it and they have a pleasant evening
- He immediately begins assaulting her, or tries to rape her, or murder her, or assault her and then murder her
- All the other above stuff
Let's compare the scenarios for cis people.
- Cis person sees the trans paraphernalia in the bio, swipes left <- no time wasted
- Cis person is disclosed to during the online chatting phase, he balks <- little time is wasted, he maybe feels ashamed due to toxic masculinity
- Cis person is disclosed to during the date, he balks <- a night + energy and hope are wasted, he maybe feels ashamed due to toxic masculinity
- Cis person is disclosed to at her place, he balks <- a night + energy and hope are wasted, he maybe feels ashamed due to toxic masculinity
- Cis person is disclosed to, gives it a try, doesn't like it <- no different from any horsehockey one-night stand other than he maybe later feels ashamed due to toxic masculinity
- Cis person is disclosed to, gives it a try, has a wonderful time (boys, we know what we're doing) <- has a great time, maybe feels conflicted after the fact due to toxic masculinity
- Cis person meets/hooks up with a trans woman who has had bottom surgery who discloses nothing <- it's just an ordinary experience in the dating world, regardless of outcome
So I would say for most trans women who have not had bottom surgery, the policy is to disclose early and often, not out of some concern about ethics in dating, or because we are trying to preserve cis feelings, but rather because it is the option with the lowest potential for dangerous, life-threatening outcomes. Generally we don't concern ourselves with cis feelings about our identities unless failing to do so presents serious risks to our lives and bodies.
A parallel hypothetical to consider: when do you disclose that you: live with your parents, are a child of divorce, live in a dump/unclean apartment, are unemployed, have herpes (in remission or actively presenting), are seeing/going on dates with other people, have chronic health issues that aren't presently affecting ability to have sex like lupus, not immediately relevant disorders like BPD, NPD, autism, ADHD, have had hair treatments or are wearing a wig/toupee, are wearing makeup, are wearing a pushup bra or hip pads, have recently lost weight, had plastic surgery, are a virgin/have had a lot of sexual partners. And so on. And in particular, in which cases do you feel an ethical obligation to disclose, rather than out of a concern for the safety of yourself or someone else, or to avoid time wasting? I feel that too often trans people are placed in a wholly other category from all other possible cases, as if we are an alien other who is in some way deceiving or predating on innocent cis people, when really we're just regular people. Aside from STI or polyamory/nonmonogamy disclosure, I haven't seen these things framed as ethical imperatives, and in the former two those are disclosures usually made in the interest of protecting the others' personal safety, and are generally made at the point where sex is on the table. I've only seen it in the case of trans people (and exclusively coming from cis people) that the whole question is presented as a big philosophical quandry which is always exclusively framed as a matter of protecting the feelings of cis people (which, again, is the focus of a lot of questions we get from cis people).
The community does not generally discuss it because it's not typically viewed as an actual legitimate question. The consensus is, as I said, usually to disclose early and often, and to be extremely vigilant about red flags for dangerous behavior and/or chasers. Generally the focus of the conversation as regards dating cis people is to complain about the types of behaviors and possible outcomes I listed above. (Lotta discourse about wives of newly-out trans women who string the recently hatched along for some time before leaving them in a profoundly hurtful way that ruins them for awhile).
The second question I have is philosophical rather than medical. By my understanding, transition is done when there is dysphoria, there is, a mismatch of the inner and outer identities. By and large, the solution for those diagnosed with that condition is to surgically change the body to match the psyche. And any proposal of adjustment of the mind is considered unethical and abhorrent. My question is: why? I mean, if the issue is the misalignment, shouldn't any alignment that works be equally acceptable? Why the psychological reference point is adopted as preferable?
Regards
So I think much of your understanding here is mistaken, and others have done a good job unpacking a lot of it (see also my response to sommer above). People change their appearance for all manner of reasons. Some transition to deal with dysphoria, some transition for safety - to avoid being clocked and to help them pass, and some transition just because they don't like certain aspects about their body and want to change them to make them happier - same as cis people who get hair transplants or go on finasteride to treat hair loss, or women who get laser and/or electrolysis, or get breast augmentation/reduction, or spend an extremely large amount of time at the gym dedicated to sculpting their physique in a particular way. Often for trans people it's a combination of all of these things.
I think you are severely discounting the effect that hormones have on one's emotional state. It's a very common phenomenon in the trans community to ask the question about whether HRT is right for them. Will it really make me feel happier? I'm not sure that I actually feel dysphoria about my body per se. How will I know if I've made the right choice? Usually the response from elder trans people is to say that there is no way to know until you try, and if you don't like it, that will become apparent rather quickly, usually before the point the changes become permanent, and you can always stop. For me, I held off on starting hormones until a year and a half after I started transitioning. Partially out of other concerns (wanted to get some sperm preserved beforehand, and also was worried about the reaction my partner would have to the changes), but mostly because of those same above questions. When I applied my first patch and took my first pill of spiro, I still wasn't really sure. But after about a month, once the emotional changes started coming in I knew absolutely it was the right choice. The brain chemistry and internal relationship with my body simply *feel right* on estrogen, in a way they never did on testosterone.
To get at the meat of the question though, in addition to the things every has already said above, the answer from a history of science perspective is that we have tried that. We have tried all of it. Sexologists and psychologists have exhausted literally every possible avenue of treatment for dysphoria other than transition and affirmation and none of them worked. They were profoundly unethical, they led to pretty severe negative health outcomes, and they wound up with a lot of trans people dead, addicted to drugs and alcohol, and performing the transition on their own without doctor's support or "supervision". The only procedure they have found that consistently works to treat gender dysphoria is gender affirming care, and believe me, they had to be dragged into that conclusion kicking and screaming, and some to this day do not accept that reality.
I tried to treat the misalignment through "the body" if I understand your dichotomy properly. *A lot* of trans people do. There's a common meme among trans people about a sort of late-egg phase. Usually it's presented as a trans woman's last serious go at being a man before finally giving up. It's not uncommon they become huge gym rats, grow big ol' beards, perform a masculinity that almost verges on parody. This performance is unsustainable and often that is the point when they realize they have to change or they will waste away and die. Others (like me) treat it by abusing substances like alcohol or narcotics. We may seek out a therapist to help us treat what we perceive to be non-trans related chemical imbalances like depression, anxiety, OCD, ADHD, and the like. Eventually that therapist will wind up suggesting perhaps it could be gender dysphoria. The truth is that for many trans people, we have already exhausted every possible avenue at the point that we come out. We've spent most of our lives trying desperately to perform a gender that feels alien to us in hopes of not arousing suspicion. Often, that performance is subconsciously perceived by others as false and we are bullied and harassed, usually being called faggots and sissies and queers, even when we identify or present as cis and straight and are in relationships with women. Ultimately, that performance is unsustainable and our lives gradually wither and fall apart, until we hit a point where we can no longer live in denial, and must accept the underlying truth: that we are trans. At least for me, the instant I started to accept that, things began to get better for me; Today I'm: not depressed, my ADHD symptoms are less self-destructive and more manageable, I don't feel anxious or have serious panic attacks anymore, I am able to have a healthy relationship with alcohol. Most especially: I actually care about my life and the future now. I want to have friends, I want to experience the world, I care about my health and my future. The best description of what transition looks like is to just look at my camera roll: there are probably fewer than 10 pictures that I took between 2014 and 2018, and maybe 40 from 2018 to 2020 when I came out. After 2020, it's like a switch flipped (because it did). Hundreds and hundreds of pictures. I started to actually enjoy living, and with that enjoyment came the desire to document and remember it. Before coming out I, like so many trans people before me, was in a holding pattern. It felt like I was in an ocean, treading water, waiting until I got fatigued and finally drowned. I didn't see a world in which I lived past 30, and frankly, I didn't think there was much of a reason in trying to avoid that fate anyway anyway. The caring and the purpose came back gradually, but I actually have a life now, and actively work to preserve and sustain it.
I would caution against so closely aligning our struggles. I also was (still am) an open and ardent atheist when I identified as a boy. My uncle was a devout Christian who saw it as his moral duty as a godfather to provide me with religious instruction. I've had all the condescending conversations with religious people. I would agree there is *some* overlap, but I think you are underestimating the totalizing force that is cis privilege and cis assumption. It extends to everything, and operates in pernicious ways that are completely unexpected, that you wouldn't even think about. By way of comparison, I can recognize and hold solidarity with black people who likewise struggle against an oppressive system that regularly enacts violence upon them, but I would by no means say that our struggles are the same or even of a kind with one another, except as oppressed groups fighting for liberation. I wouldn't dare to compare aspects of my struggle to the oppression black people face. Any similarity I perceive is as a white person, and so I am not authentically *knowing* their experience, but rather am merely imagining it as a person who can only ever approach it intellectually rather than experientially. Anti-blackness and racism must be dealt with and understood on their own terms, in the same way that anti-transness and transphobia must. I appreciate that you are trying to empathize with us, but your experience with religious people is not the same as experiencing transphobia or transmisogyny, and should not be mistaken for license to confidently opine on the trans experience or trans struggle.
I don't think you're really understanding what we're saying here. I agree that the mind and the body are not separate entities. I think the issue here is that you seem to be conceptualizing the matter as there being a particular imbalance of brain chemistry (dysphoria) which is being treated through altering the body. This would be a misunderstanding on three levels:
1) At base, the root issue is that I am a woman. Not I "think" I'm a woman. Not I "want to be" or "wish I were" a woman. I simply *am* a woman, in precisely the same way that you are a man. It is intrinsic to who I am as a person. Dysphoria is all the baggage that comes from being a woman who was mislabeled and subsequently treated as a man after my birth, and growing up perceived and treated as a boy in a profoundly transphobic, cisnormative society. The treatment for dysphoria, as trans people have been saying in clinical settings for decades and decades, is to allow us to live as our gender. Some of this is social - changing the way we dress and speak and act or being referred to by names we have chosen, using appropriate pronouns we specify; some of it is chemical - achieving a hormonal balance that is more comfortable and less distressing; some of it is physical - changing our bodies. In a word, the cause of dysphoria is the condition of being trans in a transphobic society. This is why you struggle to get clear or definitive answers when you posit hypothetical dysphoria-defeating drugs. The question simply isn't coherent to a trans person, and the implications are profoundly insulting. Put simply, to eliminate my dysphoria would require you to make me not be a woman. Again: not make me "no longer think" I am a woman. Not make me "no longer feel" or "want to be" or "wish I were" a woman. Rather, it would require you to *make me* no longer a woman, in the same way that someone could *make you* no longer be a man. This is simply not possible. To make me not a woman would be to destroy me and replace me with a *completely* different person, or else to make me an unperson: a biologically functioning, emotionless, personalityless husk. In a word, you would have to murder me. This is why we respond in the way that we do. Hearing a cis person discuss "a treatment to alter your brain chemistry to make dysphoria go away" is a particular combination of the sort of arrogant condescension that you mentioned experiencing from religious folks who assume they can convert you combined with that same arrogant person dispassionately and casually talking about murdering you.
This is simply a description of what gender affirming care (i.e. the present prognosis for the treatment of trans people) is.
I think the fact that you are getting such vociferous and unanimous pushback from people who actually experience gender dysphoria should give you pause here. It may be the case that the reasons you are hearing are good ones, but your own internal biases are leading you away from understanding what we are telling you. Ironically, this *actually* mirrors the history of the, as you say "first generation" of attempts. The history of this issue isn't one of scientists trying one thing, then another thing, and finally a third until they arrived at the conclusion that this is the correct answer. Rather the history is:
1.1) trans people tell doctors they are trans and tell them the treatment they need is to be allowed to transition.
1.2) Doctors ignore this and instead institutionalize, and lobotomize trans people
2.1) trans people tell doctors that they are trans and tell them the treatment they need is to be allowed to transition
2.2) doctors ignore this and instead institutionalize them and give them drugs to deal with their "mental psychoses"
3.1) trans people tell doctors that they are trans and tell them the treatment they need is to be allowed to transition
3.2) doctors acknowledge that transsexualism (*not* trans men) exists as a kind of paraphilia, and try allowing the trans women to transition. Allowing them to transition seems to work!
3.3) doctors only allow straight (attracted to men) transsexuals (*not* trans men or nonbinary people) to transition, and only allow those to transition whom they deem most likely to pass (in one conference on this matter, a sexologist *literally* said he determined this on the basis of which trans women got him hard)
4.1) Trans people tell doctors that they are trans and tell them the treatment they need is to be allowed to transition
4.2) Doctors realize that the older model of paraphilia is unworkable. Invent new model in which they label some transsexuals (those who are attracted to men) as the true transsexuals ("homosexual transsexuals"), and some transsexuals (those who are attracted to women) as weird perverts ("autogynephiles"). Real transsexuals are allowed to transition. The weird perverts are not. Trans men and nonbinary people also are not.
5.1) Trans people tell doctors that they are trans and tell them the treatment they need is to be allowed to transition
5.2) Doctors realize their true transsexuals/weird pervert model is unworkable. Create a new model which acknowledges trans men and nonbinary people. Says most transsexuals are true transsexuals, allows them to transition. Places the weird perverts in a separate paraphilia category
6.1) Trans people tell doctors that they are trans and tell them the treatment they need is to be allowed to transition
6.2) Doctors acknowledge that the old gatekeeping model is unworkable and unethical. Create a new model which acknowledges all trans people. Creates a new diagnosis "gender dysphoria", allows transition for any trans person who is diagnosed with this disorder
7.1) Trans people tell doctors that they are trans and tell them the treatment they need is to be allowed to transition
7.2) Doctors realize the old gatekeeping model is unworkable, as trans people read all the studies and literature, and are very practiced at lying to medical professionals in order to be allowed to transition. Advises doing away with gatekeeping/diagnostic criteria, and instead advises diagnosing anybody who says they are trans and want to transition with gender dysphoria so they can be allowed to transition. The "Weird perverts" paraphilia somehow still in the guidelines despite the theory being widely discredited and its advocates all being outed a frauds and weird perverts for trans people.
Which is to say, the history is trans people being the gender they say they are, and wanting to transition to better present, feel, and be perceived as the gender they are, and being ignored by doctors who instead make up some weird horsehocky about us based on their own weird hangups about gender and fetishes that allows them to withhold transition from us. This isn't "a step," this is the medical profession finally listening to us when we tell them things, frankly because they realized that no matter how many barriers they impose on transition, care, trans people know how to read studies and diagnostic manuals, talk to other trans people, and get very very good at lying, and will do and say literally anything that allows them to transition.
Straight up I would fight you to the death if you tried to do this to me. You would literally have to physically kill me to shove that pill down my throat.
AFAB = Assigned female at birth
AMAB = Assigned male at birth
They are saying that doctors labeled them male when they were born, but generally are perceived today either as a cis woman or someone who was mislabeled female at birth but is properly, and currently presents, as nonbinary.
So firstly, dysphoria isn't actually a "clear" medical condition. It's a real phenomenon, but its clinical definition is basically a compromise between trans activists, the bureaucratic and insurance need for medical coding, and the old gatekeepers who were grappling in the 00s with the unworkability of the old Gender Identity Disorder model. As I noted, the big problem from a medical standpoint, is that there isn't actually a way to objectively test whether someone is a "real" trans person, or "really" has dysphoria. The closest you can get is to create a snapshot of the sorts of things "real" trans people tend to say, and compare them to the way the presenting patient describes their internal state. But, as I noted, trans people, generally speaking, just want to transition - because they're trans - and will do or say whatever it takes to get the medical treatments that they want or deem necessary for their transition. We tend to congregate into tight-knit communities, we all read WPATH and the relevant portions of the DSM, we know all the drugs and dosages, and we talk to each other about the sorts of questions we're asked, and practice with each other reciting the sorts of childhood stories they want to hear from us so that we can finally get that diagnosis and move on with our lives. This is how we wound up at the self-ID and gender affirming care model of treatment: take trans people at their word, allow them to transition, and see how they feel about things and meet them where they are.
I also want to make it clear here that trans care and transition aren't just surgical procedures. Transition is changing the way you dress, your name, the pronouns you go by. Transition is taking hormones, whose effects are completely reversible if done before 6 months (and most people realize the hormones aren't for them before that point). Transition is changing your voice. Surgical interventions (FFS, top surgery, bottom surgery) are 1) not universal. Not everyone does one or any of them. and 2) are some of the very last big milestone procedures you'll have done. Breast augmentation for trans women comes after at least 2 years on hormones, and bottom surgery does as well (longer given the waiting periods and pre-op procedures like electrolysis in the case of, say, penile inversion).
I mean, why not? Doctor's are perfectly content to allow people to undergo hair transplants, breast augmentations, botox, and the like simply because of a declaration of preference. Hell, doctors let *parents* remove genitals and breasts from children on the parents' behalf simply because of a "declaration" of the parents' preference. In general, I think the sort of medical arrogance that places a doctor atop a gate out of a misguided belief that a patient can't be trusted with their own life and body is and has been profoundly destructive. It's that exact line of thinking that has driven so much of the "first wave" of failures, and the medical field has spent the last 60 or so years grappling with the reality both that it's been a catastrophic approach, but also that it's a profoundly ineffective one from an ethical standpoint because 1) patients know how doctors are and what they want to hear, and will lie to the doctors to get the treatments they know they need, and 2) doctor's that behave in this arrogant way lose the trust of their patients, who, should lying not work, don't then obey the doctors' orders, but rather just stop going to the doctor altogether, even to their own harm.
Well, thanks a lot. That is actually exactly what I was looking for: perspective.
I'll have to think over some of your points before I come to any conclusion on the topic on whether my opinion should remain, change entirely or merely adjust. I simply have to think over things before conclusions on any topic, and this one is probably the issue I cared to engage in with the largest perspective differential in my forum history, and not by a small margin.
Sorry if any of my points were offensive. That was never my intention, though I suppose dealing with well intended offense might be a common occurrence. In any case, if I didn't honestly disclose what I thought, you would not be able to give your diagnostics on where my premises might be false.
If, after my own reflection, I come up with follow up questions, or at least something interesting to say, I'll post again.
Regards.
I'll have to think over some of your points before I come to any conclusion on the topic on whether my opinion should remain, change entirely or merely adjust. I simply have to think over things before conclusions on any topic, and this one is probably the issue I cared to engage in with the largest perspective differential in my forum history, and not by a small margin.
Sorry if any of my points were offensive. That was never my intention, though I suppose dealing with well intended offense might be a common occurrence. In any case, if I didn't honestly disclose what I thought, you would not be able to give your diagnostics on where my premises might be false.
If, after my own reflection, I come up with follow up questions, or at least something interesting to say, I'll post again.
Regards
.
Why does a confluence of factors in this context mostly/generally lead to a dichotomy of genders?
Is there any measurable weight that can be assigned to any one of the factors in making the determination? Another way of asking this is whether any one of confluence of factors can be ignored or discarded or assigned more consideration than others? More specifically, can genitalia be ignored as a determining factor? Can psychology be ignored? Can socialization be ignored? Is saying that you are a woman despite having a penis discarding/ignoring genitalia as a factor?
Is it unreasonable for people to refuse to embrace, accept, or tolerate a person's subjective declaration of gender as dispositive in all contexts?
Is a person's assertion that they are a woman because they say they are a woman more legitimate than a person's assertion that they are a man because they have a penis?
Is a person who says they are a supermodel or superstar athlete who was just born in the wrong body, in-fact a supermodel/super-athlete because they say they are, or are they instead a person who is unhappy/dissatisfied with certain aspects of their body or both?
Is there a difference in the life-altering nature of being allowed to live as the gender you are, regardless of genitalia at birth and the life-altering nature of having the hairline/hair-fullness, breast size, tattoos that will make you happier and more comfortable in your body?
If there is no difference, then why should wanting to live with the correct-for-you amount of hairline be perceived differently than having the correct-for-you genitalia, by those who regard lip hair as a matter of choice/desire? On the other hand, if gender identity is different, ie more significant or substantial why is it incorrect for people to treat gender affirming surgery/treatments as being more significant than "cosmetic" surgery/treatments.
Last edited:
Is there a way to think about it / describe it that does not require a reference/comparison to a fantasy or science-fiction situation? Do agree or worry that comparing trans identity to fantasy or science-fiction or other make-believe situations potentially implies or bolsters the notion that trans identity is delusional or fantastical?
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
That's difficult, maybe someone smarter than me might be able to come up with a better answer or a real world comparison. Science fiction and fantasy just makes it easier to use as an allegory, especially ideas that might be otherwise too difficult to explain. There are plenty of fantasy and science fiction stories about a person who feels like an outsider, or someone who is introduced to a secret world or is shown the world for what it actually is. One symptom of gender dysphoria is disassociation, the feeling that you and the world aren't real and don't exist. Trying to explain that feeling to someone will end up with a work of fiction as an example.
I guess in a way it'll be like trying to explain atheism to someone who cannot possibly conceive or imagine a world without God. The atheist would seem delusional to the believer. The atheist can be ready to explain everything about why there is no evidence that a God exists or is necessary for the universe to function, but to the believer without God there is nothing, how could anything exist without God? The problem with using that an example is that it's still based around a belief and not something that's as physcially measurable or scientifically provable.
Last edited:
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
In part because, as I noted, humanity biologically tends towards a bimodal physiological distribution, suggesting a tendency to create a distinction between those two modes. As I said, this is borne out in the fact that pretty much every society we have ever encountered as male and female genders represented in some form or another. In a Saussurean sense, it is a logical necessity, that if a society were to recognize a concept like gender, then it necessarily follows that there need to be at least two categories, even if the second category is an absence, as “on” is a meaningless term without an “off” to define and constitute it and vice verse.
As I said, because gender identity is pretty intrinsic to the human self (defined as the relationship between the self, the body/biology, and society, then gender is always going to exist within a human society.
No, because it’s trialectic. The thing’s meaning derived from the interrelationship between the things, such that the individual components must be described in reference to one another, and cannot be described in isolation. Our biology generates a bimodal distribution of characteristics, but this definition is incoherent except in relation to the society that defines those modes, but those definitions are likewise driven by the modes, and that relationship likewise cannot be described except in relation to the self, the self’s experiences and knowledge, the self’s body, and so on. No component can be described in isolation.
It cannot, but I mean that in the sense that each of our bodies has a particular arrangement of genitalia, and each of us lives within a society which has a particular relationship towards and definition of genitalia and it’s various arrangements, so each of our relationships between the self, these cultural understandings, the biological realities of these distributions, and our own arrangement of genitalia are going to constitute the way we understand and define our gender identity.
Just because I define my penis as a female penis, does not mean that I am “discounting” genitalia, it means that I have a particular relationship to my body, my life, my self, and the society I live in that creates that understanding of gender within my own gender identity. Similarly, just because someone is defining sex according to a specific genital arrangement does not mean they are discounting psychology, as that definition draws from their own self and their own body, and entails unstated assumptions about how the mind relates to the body, relates to society, and relates biologically.
All definitions of gender are subjective, because all gender identities are inherently personal. The conviction that gender is objectively determined, contingent on some specific empirical factors is itself a subjective definition of gender.
In a zillion different ways we are constantly toy signaling to others “I am this gender because I say I am,” and others accept that, whether tacitly, affirmatively, or vocally.
Even when someone “gets it wrong,” that is, misreads a subtle cue and misgenders a person: Will that be all Mr…, often all it takes is a verbal correction, “Ms. Diaz,” and generally the offender is quick to apologize and correct. In this case, literally: “I am a woman because I say I am,” and “Yes, you are a woman because you say you are.”
I do hold the refusal to be unreasonable, because it’s premised on a profound arrogance on the part of the refuser, generally directed towards trans and gnc people by cis people, based on the faulty assumption that their gender identity is somehow more legitimate or more objective than the person whose gender identity they are rejecting, hinging either on some single criterion like a body part they have, a chromosomal arrangement, or merely the fact that they’ve claimed that gender all their lives. But none of this actually serves to objectively legitimize their identity over others, nor does it give them authority to adjudicate on others’ genders. At the end of the day their claim to gender is based on self-identification and a demand for respect and acceptance from others, and my claim is no different.
They are the same assertion. When you say you are a man because, say “you have a penis,” or “because you have xy chromosomes,” a person who accepts that assertion as legitimate is doing so by assuming: a) that you do have the genitalia or chromosomes you say you do, and b) that this personal definition of your gender is to be accepting wholesale as a legitimate definition.
In queer theory we call this “extending gender privilege.” You say you are a man, and we accept that and call you a man. You say you are a man because you have a penis, we accept both that you are a man and that you have a penis, and that your subjective feeling that having a penis means you’re a man is a legitimate definition of gender. We do this all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with genitalia (part of how we know this has to do with a big web of interrelations and not any specific essence). When you walk into a men’s bathroom, and nobody challenges you or pays you mind, you are saying “I am a man [because you say you are - you have self-identified by choosing the men’s restroom],” and the other people who say nothing are saying “I accept that you are a man because you say you are.” We do this with clothes, with mustaches, with vocal tone, with consumption preferences, with pronouns.
Supermodel and super-athlete are not gender identities. Someone saying they “identify” as a supermodel, or a Korean, or an attack helicopter is not the same thing as someone saying they are a man, a woman, or a nonbinary person. Supermodel is a cultural category that is informed by and in turn informs gender, and it plays a role in gender identity today, but someone changing aspects of their body out of a desire to appear more like a supermodel or super-athlete is doing so according to a particular relationship to gender identity (the body-self-culture trialectic) within the context of their gender. A man who goes to the gym 5-days a week and meticulously watches his diet, or a woman who does a whole glute and leg-sculpting routine and practices perfect eyeshadow blending are performing their gender identity as men and women respectively. They are not “transitioning into a supermodel,” or “identifying” as a supermodel.
I think this is a category error. Me being “allowed” to live as a woman means people accepting that I am who I say I am because I say I am, no different than you are who you say you are because you say you are.
Receiving gender-affirming care is not the same thing. A man who received hair transplants is not “being allowed to be a man” now via the treatment. He always was a man, and as a cis man, his manhood was, generally speaking, never in doubt. Rather, the man is receiving the treatments so that he can feel more at ease in his gender identity as regards his relationship to his body. In this respect, it is little different than a trans woman who gets breast augmentation or FFS (or finasteride/hair transplants), and that self-alignment to ease discomfort or feel happier is a significant component of why we as trans women seek these treatments. It ain’t called gender affirming care for nothing.
But society doesn’t *actually* work that way for us. Because we live in a transphobic, cisnormative society, people are less likely to extend gender privilege to us automatically. Many people won’t view our gender identities as legitimate unless we receive them. Many governments won’t acknowledge us unless and until we receive them. That is, our being “allowed” to be our genders does in many cases literally require these procedures, and that *in addition* to the other gender affirming component. So that is a critical difference between gender affirming care for trans people and that for cis people.
It’s not different insofar as they are both treatments to help a person feel more comfortable in their gender identity as regards their relationship to their body. It is different insofar as cis people treat it as different, because they make our legitimacy and equal treatment contingent on receiving those procedures.
It’s also different in degree. The discomfort we feel tends to be more pronounced due to our present society/culture, the discord between the relationship to our bodies and ourselves and culture, the time we spend living in that discord, and so on. A man might feel bad about himself, or feel a persistent sadness because he has lost his hair. This is a valid feeling, and hair treatments would ease his discomfort, and should be (and typically is because patriarchy) encouraged and covered medically. But generally speaking, cis men who go bald are not committing suicide *because* their hair started falling out, or out of the profound inescapable despair that might cause.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Of course! Thank you for your questions! I hope we were able to provide some clarity for you. Don’t worry too much about asking offensive questions (here, at any rate), this thread exists for education, and you can’t learn unless you ask.
If, after my own reflection, I come up with follow up questions, or at least something interesting to say, I'll post again.
Regards
please do!
@schlaufuchs (and anyone else trans who is willing to answer)
Do you place any weight/value on a distinction between sex and gender?
Does a distinction for gender or sex require specific parameters defining sexes or genders? (I know I asked a similar question before, just in a different context)
Do you have any thoughts on the recognition of a third gender in some culture(s)?
Do you place any weight/value on a distinction between sex and gender?
Does a distinction for gender or sex require specific parameters defining sexes or genders? (I know I asked a similar question before, just in a different context)
Do you have any thoughts on the recognition of a third gender in some culture(s)?
