babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

OUR GENDERS ARE NOT DISORDERED!!

121 replies [Last post]

Comments

j.m.
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2009

Sineed wrote:

For the life of me I can't figure out why it oppresses anybody to disagree with something they say.  Isn't that why people come here?  Wouldn't it be boring if everybody agreed on everything?

But apparently, if I don't agree, I'm a hater.

Yes, the world would be boring if everybody agreed on everything. And it would be a frightening place too if everyone felt entitled to speak their minds and pick apart other people's personal experiences, as if other people were public objects of scrutiny.

In the larger context it's not worth continuing with this criticism.

 


500_Apples
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2006
Cross, I didn't know what cisgendered meant before posting here, it never came up. I should have paid more attention in chemistry. Btw, "!trans", "e-psychiatry" is pretty funny. You're clearly the good kind of geek. The mundanes? Is that a babylon 5 reference? You ever read the novel Glasshouse by Charles Stross?
Quote:
I'm always amazed at the level of personal investment so many people seem to have in denying and removing our agency. Do you realize how few of us there are? But the fact is that we, by our mere existence and out of all proportion to our numbers, threaten a lot of peoples' basic assumptions about the world. Some people can take these new concepts and integrate them, and so learn and grow.
I think it's because a lot of people are not completely as they think they are, similarly to how a lot of homophobic people are probably latent homosexuals. You're reminding them of their inner fears about themselves, and perhaps if you remind them too much their narrative of their own life will crumble down. Or, probably, not. Admittedly, the first time I saw a castration scene in a novel (Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson) I almost fainted, so I think people might have a psycho/physio resistance to listening/reading to some of the more physical aspects. Doesn't excuse belligerent behavior though.

Polly B
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2004

I am sorry to see CP leave. 


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Cross Product, if you're still reading, I will close your account. If you need to reach me by email I'm at bigcitygal(at)rabble(dot)ca. If you change your mind you  are welcome back anytime.

So, another train wreck of a thread.

I'm around now so I will keep it open. I'll say one thing, that I've said before, and in fact I will use the words of others since mine seem to have little to no effect.

Quote:

When a person of privilege is accused of having been negligent (or racist, or sexist, or...), a classic move we often see is the accused dissolving into sobs. They will berate themselves, they will proclaim how terrible they feel, they will soak your t-shirt with their tears. In other words, instead of owning up for whatever they did and focusing on the pain they caused - and how to reduce it - they completely focus on their own pain.

From this post on racialicious.com. A completely different topic and issue, but the privilege analysis is similar.

 

 


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Hm. I'd already left the thread and CP decides it's all "too much" for her blue blood. I'm sorry, this is just histrionics.

There was no attacking of CP here on the basis of her being trans. Babble has not been oppressive towards  trans people. Both posters indicated a willingness to engage difficult dialogue. Both tend towards overdramatizing the content of the discussion.  I am no different here than I am in any other thread when I feel someone's approach is questionable. I ask the questions I have because I want to inform myself. I argue on certain points because I like arguing. If you review the threads, i think you will find RTTG andd CP like arguing, too.

I also question this idea that Babble has not accommodated trans issues in the past. I've been here five years and I can recall all of two threads. One on Kimberly Nixon v. RR, which is a naturally contentious issue. Why can't we discuss this honestly? Look at the Ahoy trans-misogyny thread started by RTTG and you will see the seed of a useful discussion there. I was able to state some very unpopular and contentious viewpoints there - viewpoints I later questioned myself after I'd got them out.

We can have these discussions without either side being shut down. Thank you Maysie, for what it's worth, for being willing to see where it goes (went).


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

BTW, Ghislaine asked an interesting question that could have been validly discussed here. It seems to have been missed in all the focus on who done who wrong.


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

gimme a fucking break jas, you folks are transphobic.


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

just admit it and you'll feel better.


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

fucking babblers.  meh. please rock on CrossProduct, I'm a fan of math.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

RevolutionPlease, what did we talk about regarding postings at 4am? Wink

Please don't call people transphobic. In truth, everyone has learned and internalized all sorts of oppressions.

If there's any way for this conversation to continue without insults then I welcome the dialogue. I'm around for most of today, and I'll be here because I really think we can move, shift and learn from each other.

Since Cross Product has chosen to have her account closed, and therefore can't respond here, please keep all remarks to the issues and not about her personal story that she was brave enough to share.


ennir
Offline
Joined: Feb 8 2009

Maysie wrote:

........

Very funny, educational and trans-positive video here. I've posted it before but it's so wonderful and amazing I felt it might help to bring us a bit back on track.

 

Thanks for that link Maysie, delightful.

I think we are all hormonally challenged once puberty hits, as I am morhing into a crone I often feel I am waking up from a spell cast by those very hormones and from that persective I welcome diversity.  I think that for far too long the testosterone bullies have defined the game.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Sometimes among supporters or listeners, a few other voices will rise that appear threatening to those who experience risk from everywhere in this society. Its been a recurring theme that people who merely seek out a place to talk, to voluntarily inform from lived experience, and to dispel misunderstandings find things no different here than most other places where barriers of one form or another are thrown up. It seems we can always be counted on to present an all too familiar atmosphere, one where people quickly discover little difference from mainstream contemporary society and its challenges.  Its sad really when those that come here have to navigate through self appointed guardians who feel their station is to challenge and confront.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Often the way we approach an issue will set the tone for the kind of response we get.

 


bagkitty
Offline
Joined: Aug 27 2008

... and then there are the times where there is an audience that has already prejudged the issue waiting to pounce.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

If only there had been an issue to prejudge and pounce on ...


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Anyway, I didn't realize there was this whole recent precedent to these threads from July '09, including one on Trans Inclusion and Feminism. The posters there who were raising questions handle the discussion much more intelligently than I. Unfortunately none of them seem to be posting here currently. Also appreciate Maysie's efforts to mediate (for lack of a better word) the divide.


Stargazer
Offline
Joined: Jun 9 2004

bagkitty wrote:

... and then there are the times where there is an audience that has already prejudged the issue waiting to pounce.

 

Power in truth bagkitty! We know the truth. Shame that those who expressed the worst behaviour are still...well...expressing the worst behaviour.

 


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

jas wrote:

Often the way we approach an issue will set the tone for the kind of response we get.

 

Yes jas, like for example, when someone thinks there should be restrictions on transition because young women will find it somehow trendy, and they could damage their bodies with testosterone and such, and my response is that you're forgetting that thre are a far greater number of trans women who are currently being damaged with testosterone. When you approach trans rights from the perspective of making it all about 'saving women from becoming men,' you make trans women, who make up about 99% of the names read out on The Day of Rememberance, feel pretty ignored and invisible.

Further, I'd ask if anybody here finds the term 'breeder' to be offensive. I tend to as the intent of the words are to cheapen romantic love that is heterosexual in nature. It's not just qualitative, but it's normative, in that it says that someone should be someting else, but instead, through some failing, they're in this imperfect state. I'm a woman trying to correct a hormonal imbalance, and I, just as CP said am trans. I am NOT identified as trans. Someone with one leg doesn't need to identify as disabled to get the little sticker on their car that lets them park closer to the entrance to the grocery store. They also can't make ablism disappear by refusing to identify as disabled.

 

And lastly, CP, though I will say I'm non-op, not pre, scratching for hormones, and that I couldn't articulate my transness until a while later than you could, you're thirty-one flavours of awesome and you made my fiance laugh and cheer. I hope you don't go.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:
When you approach trans rights from the perspective of making it all about 'saving women from becoming men,'

Certainly not my perspective, nor my intent. Nor have I ever advocated for restrictions on transition, but rather caution, as well as the right to question its eligibility for public funding. 

But I don't think I want to get into this if whatever I say is going to be deliberately misconstrued for the benefit of an argument I'm not even contesting.


Stargazer
Offline
Joined: Jun 9 2004

Why do you think you have a "right" to question transitioning paid for by the government? Does it bother you so much to listen to what people want who wish to transition? Why do you think you have the right to determine who transitions (I say this because it is implied in your public funding eligibility).

 

Jas, how do you think this should go? People like you get to decide if the government pays or the people that are transitioning and their loved ones? Why is your voice more important than theirs? Or to put it another way, why the hell is it so important to you that you want to determine who is eligible for funding?

 

Jas, have you learned absolutely nothing?

 


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Worst part is, to the greatest degree, we have expensive publicly funded gatekeepers. I have now waited SEVEN months. Seven months at the age of 26 for the right to pay for a medication that costs less than $25 a month out of my own pocket and haven't been granted it. That's goddamn ludicrious. It's not caution; it's needlessly extending my agony. If I could treat myself on demand, the public system would be saved a great deal, especially if I were in any way suicidal. Best estimates are that for every transsexual who's allowed to transition, there are about 0.19-0.18 less suicides. Based on the 20,000 that SRS costs, and the $35,000 that monitoring, a great deal of which would otherwise occur, over a generously estimated seventy years, the state pays $55,000 per transitioner. The state also, according to a study done by the Government of New Brunswick, pays $850,000 per suicide, or on average $153,000 for each frustrated transitioner.

So if the perpetuation of this institutional cissexism is to cost us ninety-seven thousand dollars per erased trans woman, I'd say your stated goal of protecting the public purse is, quite frankly, better served by supporting the same agency and autonomy for trans women as almost everyone on this forum does for cis women.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

I don't think it costs the government anywhere near $850,000 per suicide.

Here is the link from which you probably got that figure.

For a number of reasons, I don't believe in the validity of a "loss of productivity" analysis in general, and it also happens to comprise the highest portion of the cost cited here. I think the reality of our job market in the last thirty years renders such conjecture dubious. Moreover, such a model could also be used in calculating the costs of loss of life by abortion or other legal means of life termination.

How many potential productive workers have been aborted and what is the loss of productivity cost there? Maybe we shouldn't allow abortion.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Thing is jas, that we don't have to pay the low-to-mid six figure amount it costs to educate your theoretical aborted person. A suicide is normally in the prime of one's productive life, after the vast majority of human capital investments have been made, so the comparison is rather invalid. If we had to put every trans woman through another 13 years' compulsary education, you might have a point.

I find the implication of your rhetorical point on abortion, (the fully funded provision of which, I thoroughly support for the same reasons that I support on demand access to any element of medical transition,) to be somewhat vexing, as you've also stated your fear is that young cis women will find trans masculinity trendy. Do you think this was also the case with freer access to termination of pregancy?

I will admit, having agency and autonomy over one's body is one of those things that will never go out of style.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

jas wrote:

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:
When you approach trans rights from the perspective of making it all about 'saving women from becoming men,'

Certainly not my perspective, nor my intent. Nor have I ever advocated for restrictions on transition, but rather caution, as well as the right to question its eligibility for public funding. 

But I don't think I want to get into this if whatever I say is going to be deliberately misconstrued for the benefit of an argument I'm not even contesting.

Well then, I shall quote your own words back at you:

 

Quote:
And since you asked above, no, I'm not concerned about "butch flight" :) but I love that expression. I am concerned about a trend towards easier access and peer encouragement toward transitioning, especially, as I stated before, for young people. People in their teens and early twenties are very much into buying into trends, and I think, especially for FTMs, whose transition generally is easier - i.e., it is much easier to overcome the outward effects of estrogen than it is those of testosterone - that it might just seem a little too easy, like getting other body modifications.

Firstly, I will encourage anyone to be genuine to themselves, and since there are a lot of closeted trans women and trans men out there, yes, that does mean supporting people who have decided to transition, instead of looking at it like some tragic, drastic, solution that I should invariably respond to with 'are you sure?!'

I have heard people refer to my decision to transition as an affliction, a disability, but really, the injury is not in taking estrogen and being with a woman who calls me her girlfriend, there's no loss there. The loss is people who are determined to make transition very unpopular and unhealthy. And yes, this sort of attitude, that being trans is some rash decision and phase instead of, well, a fact of our lives; this attitude is what reinforces cissexism.

CP put it best when she said that it's not so bad that the right hates us, we expect it; it's that so much of the left hates us too.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Well, I'm not sure when the division began between certain schools of feminism and mtf transexualism, but you do seem to bring up a lot of old arguments, unsolicited. In doing so, you are bringing up those old debates again. In fact, I don't think I would have known about Michele Landsberg's article, which is already ten years old, or whatever Mary Daly's position on transsexualism was if you hadn't brought it up, so I would suggest that you are in part creating your own bogeywomen, as there are apparently only one or two of us here on Babble who would have questions and arguments about transsexuality (and who don't feel intimidated to speak about them).

And yes, I'm concerned that making access to transitioning therapies available without much question, as is happening more now, might make things too easy for some people, for example, young women who have, say, butch leanings and who see the kind of ease and freedom with which young men move about and are adored in our society - adored for all their apparent faults and scruff and bad behaviour. Transitioning, especially if so many more people are doing it now, might look like the thing to do (again, especially for ftms, due to the easier process initially for females to acquire male physical attributes hormonally). Indeed, who wouldn't consider it, if you're already butch? And I know, or at least I trust, for now, there's a difference between being butch and being transsexual or transgender, but does a 15-year old female (for example) know the difference?

And it brings up your earlier post (can't remember where) about the increasing incidence of transsexualism to where it's now at, you claim, 1/100 people. Or maybe that's just transgenderism -- a figure which wouldn't surprise me at all, by the way. I think it should and will go much higher than that, given that, imo, humans have naturally fluid sexual and gender expression. However, CP asks the question upthread:

Quote:
Do you realize how few of us there are?

which directly contradicts what you're saying. So are there "few" of us/you? Or are there many? Which is it? And if there are many, and the incidence is really more like 1/100 or higher (as I suspect) and we are saying that people have the "right" to transition surgically, this has profound implications for public funding of these medical services. Health budgets are already by far the biggest chunk of provincial budgets. And we by no means have afforded everyone a university education, for example. Have we? But you would have us prioritize surgical transitioning for people even who think they might be transsexual?? And then what if they change their mind, as some do, later? We should pay for them again to reverse it? What exactly is your argument.

As I wrote down the example of university education, it occurred to me that we have student loan programs which make university accessible for some people. Perhaps we could have some kind of surgical loan program as well for trans people, and others, to access. But I would want to see some form of personal responsibility taken for that kind of money outlay.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Jas, it's interesting how you focus on the $20,000 surgery and not the gatekeepers who actually cost more than just letting people access medication on their own. Out of pocket. It costs far more to keep estrogen from trans women than it does to let them purchase it. Same for testosterone for trans men.

 

But yes, $200 per person per lifetime does seem like a large amount of money to set aside for genital surgery, doesn't it?

Tuition for all costs $30,000 plus for EVERY person, or about $10,000 per person based on university enrollment. Surgery for all who want it will cost about $200 or less. Lifetime. (remember, not every trans woman wants vaginaplasty. In the US, for example, about half of trans women are post-operative and half are pre-op or non-op)

 

Many trans men don't get phalloplasty, for the same reason. Some of us aren't nearly as genitally obsessed as the people who are policing gender. Some of us will be happy with the effect that hormones will have on our sex organs. A woman's penis looks and acts differently from a man's. A man's vagina acts rather differently from a woman's.

But, as you have declared, you've found the bravery to question our right to self-expression on whatever grouds seem most convenient at the moment, be it fear of young women joining in with what is apparently the transmasculine vanguard, or dredging up drag queens who identify male to try to tar trans women because somehow the misogyny of the gay community is the fault of the trans community. Now you say it's the incredible cost that you object to, and I point out that the restrictions aren't centered around the costs, that I've waited more than half a year to have treatment any cis woman would have ON DEMAND, that I would be obliged to pay for out of pocket, and that my story is in no way unique. The establishment delays young trans women when the clock is ticking, just to reduce the number of women who find the courage to go through with it all. Instead of letting us transition on our own terms, at our own pace, they make it an all-or-nothing propostion.

Lastly, I would submit that we do have a method of financing of health care costs that are elective: We call it taxation.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

Jas, it's interesting how you focus on the $20,000 surgery and not the gatekeepers who actually cost more than just letting people access medication on their own. Out of pocket. It costs far more to keep estrogen from trans women than it does to let them purchase it.

On this point we would have agreement if what you are saying is true. I have no argument with this, except that we need to recognize the differential effects of testosterone vs. estrogen (or whatever it's called) therapies. One has permanent effects, the other doesn't. So the consequences are different for those entering such therapies, depending on which one they're taking.

You are continuing to misrepresent me on the issue of human sexual and gender expression, which I believe, and have always believed, is and should be allowed to be, fluid. And that all of us should be fighting for freedom of expression on that front. Please see my post above.

As for the rest, I will withold reply for now and give it a chance to sift in.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

You do realize there are queally permanent effects to estrogen as well, don't you? Just because decreased sperm motility to the point of infertility and irreversible breast growth aren't considered bad things by you or I doesn't mean they're not permanent. And yes, a beard is as permanent as electrolysis, and thicker vocal chords are as permanent as learning to talk from where you gargle. Just because they're more visible and make trans men more likely to pass quickly and well, does not commend itself as a legitimate reason for preventing people who are, in aggregate, at worst, 98% right, when they say they want to have access to testosterone, to have said access. Yes, one in fifty of one in a hundred people may come to the decision that they made a mistake. It's not worth punishing the rest of us for their sake, I'm quite sorry. Many women regret abortions too, does that mean we should restrict their rights to terminate a pregnancy which they might want later. Does this mean abortion should be publicly funded? Yes! And what is good for the goose is sauce for the gander. My body, my choice. No compromise because I might not know as well as you do who I am. If that's the case, it's still my choice.


takeitslowly
Offline
Joined: May 31 2009

just wnat to express my opinon.. I often feel like i live in no man's land (no pun intended) being a pre op or non op trans woman..the worst is when i have to show my ID or do a police check, it makes me feel so vulnerable.

I still dont know if i wnat to have any surgery at all, but there are so many economic worries that i really dont even have time to think about that..i found the hormonal effects quite satisfying already.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Well said takeitslowly!


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments