Ok; this post is several weeks coming. It didn't actually take
this long to figure out what I had to say, but real life got in my way big time. So here it goes, let's see how this does.
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.
Well; first, let's register that It's fair that asking first is a good policy. Noted.
It's curious that there is such interest in
breaking classifications; there is clearly an anarchical component to that
. I wonder what the underlying psychology is, meaning, the most common/trend inner individual drives, behind such interest. So now I'll ask first - do you guys have any input on that?
Anyway, this is one of the most interesting aspects of the reply, because it brings to light that dysphoria is a greater disconnect than "the body" and "the psyche" being polar opposites, and the inner and/or outer identities can be a blur between states, even as the preferred solution. In hindsight that isn't even very surprising; I have used te same argumentative base (that reality does not conform to normal or nominal presets and many things exist quite happily in transitional states) myself before. Granted, I made that argument in
extremely dissimilar circumstances (debates on taxonomy and cosmology), and it never occurred to me that the same idea could apply to self-designation. Well, this is where perspective sinks in.
I'd like to point out that this does not bother me at all; if you are happy, more power to you. However, when it comes to my question, it does not really change it that
at all; it highlights that the question only applies to the subset that is passable as cisgender, but this was always where the ethics involved were relevante. For those that do not pass at all, the question would be hypothetical.
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.
All right. To put this in perspective, my personal stance is
it makes you happy, more power to you. I have no comment on the difficulty of changing the perception of a Trans person for family and friends, because I never had family, friends, nor even acquaintances in real life going through it. If someone really close to me does go through it, I imagine it might take me a while to get used to it, but I wouldn't
resist the adjustment.
The range of my question is one of
informed consent, because I do know of two instances of people that had kissing sessions with people that turned out to be Trans, that only found out later, and were both upset and regretful, thinking they would not have done it had they knew. Do notice that this is not a comment on their own stance of not seeing a Trans woman as a woman - that is a different issue - but rather, the asymmetry of the dynamics, as only one of the parties is privy to relevant information.
So, when you say that this is an issue you don't think about except when interacting with cis people, this should not mean downplaying the relevance of the question. It is in the interacting with cis people that this issue generates friction.
I don't know if you have practical insights. You never revealed if you are the in the passable subset or not (and you don't have to do it here, too).
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:
Well; I suppose that a cis man and a trans woman have diametrically opposed priorities. I can empathize with the safety issue you pose (if your only argument were the time waste, I'd consider it an unethical position because of the difference in knowledge), but if disclosing does endanger your safety, I suppose it's justified.
Justified or not, I dislike
anything that implies in people engaging in intimate acts without informed consent.
Not that chasers, timewasters, or those who are rudely curious in general, are not also to be criticized. They absolutely are. No one should be treated as a side-show. Still, for me, informed consent is a bigger issue than you acknowledge here.
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
It's a sad state of affairs indeed, and 3.5 is straight up horrifying.
My solution, previously to our talk, would always be that, in an online dating scenario, early disclosure would have been the solution - but then you added a complexity: that some people will actually
target trans people out of malice, or while still dealing with their own insecurities, to the extent of criminal intent. Maybe I was very naive for assuming good faith, but this is precisely where perspective sinks in.
That is a thorny issue indeed, then. Still, I think that the only ethical way to approach this would be to suck up the possible timewasters and potential for disappointment, while still taking measures to protect oneself from harm (I don't know, letting a friend know where you are going and let the date know someone knows who he is). I won't pretend to have a solution here. Maybe being less than ideally ethical here is the pragmatic thing to do. Still, I can't shake my investment in the idea of informed consent.
In any case, if Trans people who goes into the date pool face a higher risk of rape/murder than average, and the authorities are dismissive, that is, indeed, straight up scandalous.
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
Not a lot to add here that wasn't said in my previous comment.
- 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
Again, the same.
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
I noticed that it is the first time, in here, that you considered the possibility of a positive outcome for the reveal.
I'd contend that this is a bit skewed.
What about an early reveal, in the bar or even in the date app, where the guy might be ok, and things proceed like this. Or, alternatively, one in which the guy/girl decided that this is not for them,
but is otherwise cool, and interested in hanging out and being friends? Ok, the infamous friendzone stings, but this is an
universal issue.
Why go straight from "he's cool and the evening is pleasant" to "he immediately begins assaulting her"?
That's what trans people face when dating. Best case scenario they waste an evening with a weirdo, worst case they get raped or murdered, expose themselves to stalkers or abusers. Occasionally they find a diamond in the rough. Sometimes someone seems perfectly lovely for a time, who then gets increasingly weird a guarded about being seen in public with you. I'm familiar with, and in some cases friends with, trans women who have had all of these experiences. 50% of trans people will be raped at some point in their lives. It's why a lot of trans people - both straight, bi, and gay, wind up in the position that finding a diamond in the rough non-horsehockey cis person is not worth all the trauma, and swear off cis people altogether and go t4t - that is, exclusively dating other trans people. Trans people aren't immune to being rapists or abusers or generally horsehockey, but they're significantly less likely to be really weird around or about trans people specifically, and typically you can reasonably expect them not to have doghorsehocky positions on trans rights issues.
Is the more positive, or at least neutral, option that you mentioned in the previous reply so uncommon that it doesn't get mentioned here? And don't forget the ones I added.
And what about people that would be cool to be friends no problem, except that they get mad with romantic interactions that happened previously to the reveal? I know, by the next list of scenarios, that this will probably be considered an example of toxic masculinity (except that this might be also the case for a woman dating a trans man), but I'll elaborate there.
So, I don't know. The problem you pose is real, but I feel the presentation of the problem isn't adequate. Do you have statistics of dating violence against Trans in comparison with the general population?
I mean, let's assume your presentation to be a perfectly accurate representation of the dating scene involving trans people and cis people in 2023. If that is the case, there is such
disconnect between the desired outcome, and the likely outcome, that
no one should be trying to date outside the trans community. And by this, do not think that I'm advocating any kind of segregation; what I'm saying is that there is
a long way ahead of less intimate interactions and normalization before dating becomes viable, if it will be viable at all, in the future.
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
Ok, this here for me feels like the crux of the issue. All the scenarios in which the guy (and again, why assume a guy, what about a cis woman and a trans man in the same scenarios?) gets to know, are given unfavoravle outcomes and labeled "toxic masculinity", and are solved with
let him stay ignorant of what he chose, in number 7, which is argued in a positive light - as "just an ordinary experience like any other".
But if those entirely were exactly the same,
if the information bore no relevance, then scenarios 1 to 6
would not exist. Even if that relevance is a function of deep-seated prejudice or cultural abhorrence.
What I diagnose, here, from our interaction, is that we start from fundamentally different axioms; your being "a trans woman is a woman like any other, thus there is no point revealing information that could trigger improper bias", mine being "though a trans person can be validly considered a member of their transitioned gender, the necessity of such transition is pertinent information for valid consent from a potencial partner".
Mind me, it might turn out that the person is a creep. Right now, I'm not assuming good faith. Still, the principle of informed consent would apply, IMHO. And if turns out that the person has values incompatible, to such a degree, with a deeply held, core even, source of self-worth for the trans person,
why would he/she want that person in the first place? Love and attraction are complicated, I know, but I sure as hell wouldn't want someone with a sense of values that were abhorrent to me...
I should think it's quite clear here that there is very much an asymmetry in possible outcomes. Worst case is the man feels weird about it and maybe has to confront some transphobia and toxic masculinity. Typical case, he has wasted some time, same as any other interaction in dating, has a crummy or mid date, same as any other interaction in dating, best case he has a wonderful time with a wonderful woman, same as typical best case in dating. For trans women, worst case we wind up raped, assaulted or murdered (same as with cis women, but with increased likelihood due to homophobia and transphobia), or publicly humiliated or stalked (same as with cis women, but with increased likelihood due to toxic masculinity, homophobia or transphobia, or have to hold a cis boy's hand as he works through his transphobia and homophobia (unique to us). Best case we find a one-in-a-million specimen and we have a great time (same as cis women, but with decreased likelihood due to toxic masculinity and transphobia).
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
Yes, I got that preoccupation or empathy with the ethics of disclosure ranks pretty low.
Perhaps it sounds unfair of me to ask that a class of people that has already the burden os such unfair social stigma should care or empathize with informed consent, especially considering that cisgender people are the majority/norm and thus the carriers of that attitude, and because there are bigger worries such as the argued risk of violence. And that is valid criticism of our society, but my problem is
one can't project society on individuals. It's also dehumanizing.
I wouldn't think both actions as equally harmful because I don't know of people ambushing cisgender people to rape or kill because they had fun with trans people. That said, my argument does not involve considering it ok when cisgenders target transgenders. Those ought to be taken to answer for it, and it is a straight tragedy if they aren't.
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).
This is interesting. That argument, alone, would be particularly good, but in the larger context of your post, it becomes self-defeating.
You spent most of your time, until now, listing how much of a big deal it is when a possible partner finds out someone is trans. To the point that this piece of information, alone, might instantly change someone's attitude from being pleasent to being straight up murderous.
So, you actually made my case for me.
When should someone disclose that they: live with their parents; are a child of divorce; live in a dump/unclean apartment; (...); had plastic surgery; are a virgin/have had a lot of sexual partners, and so on, is
the moment they acknowledge this information might be relevant for the other part involved.
And, by your own words, for this one specific information, it's pretty safe this should be promptly assumed, except in environments where being ok with it could be considered to be expected (I know trans and gay arent' the same, but I'd assume the gay pride parade, for example, could be used as an example here). That might even change in the future, but that didn't happen yet.
Do notice that I'm not actually proposing a different standart from you guys. I'm saying that
any information regarded as relevant for a decision should be shared by any party in good faith before it leads to irreversible action. If everybody adhered to this principle, that would be no timewasters, chasers, and certainly, no rape-and-murder ambushes.
I do agree with you that questions from CIS people might be skewed from a CIS-people-centered worldview. I may be even guilty of that. But that is understandable. I try to empathize, understand and be as open-minded as possible, I really do, but in the end, I'll always be me.
Let me point out, though, that when you answer that the ethics of disclosure and the protection of the feelings of CIS people ranks low, not only by you, but by the community at large, you are incurring in the very same sin; privileging a trans-person perspective of the matter at hand. And that is
equally understandable, especially in a thread that is about asking the TRANS perspective... but it takes out the bite from your criticism.
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).
Well; that consensus sounds wise, IMHO. But as to legitimacy of the question, I'm still puzzled. I'd love to understand why it's not considered legitimate. I feel like you have lots of legitimate claims; acknowledgement, acceptance, nurture; all fair and square.
But seems to me these come also conflated with undue and confusing expectations. By this, I mean I understand that you desire to be acknowledge as a woman. And from this, follows that disclosing the transition may be regarded as unnecessary complication, if the transition is over and done; but it is an egocentric position, because what does not follow from this, is that the possible partner agrees on the irrelevance of the information; and it can't be
a priori assumed to be just because it is the natural development from your axiom. And considering the nature of the relation,
personal expectations are relevant, and both parties counts.
Mind me; if someone were proposing legislation, for example, demanding disclosure of transition in order to, for example, applying to jobs; or for voting; or whatever act regarding the full exercise of citizenship and civilian prerogatives,
I'd be in line picketing with you on the absurdity of the demand. Only in an environment of shared intimacy your claims weaken.
Maybe it is the culmination of one of your earliest points of the reply: "to elicit such a confusion in the extending of cissexual privilege" and "Yes! That's the point". Ok than! But, if you are deliberately confusing, you should expect that people become confused!
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.
All right. And here begins the reply to my second inquiry.
On that one, What I must conclude is that the premisse of my original question, as in "the possibility of treating the dysphoria through psych alteration instead of body alteration being less invasive" was false. According to all responses received, that avenue already was exhausted.
Oh, well; as I said, I don't
prefer either solution. And thus, if one was already tried and failed conclusively, and the other is still in use because it has a much better success rate, obviously the only rational response is to embrace the functional alternative.
And it also leads to the conclusion that the psychic self-determination is the baseline; your own experience and the hormonal effect reflects that. And under that premisse, I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that you
are a woman, full stop. What makes my opinion on the first question, right above, tragic; feels like throwing still more hardship into someone which had to go through a lot to get what most people take for granted.
It's not any less true because of that. But it
is tragic.
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.
That would depend on the environment, really. Atheists used to be killed for their opinions not so long ago, historically speaking. And though this fight was mostly won already, even with some resistance still being pernicious, I'll grant you that, today, save perhaps in a few nations, the experiences are not equivalent - specially because no one needs to make their atheism obvious.
But I do think the underlying issue is the same.
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.
No, I guess I wasn´t, and thank you for your clarification. I in fact think you hit the nail in the head on this one. I was treating the issue as a
puzzle to be solved, aligning pieces, and underestimating the underlying humanity involved.
The very core of my system of ethics is
seeking ways to minimize suffering, and
using experience to determine what causes less suffering. I've laid down this ethical preset before in this forum (in a more abstract scenario), always pointing out that centering in the human experience is what allows us to identify, through experience,
what is the path that leads to less suffering/more happiness.
This is perfect application, then. Experience - shared, not felt, but experience still - rebalancing the perception of where wellbeing lies.
This is simply a description of what gender affirming care (i.e. the present prognosis for the treatment of trans people) is.
I guess in application I was not as severely off-base, then.
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.
I wouldn't say exactly "bias" (which implies a preferred result), but definitely, an incomplete/inadequate base of knowledge. When confronted with a wealthy of opinions pointing out a false premisse, from people who have legitimate reasons to know better - like the ones experiencing it - the only rational response is to take a step back, reassess and accept the new data until further reason.
Still intend to talk about it with my cousin (whom is a psychiatrist) and try to get a technical perspective, just to be through.
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.
Ah, you'd never have to. Whatever ails are in my opinions or their presentation,
they never were tyrannical, and I'd never agree to force someone who didn't want to take that pill. Even if it did exist. Even so if it was the medically recommended solution. Even if the refusal were unjustified.
My investigations here are to help me form my own coherent and cogent opinions on the matter, for the times when debate pops up on ethical questions involving that issue. Things like: what are the obligations of a doctor for trans people under the Hippocratic oath; what are the societal/healthy coverage obligations; who are at fault in the interactions between Trans e Cis, like in the case of our debate on there being or not a duty of disclosure, and how would that work. Things like that.
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.
Thanks. Wasn't familiar at all with that terminology.
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 see. So... dysphoria is not precisely defined, but it is still an attempt to treat something detrimental, even with all those caveats... which euphoria don't seem like.
I heard the "first of all", now I'd lide the "second of all". Any insight to share about the ethical relationship between euphoria and the hippocratic oath?
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.
Eh; it's not every day that I engage in a
reductio ad absurdum, and the response is "Well, why not"?
There is a South Park episode in which a character identifies himself as a dolphin, and goes through extensive surgeries to try to externalize that, becoming severely grotesque and hindered in all his movements. It is more extreme than the elephant trunk example, but it's the same ballpark.
Would this burlesque extreme be the limit? If not, Would you see
any limit, anywhere?
In a proper rebuttal: I do think a balance should be kept. Yes, the interested party
absolutely should be heard and express their desire and have it be seriously taken in account, but the idea that acting on that desire should be predicated on tests to evaluate that the declaration was made while sound of body and mind is a reasonable stance; After all, the doctors DO take an oath to do no harm, and people who are mistaken, confused or influenced
also do exist.
I don't agree with arbitrary power, and perhaps boards for revision should exist (and maybe they do). But ultimately, you end up having to trust someone
, in all endeavors
.
You could do worse than boards of doctors.
EDIT: lemme add here that it is the same stance I have on euthanasia, because the issues are symmetrical; the potential of self-harm executed with medical aid.
Regards
.
)
Can't threaten what doesn't exist.
