[RD] I'm transitioning. If you've ever been confused about the T in LGBT, ask me anything

Moderator Action: This thread is for asking questions to transgender people and listening to their responses. Please avoid arguing with the OP, other transgender posters, or each other. Arguments in general don't belong in this thread.
 
How young do you think the subject of transgender people (and the issues they face) should start being taught in schools? I'm not sure how it works everywhere, but my elementary school had a "Social Studies" class that kids would be in starting from the age of 5. Recently, they started teaching about gay marriage. When do you believe it would be appropriate for children to learn about this?
 
How... how does that feel?

As a guy who's, well, not terribly concerned about bodily strength, but still invested in at least maintaining what I have, noticing that I were getting weaker would be scary.

I guess you're feeling pretty good about it in an 'accomplishing goal' kind of way, so that must be pretty good. But do you notice that things you've been doing before (moving a sofa, or just an iron pan or something) are actually harder? How does that in itself feel? Do you ever wish you could transition and still keep your strength?

I didn't notice I was getting weaker. One day I just noticed that I was weaker -- trying to move furniture that I'd previously moved. I understood what'd happened and it was something I knew could happen, so it didn't really bother me much. I noticed again a month or so later as we got into winter. Muscles generate a lot of heat and winter feels so much colder now. That's what I notice most.

How young do you think the subject of transgender people (and the issues they face) should start being taught in schools? I'm not sure how it works everywhere, but my elementary school had a "Social Studies" class that kids would be in starting from the age of 5. Recently, they started teaching about gay marriage. When do you believe it would be appropriate for children to learn about this?

I think it should be covered in a health class around the time of puberty. Maybe sooner, depending on circumstances? Like, my friend has a 6-year-old son who I'm sometimes around. So she explained it to him on a level a 6-year-old would understand.
 
How young do you think the subject of transgender people (and the issues they face) should start being taught in schools? I'm not sure how it works everywhere, but my elementary school had a "Social Studies" class that kids would be in starting from the age of 5. Recently, they started teaching about gay marriage. When do you believe it would be appropriate for children to learn about this?

No later than gay issues are taught, at the very least. LGBT is a complete package, and if kids are ready to talk about the birds and the bees, we are ready to talk about gender.

Personally, I would go for late elementary school. 4-5th grade. iirc, that's when I started to get (child friendly) lessons on the suffragette and civil rights movements, and I think the LGBT rights movements would fit in perfectly with those two.
 
I think LGBT material is PG-13 level. It is sexual in nature so it should go with sex education.

Gay sex is PG-13. But simply loving someone is PG or even G. If we can show Cinderella pining for Prince Charming, she can also pine for Princess Charming.

Likewise, getting into the genitillia for trans issues is age inappropriate, but not the general concept of "someone identifying as the fender they were not born as"
 
I wonder if this person has any tattoos ;)

They don't have any tattoos. I'm not really sure why they get so angry about transgender people. It might be because they have ideals that do kind of sound Victorian, or it might be because of something that happened to them at university. The strangest thing of all, they say that the worst thing that can come out about transgender rights is that it might make people take furries seriously.
 
Ok. Now this is a subject I never encountered before, so I'm instantly interested.

Though there definitively are gay people and transgendered people in this neck of the woods here, I tend to think it's quite a niche thing, and a lot of stereotype is involved. What I mean is this: my wife knows quite a few transgender hairdressers; I'm yet to know the first openly gay judge.

Anyways, I also was completely unaware of that flag. I don't like it, though. Not because of any bigoted reasons one might imagine, but because it has the same color scheme as the flag of my home state of Espírito Santo:

bandeira-espirito-santo_1_1200.jpg


And we used to take pride in being the only ones with the guts to have a pink, baby blue and white flag. :lol: . Ah, well; anyway, the flag motto is: "work and trust".

As for questions; I'm sorry that I'm late for this party, and I have no time to go through all 31 back pages, so I might be redundant here; if so, cut me some slack. What I'm interested in knowing is how you girls handle interactions with a mostly clueless public.

For example: when I was in the Brazilian equivalent of high school, there were this classmate who was pretty obviously gay. There was an issue of him using the man's bathroom because it made other students uncomfortable, specially since urinols there didn't use to have separation in the walls... but the problem existed regarding the woman's bathroom as well, girls were uncomfortable.

Now, I'm not asking about the less than ideal solution of building different bathrooms for either gender/body identity combination, but rather, which group would you see as at fault here, the boys who didn't want someone who could potentially being aroused by them in the same bathroom, or the girls who refused to accept that he was not into them? As there is also the issue that he had the male genitalia and a fully male appearance, I can see the girls being pretty uncomfortable going about their wastes and makeup with him around. Is there a solution you find reasonable for dealing with this?

In the same vein; romance department, do you girls feel that, when you date someone, that person has the right to know upfront you went through gender reassignment, specially if it was so successful that a person might not know at all if not told? I can see the fairness in not wanting to carry a label forever, but considering the general social view on things, not doing this might bring a major, colossal, later backlash. Also, regardless, isn't this something a person you might be dating have the right to know, as it is pretty big deal identity wise? So how do you think this should be handled, what is your ethics in sharing?

And what is the overall ethics of the community? Do most transgender fell that they are fully changed, ergo a member from the reassigned gender, and that they should not have to spend their lives calling back to the troubles of the past? Or is it that their personal choice was theirs and not if their prospect partners, and such partners have a right of informed choice as well?

I guess that's what I'm curious about for now. Again, sorry if this was already answered.

Regards :).
 
Last edited:
About the bathroom issue: the main thing here is the funding. In order to keep privacy updated to modern standard, more money should be put into infrastructure to build more privacy-oriented facilities. In the bathroom example, boards should be installed to separate each urinals. In another example of roommates, curtains, walls, and separate bathrooms are necessary. In a situation where funding is inadequate, protection of gender issues cannot be adequate.
 
Sex ed was taught to me for the first time (in explicit terms and no sugar coating) in grade 5 or 6. So teaching kids about LGBTQ at that age seems appropriate.

It also seems to me that we would save money if we got rid of gender-segregated bathrooms in the first place. I understand that some people really need privacy for whatever reasons, so we could have a "family bathroom", like some places already do. That way we'll need to maintain 2 bathrooms only, instead of 3 or more.
 
As for questions; I'm sorry that I'm late for this party, and I have no time to go through all 31 back pages, so I might be redundant here; if so, cut me some slack. What I'm interested in knowing is how you girls handle interactions with a mostly clueless public.

For example: when I was in the Brazilian equivalent of high school, there were this classmate who was pretty obviously gay. There was an issue of him using the man's bathroom because it made other students uncomfortable, specially since urinols there didn't use to have separation in the walls... but the problem existed regarding the woman's bathroom as well, girls were uncomfortable.

Now, I'm not asking about the less than ideal solution of building different bathrooms for either gender/body identity combination, but rather, which group would you see as at fault here, the boys who didn't want someone who could potentially being aroused by them in the same bathroom, or the girls who refused to accept that he was not into them? As there is also the issue that he had the male genitalia and a fully male appearance, I can see the girls being pretty uncomfortable going about their wastes and makeup with him around. Is there a solution you find reasonable for dealing with this?

Being gay is quite different than being trans.

Unless that kid had a Trumpesque fetish, there was nothing sexy about standing near another dude urinating. Unless he was being inappropriate (gawking, making advances), there was no reason to be uncomfortable. You all just knew he was gay. There were a few of your peers who you didn't know about and I assume people were comfortable with them.

In the same vein; romance department, do you girls feel that, when you date someone, that person has the right to know upfront you went through gender reassignment, specially if it was so successful that a person might not know at all if not told? I can see the fairness in not wanting to carry a label forever, but considering the general social view on things, not doing this might bring a major, colossal, later backlash. Also, regardless, isn't this something a person you might be dating have the right to know, as it is pretty big deal identity wise? So how do you think this should be handled, what is your ethics in sharing?

And what is the overall ethics of the community? Do most transgender fell that they are fully changed, ergo a member from the reassigned gender, and that they should not have to spend their lives calling back to the troubles of the past? Or is it that their personal choice was theirs and not if their prospect partners, and such partners have a right of informed choice as well?

Every trans person would answer this a bit differently. I would be open about it, as I feel that would be safest.
 
Being gay is quite different than being trans.

Unless that kid had a Trumpesque fetish, there was nothing sexy about standing near another dude urinating. Unless he was being inappropriate (gawking, making advances), there was no reason to be uncomfortable. You all just knew he was gay. There were a few of your peers who you didn't know about and I assume people were comfortable with them.

No argument here, that's why I started by arguing that I was asking about how to relate with an clueless majority. Remember that I am talking about a bunch of 13 to 15 years old.

Nevertheless, however misconstrued is the notion that someone would be aroused by standing near a urinol, there is an uncomfortable element to it. If there wasn't, there would be no need to segregate any gender in bathroom, whether original or transitioned, for the same reason; not an arousing circumstance.

Every trans person would answer this a bit differently. I would be open about it, as I feel that would be safest.

I understand that everyone is a person. But... aren't there trends? I ask this because these kinds of causes frequently mix up politics, good intentions and overzealous defense. I could see groups arguing it to be prejudice to have to relay a gender reorientation therapy, and that the rest of the world should get on with the program.

But, exactly because I don't want to assume this to be prevalent, or even mainstream, is why am I asking: Is this argument popular? As far as I know you could tell me that it is niche, unheard of, or even reviled in a community level.
 
Though there definitively are gay people and transgendered people in this neck of the woods here, I tend to think it's quite a niche thing, and a lot of stereotype is involved. What I mean is this: my wife knows quite a few transgender hairdressers; I'm yet to know the first openly gay judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker

Anyways, I also was completely unaware of that flag. I don't like it, though. Not because of any bigoted reasons one might imagine, but because it has the same color scheme as the flag of my home state of Espírito Santo

If it makes you feel any better, you have been using your flag for about a century longer than us. Wiki says you adopted it in 1908, while the trans flag first appeared in 1999. So if anything, we are the copycats. :p

As for questions; I'm sorry that I'm late for this party, and I have no time to go through all 31 back pages, so I might be redundant here; if so, cut me some slack. What I'm interested in knowing is how you girls handle interactions with a mostly clueless public.

If OT is any indication: poorly :mischief:

[bathroom question]

Right, as contre said, transgender and homosexuality operate on different spectrums. Being gay simply means you like people of the same gender as you. It has nothing to do with how the person itself internally identifies as; you can be gay and trans (as I am), straight and trans (as my relationship is), or just gay and cisgender (like your friend likely was)

Resultingly, as long as we keep to the idea of segregated bathrooms, your friend should have been accepted as a man and not be harrassed in the mens room. As Contre alluded to, nobody is looking at people's dongers anyways. Gay people dont expect to see any hot action in the barhroom, and honestly who would want to get it on/jack off in a place like a bathroom anyways. Probably reeks of piss and no provacy. Just a terrible idea all around.

In the same vein; romance department, do you girls feel that, when you date someone, that person has the right to know upfront you went through gender reassignment, specially if it was so successful that a person might not know at all if not told? I can see the fairness in not wanting to carry a label forever, but considering the general social view on things, not doing this might bring a major, colossal, later backlash. Also, regardless, isn't this something a person you might be dating have the right to know, as it is pretty big deal identity wise? So how do you think this should be handled, what is your ethics in sharing?

I personally hold a policy that, on the internet (especially off of CFC, where I am not running a trans q&a and people knew me pre-coming out), me being trans is an open secret. What that means is, I dont go around advertizing thst I am trans, but I don't go around and deny that I am trans if I am ever asked about it. If people need to know, they wil know, but otherwise I perfer to keep the apperance that I am a ciswoman to a total stranger because openly identifying as trans puts a massive target on your back.

If my bf and I were to break up, I transitioned to a girl fully, and then started dating again, I would imagine I would be the same way in re dating. I am sure it will come up eventually, and I wont lie about my past. But there is no reason I need to go around, disclosing my past history to people who I barely know, about all the squicky details of my past. Let me trust *you* before you demand my life story. Its not like there is a sexual functional difference between an inferitle cisgender woman and a transwoman. I imagine its different with transmen and their non-fuctioning penisis, but I am not a transman and what transmen do is their buisness and not mine.

And what is the overall ethics of the community? Do most transgender fell that they are fully changed, ergo a member from the reassigned gender, and that they should not have to spend their lives calling back to the troubles of the past? Or is it that their personal choice was theirs and not if their prospect partners, and such partners have a right of informed choice as well?

Honestly I am not an expert of opinion policy of the trans community. I am just one transwoman trying to make sense in a really crazy world. :dunno:

About the bathroom issue: the main thing here is the funding. In order to keep privacy updated to modern standard, more money should be put into infrastructure to build more privacy-oriented facilities. In the bathroom example, boards should be installed to separate each urinals. In another example of roommates, curtains, walls, and separate bathrooms are necessary. In a situation where funding is inadequate, protection of gender issues cannot be adequate.

Sex ed was taught to me for the first time (in explicit terms and no sugar coating) in grade 5 or 6. So teaching kids about LGBTQ at that age seems appropriate.

It also seems to me that we would save money if we got rid of gender-segregated bathrooms in the first place. I understand that some people really need privacy for whatever reasons, so we could have a "family bathroom", like some places already do. That way we'll need to maintain 2 bathrooms only, instead of 3 or more.

Warpus hit the nail on the head. The idea of sex segregated bathrooms is a Victorian construct that doesnt make sense as our knowledge of gender and its constructs increase. By having unisex bathrooms, buildings could invest in less space overall for bathrooms, allowing for better investment in the bathrooms that remain. Furthermore, it completely eliminates the painful stigma trans people face when having to use the bathroom (see the post about my trip in DC for a specific example)

No argument here, that's why I started by arguing that I was asking about how to relate with an clueless majority. Remember that I am talking about a bunch of 13 to 15 years old.

This is why the previous conversation on LGBT is so pernient. There is a lot of ignorance of our issues in the general public, and teaching about us at an early enough age will not only better inform the next generation on our nuances, but to normalize gay and trans people in their generation as well.

Nevertheless, however misconstrued is the notion that someone would be aroused by standing near a urinol, there is an uncomfortable element to it. If there wasn't, there would be no need to segregate any gender in bathroom, whether original or transitioned, for the same reason; not an arousing circumstance.

As with many things, I blame the sexually repressive nature of the Victorians making things more complicated than it needs to be.

Your assumption is a classic example of begging the question. Because society abritrarily segregates the sexes when they are using the bathroom, there must be something inheritingly wrong with men and women doing buisness together, which is why, indeed, we do have the segregation.

However, the far more likely explaination is simply that there is a natural feeling of aversion to the idea of co ed bathrooms in Western society simply because they grew up in an enviroment where that is considered contrary to societal decency. If we simply stopped segregating our bathrooms and switched to a co-ed model, that sense of aversion would go away in a generation or so.

To make an anology, in many communities in India, it is considered perfectly normal to unleash your poop chute openly on the street. I think, even in Brazil, that would be considered extremely vulgar, gross, and unhygenic (and it actually is unhygenic but thats neither here nor there). However, the communities in India which practice this tradition have no shame in it, and they think its perfectly normal to drop their bombs on the road. Its the society they grew up in, where a man or woman is free to crap wherever. They probably think we are too uptight on the issue, if anything.

I understand that everyone is a person. But... aren't there trends? I ask this because these kinds of causes frequently mix up politics, good intentions and overzealous defense. I could see groups arguing it to be prejudice to have to relay a gender reorientation therapy, and that the rest of the world should get on with the program.

To be honest, it is a bit prejudiced to think that trans people have to disclose important, important medical background infomation that has no way of negatively impacting the health of other person (as in, if you have a STD, yeah, you should tell the other person before you have sex. I dont think that is a controversial position.). No one ever expects cancer surviviors, for instance, to disclose the fact they had chemeo to participate in the dating game, even if it might effect their genitilals (Lance Armstrong getting one testicle removed due to cancer, for instance). Nor, do they assume, is it ok to break off a relationship after finding out thr cancer survivor is a cancer survivor. In fact, people would (rightfully) think you're a heartless dick for making having cancer in the past.

Yet trans people have those obligations according to some members of society, and for really no good reason. Its not like I am going to pretend I have a vagina until I show my SUPRISE PENIS once we get into bed?

But I can only speak to myself.
 

And so there is one. Any trans judges too?

If it makes you feel any better, you have been using your flag for about a century longer than us. Wiki says you adopted it in 1908, while the trans flag first appeared in 1999. So if anything, we are the copycats. :p

You rascals!

Right, as contre said, transgender and homosexuality operate on different spectrums. Being gay simply means you like people of the same gender as you. It has nothing to do with how the person itself internally identifies as; you can be gay and trans (as I am), straight and trans (as my relationship is), or just gay and cisgender (like your friend likely was)

Resultingly, as long as we keep to the idea of segregated bathrooms, your friend should have been accepted as a man and not be harrassed in the mens room. As Contre alluded to, nobody is looking at people's dongers anyways. Gay people dont expect to see any hot action in the barhroom, and honestly who would want to get it on/jack off in a place like a bathroom anyways. Probably reeks of piss and no provacy. Just a terrible idea all around.

Thank you, this is the answer I was requiring; where were the adjustment you viewed as the correct one. Not sure I agree, but this isn't an argument thread, so your opinion suffice as answer.

I personally hold a policy that, on the internet (especially off of CFC, where I am not running a trans q&a and people knew me pre-coming out), me being trans is an open secret. What that means is, I dont go around advertizing thst I am trans, but I don't go around and deny that I am trans if I am ever asked about it. If people need to know, they wil know, but otherwise I perfer to keep the apperance that I am a ciswoman to a total stranger because openly identifying as trans puts a massive target on your back.

If my bf and I were to break up, I transitioned to a girl fully, and then started dating again, I would imagine I would be the same way in re dating. I am sure it will come up eventually, and I wont lie about my past. But there is no reason I need to go around, disclosing my past history to people who I barely know, about all the squicky details of my past. Let me trust *you* before you demand my life story. Its not like there is a sexual functional difference between an inferitle cisgender woman and a transwoman. I imagine its different with transmen and their non-fuctioning penisis, but I am not a transman and what transmen do is their buisness and not mine.

Actually, I empathize. As an atheist, I can't imagine having to wear a big "I don't believe in god" sign for the convenience of someone who might be prejudiced against my opinion. And that is an opinion that might cause an equally large backlash. That said, as atheism is not specific to sexuality, but sexual reassignment, by definition, is, I can a see it as a more pressing matter.

Honestly I am not an expert of opinion policy of the trans community. I am just one transwoman trying to make sense in a really crazy world. :dunno:

And, again, that will suffice. I'm asking for opinions, not ready and packed solutions for complex physical, psychological and societal issues.

Warpus hit the nail on the head. The idea of sex segregated bathrooms is a Victorian construct that doesnt make sense as our knowledge of gender and its constructs increase. By having unisex bathrooms, buildings could invest in less space overall for bathrooms, allowing for better investment in the bathrooms that remain. Furthermore, it completely eliminates the painful stigma trans people face when having to use the bathroom (see the post about my trip in DC for a specific example)

This is why the previous conversation on LGBT is so pernient. There is a lot of ignorance of our issues in the general public, and teaching about us at an early enough age will not only better inform the next generation on our nuances, but to normalize gay and trans people in their generation as well.

Again, I sympathize and have a similar debate with my wife regarding similar problems, and I give a similar answer; the day kids are ready to hear about god, is the day they are ready to hear not everyone agrees.

As for the bathroom thing, well... look at my next comment.

As with many things, I blame the sexually repressive nature of the Victorians making things more complicated than it needs to be.

Your assumption is a classic example of begging the question. Because society abritrarily segregates the sexes when they are using the bathroom, there must be something inheritingly wrong with men and women doing buisness together, which is why, indeed, we do have the segregation.

However, the far more likely explaination is simply that there is a natural feeling of aversion to the idea of co ed bathrooms in Western society simply because they grew up in an enviroment where that is considered contrary to societal decency. If we simply stopped segregating our bathrooms and switched to a co-ed model, that sense of aversion would go away in a generation or so.

To make an anology, in many communities in India, it is considered perfectly normal to unleash your poop chute openly on the street. I think, even in Brazil, that would be considered extremely vulgar, gross, and unhygenic (and it actually is unhygenic but thats neither here nor there). However, the communities in India which practice this tradition have no shame in it, and they think its perfectly normal to drop their bombs on the road. Its the society they grew up in, where a man or woman is free to crap wherever. They probably think we are too uptight on the issue, if anything.

It IS begging the question, but I think it is appropriate in this case, as we are not having a purely hypothetical talk on ethics. So I am working under the confines of what society is, instead of forwarding an idealized version of what it should be.

Ideals are great as goals, but aren't very practical in solving current problems. I guess one can always answer "the correct solution is the problem shouldn't exist", but it won't take us very far. Anyways, the response that each urinol should be individual seems to be a practical response, and what follows from your response that our preconceptions on gender identity are being reviewed and we can no longer keep painting groups in broad strokes due to their birth genitalia.

It seems a bit of an expensive solution, but don't worry I won't turn this into a concern with budget.

To be honest, it is a bit prejudiced to think that trans people have to disclose important, important medical background infomation that has no way of negatively impacting the health of other person (as in, if you have a STD, yeah, you should tell the other person before you have sex. I dont think that is a controversial position.). No one ever expects cancer surviviors, for instance, to disclose the fact they had chemeo to participate in the dating game, even if it might effect their genitilals (Lance Armstrong getting one testicle removed due to cancer, for instance). Nor, do they assume, is it ok to break off a relationship after finding out thr cancer survivor is a cancer survivor. In fact, people would (rightfully) think you're a heartless dick for making having cancer in the past.

Yet trans people have those obligations according to some members of society, and for really no good reason. Its not like I am going to pretend I have a vagina until I show my SUPRISE PENIS once we get into bed?

But I can only speak to myself.

Mostly what I wanted to express on this is in my previous replies, but your example got me thinking: you likened the transitioning operation with cancer treatment.

Well... cancer is a disease. That is why people would be considered dicks by holding it against the survivor.

As for sexual preference, like homosexuality, there were a long, long fight to have it acknowledge as not being a disease, as it was originally labeled in our prude Victorian-influenced society.

So, my new question is: is gender dysphoria viewed as a disease? I mean this not only by the medical community, in the literature, but also by the health programs and, specially, by the trans people?

If it is, than my next question, that is my actual question, is very interesting:

I played dragon age inquisition last year, and, in line with that game developers "all inclusive" policy, they had an openly gay caracther. A sub-plot of this caracther is that he has very bad blood with his family because his father tried to use magic to change his sexuality.

Now, the outrage is understandable if sexual preference is not a disease. If it was, curing it would be the moral thing to do.

So, back to gender dysphoria; if the name is any indicative, it means a dissociation between body and mind gender identity, yes?

Well, if you accept it as a disease, that merits a cure, as the comparison you made implies... than wouldn't a treatment approach that finished the dissociation by changing the mind be just as valid as one that solved it by changing the body? I mean, the idea of curing the mind is a valid medical notion, and the whole of psychiatry is devoted to it, and it implies changing the person in some non physical way, and we have no moral qualms about it, not as a concept.

I know changing someone's mind to that degree is probably not possible; but let's assume it is for the purposes of this question. Should you be presented to two equally feasible solutions to your dysphoria, one being the realignment of your body, the other, the realignment of your mind, would you prefer one to the other? Why? And would you consider a mind realignment immoral, if dysphoria is a disease?

I'm truly curious now.

Regards :).
 
Last edited:
If OT is any indication: poorly :mischief:

If the majority of RL interractions went the way that the majority of interractions go on here, I'd be very disheartened. Not blaming CFC of course, I think it's just the internets.

Gay people dont expect to see any hot action in the barhroom, and honestly who would want to get it on/jack off in a place like a bathroom anyways. Probably reeks of piss and no provacy. Just a terrible idea all around.

Cottaging is a thing, just ask George Michael. Well.. you can't now, but you know what I mean.
 
No later than gay issues are taught, at the very least. LGBT is a complete package, and if kids are ready to talk about the birds and the bees, we are ready to talk about gender.

Personally, I would go for late elementary school. 4-5th grade. iirc, that's when I started to get (child friendly) lessons on the suffragette and civil rights movements, and I think the LGBT rights movements would fit in perfectly with those two.
4th-5th grade is also the age where kids start exposing each other to concepts and form the beginnings of strong opinions on social subjects. For myself, 4th-5th grade was the age where the word 'f**' started getting thrown around and LGBT students started getting singled out by peers and made fun of. (I'm almost 30 for reference)

If we educate our children on LGBT issues by that age we can affect a large social change in short order. The change is already under way but we have to push to educate children to cement it into our permanent social fabric.
 
To be honest, it is a bit prejudiced to think that trans people have to disclose important, important medical background infomation that has no way of negatively impacting the health of other person (as in, if you have a STD, yeah, you should tell the other person before you have sex. I dont think that is a controversial position.). No one ever expects cancer surviviors, for instance, to disclose the fact they had chemeo to participate in the dating game, even if it might effect their genitilals (Lance Armstrong getting one testicle removed due to cancer, for instance). Nor, do they assume, is it ok to break off a relationship after finding out thr cancer survivor is a cancer survivor. In fact, people would (rightfully) think you're a heartless dick for making having cancer in the past.

Yet trans people have those obligations according to some members of society, and for really no good reason. Its not like I am going to pretend I have a vagina until I show my SUPRISE PENIS once we get into bed?
Well, cancer is not really related to sexual preferences/orientation. Transexuality is.
 
I'm not against gender-neutral restrooms but I don't really agree with the saving space argument.

If everywhere just did away with one restroom and made the other gender neutral that would cause the remaining restroom to be overly crowded and family restrooms usually include just one stall.
 
You make one large bathroom everyone can use, and a small "family" bathroom that is for 1 person or a mother and a child, or a small family, or whatever, that you could lock yourself into. Those who don't mind sharing bathroom space with others will use the large bathroom, and those who prefer 100% privacy will have to wait in line for the family bathroom. I think it's fair, most people would adapt and would stop caring who's around them when they're pooping. We're all human, who cares if the person pooping beside you has different reproductive organs. And if you can't deal with that, you can wait a bit longer and get full privacy, if you need it
 
And so there is one. Any trans judges too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Frye

Actually, I empathize. As an atheist, I can't imagine having to wear a big "I don't believe in god" sign for the convenience of someone who might be prejudiced against my opinion. And that is an opinion that might cause an equally large backlash. That said, as atheism is not specific to sexuality, but sexual reassignment, by definition, is, I can a see it as a more pressing matter.

Hey, I am an open atheist too. I completly empathize with everything you are saying, because I have the same issues regarding my spitual role in my family.

But, um, once again, sexual reassigment and sexuality are two different things. A trans person is not nessecairly gay, and a gay person is not nessecairly trans. Sexuality has everything to do with who you love, and nothing to do with how you internally define yourself (except, as I noted in the thread waaaay earlier, that we ended up using labels for sexuality based on internal gender rather than who we actually love. Which is, again, why I believe society should switch over to androsexual/gynosexual vs homosexual/heterosexual)

Again, I sympathize and have a similar debate with my wife regarding similar problems, and I give a similar answer; the day kids are ready to hear about god, is the day they are ready to hear not everyone agrees.

Heh, I agree, actually. Not sure if my bf does or not; he definitely has issues with organized religion in some capacity, and I don't think he identifies as a Christian, but he certainly isn't full atheist like I am.

It IS begging the question, but I think it is appropriate in this case, as we are not having a purely hypothetical talk on ethics. So I am working under the confines of what society is, instead of forwarding an idealized version of what it should be.

Ideals are great as goals, but aren't very practical in solving current problems. I guess one can always answer "the correct solution is the problem shouldn't exist", but it won't take us very far. Anyways, the response that each urinol should be individual seems to be a practical response, and what follows from your response that our preconceptions on gender identity are being reviewed and we can no longer keep painting groups in broad strokes due to their birth genitalia.

It seems a bit of an expensive solution, but don't worry I won't turn this into a concern with budget.

Here is the thing. You are claiming there is a problem (that people are uncomfortable with LGBT people in bathrooms) and are asking me to fix the problem assuming the condition that people fundamentally will always be uncomfortable with us. I wholeheartingly reject that assumption, and thus my solution to the problem is to fix that uncomfortableness. And to fix it is to remove the conditions which cause the feeling of unease to begin with.

That is why I don't think its appropiate. I don't agree with your premise at all. There is no basis in reality that homophobia and transphobia is anything more than a social construct, and social constructs can and have changed as the society that builds them changes. It is not only the "idealized way" to solve the problem, it is the only way.

Mostly what I wanted to express on this is in my previous replies, but your example got me thinking: you likened the transitioning operation with cancer treatment.

Well... cancer is a disease. That is why people would be considered dicks by holding it against the survivor.

As for sexual preference, like homosexuality, there were a long, long fight to have it acknowledge as not being a disease, as it was originally labeled in our prude Victorian-influenced society.

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. It is not nesseceairly a matter of defining something as a disease. It is about having a medical procedure done which, while relevant at the time of its peformance, is ultimately irrelevant in the here and now. The cancer is gone, defeated, and will never come back. Yet you would be suprised how some people still have irrational fears of getting into relationships with cancer survivors, thinking that they can suddenly die at any second and thus doesn't want to get attached to them. Usually, I have noticed, people sympathise with the cancer survivor in that instance, and think the other person is being irrational and crazy.

This is something that is super important and thus I am going to bold. There is no visible difference between ciswomen's vaginas and transwomen vaginas. The only non-reproductive functional difference is that they tend to be drier, and newer proceedures are helping to create alternative sources of lubrication. The art of vagina construction has been so perfected, that even trained gycologists are finding it increasingly difficult to differnate the two. There is no way a post-op transwoman is going to decieve you away from hot penis in vagina sex unless you think trans vaginas are inherently inferior to cis vaginas because they weren't born with it or something to that degree, which is, you guessed it, explicit transphobia.

Which is why I am taking this as an issue of privacy. No cancer survivor is expected to disclose the fact that they had cancer. If they want to share it on the first date, that is their buisness and theirs alone. But if they don't want to share extremely personal medical history to some person they met on tindr three days ago, that is their right too. But transwomen are given this cruel double standard where we have to rigorously try to pass to have our gender identity taken seriously by the population at large, but then told we have to tell the dating world that we are trans anyways because the cis world thinks we're icky and thus we need to be telled apart.

So, my new question is: is gender dysphoria viewed as a disease? I mean this not only by the medical community, in the literature, but also by the health programs and, specially, by the trans people?

Firstly, want to confirm that, yes, gender dysphoria is listed in the DSM-V as a mental disorder, which is the current authority on psychiatric disorders in the US. Not coinicedently, the current medical consensus to treat gender dysphoria is transitioning. It's more effective, more humane, and more cost effective than any other treatment. It's medically been shown to work.

Mental disorders are not the same thing as a disease. For starters, mental disorders do not have an external source. You do not catch a bipolar depression virus which makes you bipolar, for instance. There might be enviromental factors which can enable the development of mental disorders, but there is nothing to actively "fight" in the disease. Because of this, mental disorders do not directly effect a person's health. Yes, many mental disorders impair the ability for a patient to live a healthy live, up to and including suicide. The point is, no one dies of "gender dysphoria". People die because extreme emotional trauma has caused a person to kill themselves as relief.

This is an important distinction to make, because some mental disorders are more functioning than others. For a personal example, I am autistic. Autism involves having many developmental irregularities, ranging from poor mortar controls, to being unresponsive to otherwise intristic social cues, and hypersensitive senses which can be overloaded given the wrong circumstances.

However, being autistic doesn't make me a burden on society. I am certainly abnormal, but I am still a sophomore in college who last semester got a 3.53 average. I am in a relationship, and quite a happy one at that. I havent ever been officially employed, but I have been paid to do work. Despite being an extreme introvert and being terrible with eye contact, I love debating and public speaking, and am probably more charismatic than people who are neurotypical (although I definitely do feel more comfortable writing than speaking, especially when talking to my parents). I can function on my own two feet, and be intergrated in society at large with no reprocussions. To an outside observer who doesnt know my medical history, they probably couldn't guess I even had a mental disorder.

I consider being trans to be largely the same degree of functionality. Dysphoria sucks, and it has made me skip classes and waste breaks by just lying in bed for days at a time and wishing I was dead. But most days are not that bad, and I can function like a normal adult. I still find it hard to be happy, and desire treatment to fix my dysphoria, but most days I am still high functioning.

Because my autism and gender identity do notbseriously inhibit me, I consider an intristic part of who I am. My personality would certainly not have develop the same if I never had autism, and likewise with my gender identity. In fact, trying to change them, fundamentally changes who I am as a person, which I would compare to a mental version of murder if done involuntary.

If it is, than my next question, that is my actual question, is very interesting:

I played dragon age inquisition last year, and, in line with that game developers "all inclusive" policy, they had an openly gay caracther. A sub-plot of this caracther is that he has very bad blood with his family because his father tried to use magic to change his sexuality.

Now, the outrage is understandable if sexual preference is not a disease. If it was, curing it would be the moral thing to do.

I would disagree. Homosexuality is actually extremly natural, and is found in over a thousand species, mostly clustered in mammals and birds. Homosexuality is actually hypothesised to be beneficial in animal populations, under the "gay uncle" theroy.

Namely, homosexuality has an altrustic benefit; a gay animal who removes themselves from the gene pool can then divert the resources they would have used raising their kids to instead raise their nieces and nephews. Those indiviuals, with extra support, are therefore more likely to reproduce, and pass their genes on. Part of said genes most likely including being a carrier of the trait/gene that causes homosexuality.

For reference, homosexuality is not medically considered a mental disorder.

So, back to gender dysphoria; if the name is any indicative, it means a dissociation between body and mind gender identity, yes?

Well, if you accept it as a disease, that merits a cure, as the comparison you made implies... than wouldn't a treatment approach that finished the dissociation by changing the mind be just as valid as one that solved it by changing the body? I mean, the idea of curing the mind is a valid medical notion, and the whole of psychiatry is devoted to it, and it implies changing the person in some non physical way, and we have no moral qualms about it, not as a concept.

I know changing someone's mind to that degree is probably not possible; but let's assume it is for the purposes of this question. Should you be presented to two equally feasible solutions to your dysphoria, one being the realignment of your body, the other, the realignment of your mind, would you prefer one to the other? Why? And would you consider a mind realignment immoral, if dysphoria is a disease?

I'm truly curious now.

Regards :).

answered in depth here

If the majority of RL interractions went the way that the majority of interractions go on here, I'd be very disheartened. Not blaming CFC of course, I think it's just the internets.

Anonymity really brings the worst in us :p

Cottaging is a thing, just ask George Michael. Well.. you can't now, but you know what I mean.

:vomit:

Well, cancer is not really related to sexual preferences/orientation. Transexuality is.

I think I addressed this when responding to Fred, but quoting you to get the ping.
 
Back
Top Bottom