Our Genders are Not Disordered

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Red Tory Tea Girl
Our Genders are Not Disordered

The following was written in collaboration with my beautiful and talented fiance, Josephine Cross, who is on the EGALE board, though she wanted me to mention that nothing we've written here is EGALE policy or opinion:

 

There have been some leaks regarding recent revisions to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), particularly concerning GID (aka. Gender Identity Disorder). GID has long been a hot issue among us transsexuals, and it is our intent here to throw a little fuel on the fire.

Ultimately this is an issue of credibility. GID takes credibility from transsexuals and places it squarely in the hands cis people, who not being "mentally ill", are in a much better position to decide what our experiences mean, what our motivations really are, and what is best for us. Really, we're quite lucky.

There are those in the trans community who stand to uphold the diagnosis of GID, and with it the notion that our gender identities are, in fact, disordered. They do this because they fear that without being labeled "mentally ill" by the medical establishment they will not be able to access Hormone Replacement and Gender Reassignment treatments. We would humbly submit that not only is this false, but that the complicity of a significant portion of the trans community with the GID model is, in fact, holding us all back; for so long as our gender identities are pathologized we in the trans community can not expect the respect we deserve. Many of our opponents (in the medical, social conservative, and feminist establishments) often site the fact that GID is a mental disorder to delegitimize our perspectives and rob us of the agency to determine what is done to our bodies.

There are those who see medical transition merely as the enactment of a delusion, and the cooperation of doctors as (at best) complicity with insanity, and (at worst) the outright exploitation and manipulation of the mentally deranged for profit. Continuing on the current course will forever deny us full agency in how we are treated and deny us full access to the dialogue surrounding trans issues. So long as we can be condescended to as "not mentally fit" our concerns will be shut down and shut out by those cis people who continue to steer debate.

And the debate begins with medical treatment and how, it seems some of us are convinced that you must be seriously, dysfunctionally, ill to receive medical treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth; consider pregnancy, birth control, and menopause: All three are routine health matters that often do require intervention to prevent dangerous complications. None of them are considered sicknesses in themselves and any symptoms that arise from them are 'cured' with appropriate treatment. This is the model that we can easily propose for, and has often been used by patient-centered doctors for, transition.

Cis men concerned about the effects of testosterone on their appearance don't need a diagnosis to get appropriate medication to circumvent the effects of androgens on their body, (i.e. baldness) why should trans women be any different in that regard? We are treated this way because the medical establishment, often with our complicity at best, consider transition to be the last ditch treatment of a serious psychological malady instead of a patient making clear and informed choices about their own body.

Further, the pathologization of transsexuality encourages a one-size-fits-all approach to treatment and legal status. The law acts under the assumption that all transsexuals must have a transition which culminates in surgery. This surgery, some of us neither need nor want nor can afford. And yet this prescribed transition is required to be recognized legally as our correct gender. The current diagnostic regime reinforces, and is reinforced by: Laws that affirm that there is only one way to become a man or a woman, (and nothing beyond that binary,) if not assigned such at birth; that the patient does not know themselves better than the psychological profession; and that our gender is something that can be granted or denied by doctors, legislators, and bureaucrats, instead of something that we transsexuals implicitly perceive, no matter when or if we reach the day we can correctly articulate the discomfort we feel with the bodies we've been assigned. However this doesn't have to be the case, and I'm not simply talking pie in the sky.

There are countries that treat transsexuality as part of the normal variance of gender identity. In 2002 when Great Britain affirmed that transsexuals are not mentally ill did funding for SRS drop? No. If anything increased scrutiny has been brought to bear on those doctors and institutions which have attempted to maintain a cissexist model in the face of the will of parliament and the courts. If one section of transition goes unfunded due to a person skirting the public system, other elements of transition often still remain funded. Simply put, publicly funded SRS is available in Britain and those who are unwilling to queue up for hormones are not required to do so as they have other means at their disposal for procurement, including legal online purchase. British transsexuals are treated as individuals with agency who know what is best for them; the support available to them, in funding and availability of treatment, is greater than in any Anglophone country that treats transsexuality as a disease.

It is also short sighted to think that the GID issue is confined only to the issue of medical treatment. The trans community is faced with myriad social issues, ranging from job discrimination, to airport security, to access to public services such as womens and homeless shelters. These are all important issues which deserve our attention, but as persons labeled with a mental disorder we loose valuable traction against those opponents who seek to undermine our positions, or even demonize us.

Mental illness, in The West, has a history of being used to justify stripping certain undesirable groups of their basic human rights. Take a look, for example, at employment discrimination. Numerous studies, like the one conducted by Citizens Advice in Britain in 2004, found that the mentally ill were denied benefits, treated poorly by companies, and unfairly denied employment. Sound familiar? Part of the transphobic attitudes of society aren't transphobic at all; they're bundled in with ablist rhetoric that is especially visceral and pronounced when the disability is considered mental.

Alberta, especially, does not have a proud history of treating those it believes to be mentally ill with the basic rights and agency they deserve. The forcible sterilizations conducted by the Social Credit Government were, much like the decision to cut SRS funding and then ramp up health care spending the next year, policies designed to make it not just unwelcoming, but unhealthy, to be the kind of person that the government believes to be dysfunctional.

And this attitude is spread by those who hate on both the misoginist right, purging trans men and women from any position in 'respectable society', and the radical feminist left, denying us, now already marginalized, safe spaces in which we can live our lives authentically. Take the following quotation written by a columnist based in Toronto:

"Some fundamental points. There is no such thing as a transsexual. There is no such thing as a man in a women s body or a woman in a man s body. There are, however, some very sick people whose deep mental illness deserves our compassion and care. Any man who wants to have his genitals surgically removed and some grotesque imitation of a female organ put in its place requires years of therapy and medication. Or, frankly, needs to put in hard weeks work fifty times a year so that he stops concocting neurotic nightmares and gets with leading a meaningful life."

And compare it with another, written by another Toronto columnist.

"What makes a woman? If a man cuts off his penis, pumps himself full of hormones, gets silicone breasts and electrolysis, and stuffs his feet into high heels, is he/she a woman?

[...]

Being female is a complicated mixture of physiology, cultural conditioning and lived experience - or even, as one academic thesis would have it, "a political category created through oppression.'' Out of politeness, I'd be willing to call that surgically altered person a woman and use the feminine pronoun. But a part of me will always feel outraged that "woman'' could be defined as an outward set of physical characteristics - lack of penis, fake breasts - along with an ultra-sexist "female impersonator'' style of clothing and gesture."

Could you spot the difference? The right-winger, Michael Coren, Toronto Sun, is the one who said 'get a job' while the left winger, Michele Landsberg, Toronto Star, called women an oppressed class. Really, that's about it; they both believe that we're seriously ill, incompetent, and that the people with real sanity and moral clarity should be making the decisions on our behalf. It's time to deny them their favorite trope and banish both the fiction of our insanity and their decency.

We are not, however, saying that transsexuals do not have a condition which benefits from medical treatment, as we specified earlier, nor are we saying that we should press forward without first proposing an alternative diagnosis; quite the contrary.

What we need is a new model which frames the issue not as an identity disorder, but rather as a stress-related disorder, contingent upon a mind-body dissonance. We fully support psychotherapist Hershel Russel when he recommends that we replace "Gender Identity Disorder" with Gender Expression Deprivation Disorder. The problem is, after all, not that somebody has an "incorrect" gender identity, but rather that the individual is suffering distress due to anatomical and social factors which are contrary to their sense of self. Such a diagnosis would act to dispel the myth that transsexuals are deluded without diminishing the necessity for medical treatment.

Ultimately, we in the trans community need to realize we can have our cake and eat it too, that dignity and respect and depathologization is not exclusive from a recognized need for medical support, in fact the two are rather tightly linked. When transsexuality was seen as a psychosis we got treated with electroshock; now that it's seen as a neurosis, we get treated with a seemingly eternal equivocation. When we fight to ensure that transsexuality is not treated as a disease, we will get agency, empathy, and most importantly, equality.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks for this RTTG! A lot of food for thought...

jas

Quote:

The problem is, after all, not that somebody has an "incorrect" gender identity, but rather that the individual is suffering distress due to anatomical and social factors which are contrary to their sense of self.

I really like this definition.

Keep in mind that many of the people who you term "cis"gendered could also fall into this definition without identifying as trans. A lot of people have problems with gender identity and roles and body and self image in this world. Trans people are not special in this regard.

Although I understand the need for a neutral term to describe those who are not trans, I myself would not attempt to "other" others if I'm asking them not to "other" me.

Sineed

This is great!  I have dispensed hormones to many transgendered people over the years and have thought that gender identity is over-medicalized.  And I'd 2nd what jas says about gender identity - many people who don't go so far as to identify as trans-gendered do have some ambiguities about gender identity.

Emancipation for the transgendered is liberating for everybody, IMO.

Red Tory Tea Girl

jas wrote:

Keep in mind that many of the people who you term "cis"gendered could also fall into this definition without identifying as trans. A lot of people have problems with gender identity and roles and body and self image in this world. Trans people are not special in this regard.

Although I understand the need for a neutral term to describe those who are not trans, I myself would not attempt to "other" others if I'm asking them not to "other" me.

Cisgendered simply means that you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth. It doesn't mean you're comfortable with the political implications of such, and if you find shorthand for, "I'm the gender that most people think I am and always have been," to be othering, I'd wonder what term you'd come up with that wasn't short-hand for 'normal' or 'real'.It's use of scientific and non-judgemental language, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality are. Two ends of the spectrum of human expression, with the poles each on one end. We're just saying the majority is no more normal than the minority, no less either.

And on that note, I can't stand the subversivists who try to claim that cis and hetero identities and lifestyles are less authentic and more put-on than those which flaunt the supposed rules of gender. Br**der is as awful a slur as d*ke or tra**y.

jas

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

Cisgendered simply means that you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth.

So I can assume that when you talk about "cis"gendered people, it is a hypothetical, a convenience, and not some absolute description of actual people? Because I don't see how anyone on the outside could know who is cisgendered and who isn't, except those who choose to identify as such. Others will choose not to, just as with trans people.

 

Red Tory Tea Girl

Just as I don't see how anyone could know by looking whose trans and who isn't.

I tend to take people at their word. But, to be reductionist, if you outwardly identify as the gender you are seen as and were assigned, then yes, by definition, you're cissexual. Just like if you're attracted to the opposite gender from your own identified gender, you're heterosexual. I don't often see anyone attracted to the opposite sex plausibly taking offense at being described as heterosexual unless they're trying to escape checking their privilege, and the same can justifiably apply to cis.

Sineed

Well, there are some people with opposite-sex partners who prefer to identify as bisexual rather than hetero.  And there are ostensibly cis-gendered folks who prefer not to be called that.  Surely people have a right to be called what they want to be called, if out of good manners than anything else.

In this culture, I think we can agree that there's a lot more flexibility around gender roles than there used to be.  But I have concerns.  F'r instance, when I was a teenager, I wanted to be a boy.  I felt I had a "boy brain" and would be happier and more fulfilled if I had been born male.  I still think this is true so far as I think my personality in general fits the stereotype of "male" but in no way am I trans; as I grew up I realized I was perfectly content with this body, and being a tomboy and a left-brain thinker doesn't mean a gal should be a guy.

I used to muse aloud, "I think I should have been a boy," and back in the day, folks laughed that off, and in my case no harm was done.  But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day trans activists be encouraging me to get testosterone injections and cut my tits off?  In the name of compassion I hope we aren't mistaking the confusion of youth for more substantial identity issues.

 

jas

Sineed wrote:

But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day trans activists be encouraging me to get testosterone injections and cut my tits off?  In the name of compassion I hope we aren't mistaking the confusion of youth for more substantial identity issues.

I wonder about this, too. Not so much that trans people would be encouraging others to transition - in fact, from what I've seen, the trans community is very careful not to do this, and very careful in their warnings about the permanency of transitioning, that it's not for everybody, that it's not a solution to all your problems, etc.. But I think the community that has been created, and the increased access to the process and the apparent success that so many trans people have in their transitions is making the idea much more attractive to younger people who would be naturally questioning their sexual identity and gender; and I'm not convinced that someone in their teens or early 20s for example, would know themselves well enough to make such a permanent decision. I know my own sexuality and gender expression have changed numerous times since my teens, and I expect it will continue to change.

Anyway, the point I was making about the term "cis"gender is that it is obviously problematic when one group unilaterally labels another group - even if that label is meant to be neutral - and especially if you are seeking allies within that labeled group. It also has the potential to set up a binary that is not real, i.e., anyone who is not trans must be cis, etc.. which obviously is not true. So what is the purpose of yet another vague categorization?

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
I used to muse aloud, "I think I should have been a boy," and back in the day, folks laughed that off, and in my case no harm was done. But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day trans activists be encouraging me to get testosterone injections and cut my tits off? In the name of compassion I hope we aren't mistaking the confusion of youth for more substantial identity issues.

 

How is this any different than saying, I used to muse aloud "I really would like to try sucking cock" and back in the day, folks laughed that off, and in my case no harm was done. But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day gay activists be encouraging me to wear hot pants and have anal sex?

Sounds pretty transphobic to me.

Sineed

jas wrote:
 I know my own sexuality and gender expression have changed numerous times since my teens, and I expect it will continue to change.

I liked so much in your post but just quoting this bit as a summary.  But yeah; the people I've met in the trans community have been careful and circumspect around gender identity.  I've been advising a workmate who is going through a male-to-female transition, giving her information on the hormones, and from what she's been saying, everybody's so sensitive that she's having trouble getting people to give her advice; she feels kind of lost sometimes.  (I did a literature search for her on the university database and part of the problem is there isn't a lot of hard data on people going through a transition.)

But my point is sometimes the best thing for a person, especially a young person, is to not accommodate what they want for themselves at that moment.

Le T wrote:
Sounds pretty transphobic to me.

I don't think your analogy applies because sexual preference seems to be more "hard wired," possibly biologically based, while gender identity seems to be partly culturally based.  And I don't think you can presume to know what I've been through in my life.  You don't know me.

Le T Le T's picture

The thread is about how trans people are treated by the medical establishment. You and jas have taken it upon yourselves to reject a widely-used term to describe people who not trans, a term that is meant to highlight the privilege that people who are not trans have in society. Similar to the term "white" constantly being rejected in anti-racist discussions by white people. As RTTG notes, a common way to avoid privilege.

You then go on to say that young trans people are probably just confused and should be denied the same autonomy over their body that you enjoy. You also suggest that there are groups of trans activists looking to talk these naive kiddies into chopping their tits off, as you so wonderfully described top surgery.

 

Transphobic? Of course not. How could any of that be considered transphobic?

jas

Le T wrote:

The thread is about how trans people are treated by the medical establishment. You and jas have taken it upon yourselves to reject a widely-used term to describe people who not trans, a term that is meant to highlight the privilege that people who are not trans have in society. Similar to the term "white" constantly being rejected in anti-racist discussions by white people. As RTTG notes, a common way to avoid privilege.

I guess I'll decide what label I choose to identify myself with, thanks, Le T. I am not transgendered, I do not identify as such, but I have suffered throughout my life negotiating the misfit between who I am internally and what gender expression is expected of me. That is my point. That is an area of struggle that feminists have already identified, decades ago. But if that's "privileged" to you, call it what you like - it's not correct. Is it more important to you to be righteous than correct?

Le T Le T's picture

I'm just asking that you respect the person who started this thread and acknowledge that intersectionality exists.

Stargazer

Le T wrote:

Quote:
I used to muse aloud, "I think I should have been a boy," and back in the day, folks laughed that off, and in my case no harm was done. But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day trans activists be encouraging me to get testosterone injections and cut my tits off? In the name of compassion I hope we aren't mistaking the confusion of youth for more substantial identity issues.

 

How is this any different than saying, I used to muse aloud "I really would like to try sucking cock" and back in the day, folks laughed that off, and in my case no harm was done. But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day gay activists be encouraging me to wear hot pants and have anal sex?

Sounds pretty transphobic to me.

 

I know this is a serious discussion but this was hilarious. Good point Le T.!

j.m.

Le T wrote:

Quote:
I used to muse aloud, "I think I should have been a boy," and back in the day, folks laughed that off, and in my case no harm was done. But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day trans activists be encouraging me to get testosterone injections and cut my tits off? In the name of compassion I hope we aren't mistaking the confusion of youth for more substantial identity issues.

 

How is this any different than saying, I used to muse aloud "I really would like to try sucking cock" and back in the day, folks laughed that off, and in my case no harm was done. But if I had been born 30 years later, would modern-day gay activists be encouraging me to wear hot pants and have anal sex?

Sounds pretty transphobic to me.

I think there are major substantive differences between sineed's claim and this analogy. SRS, including mastectomies, are quite permanent solutions, and hormone treatments do have health risks. In all, I think choosing these options requires more ruminating than sexual experimentation. Encouraging someone to do something quite permanent like SRS at a young age should be tempered.

Nevertheless, the assumption that transactivists are suggesting immediate SRS, hormone treatments or mastectomies en masse is equally a damaging blanket statement. There is a difference between making it accessible (currently in Ontario, SRS and mastectomies are not unless you have $$$) and forcing it upon "prospective youth".

 

Sineed

jas wrote:

I am not transgendered, I do not identify as such, but I have suffered throughout my life negotiating the misfit between who I am internally and what gender expression is expected of me. That is my point. That is an area of struggle that feminists have already identified, decades ago. But if that's "privileged" to you, call it what you like - it's not correct. Is it more important to you to be righteous than correct?

To this I'd add, some people in the trans gendered community unilaterally decided to call everyone who isn't trans, "cis" gendered.  I do not force terminology upon any group, and merely ask to enjoy the same courtesy.

Just like there are some in the gay community who have referred to straight people as "breeders," a term that makes me laugh, but some people find offensive.  What if that term became the "official" term for straight people, and anybody who objected to it was told they must be homophobic, using their straight privilege to deny the validity of that term, etc.

Same same.

Le T Le T's picture

I've never heard the term "cisgender" to be used in a negative way. It just means that someone's body is aligned with their gender identity, in the context of transgender politics. It's nothing like "breeders". It's actually a pretty academicy term that i have heard only used in the context of trying to name and explain oppression of trans people. It is similar to "straight" or "white" or "male" or "settler" or "upper middle-class" in that it denotes privilege in an oppressive relationship, a relationship that obviously intersects with many other oppressive relationships.

The fact that you dislike the term so much is odd. The fact that you infered that trans people don't really know if they are trans or not; that "trans activists" are trying to convince young people to undergo top surgery and hormone treatment; and that you are an authority on this issue because you have trans co-workers or friends strikes me as a little transphobic.

 

RosaL

Le T wrote:

I've never heard the term "cisgender" to be used in a negative way. It just means that someone's body is aligned with their gender identity, in the context of transgender politics. It's nothing like "breeders". It's actually a pretty academicy term that i have only used in the context of trying to name and explain oppression of trans people. It is similar to "straight" or "white" or "male" or "settler" or "upper middle-class" in that it denotes privilege in an oppressive relationship, a relationship that obviously intersects with many other oppressive relationships.

I think this is a really important subject, but I've never seen it fruitfully discussed here. I don't know whether to applaud the attempt or avert my eyes from the what I know is going to happen.

Sometimes people don't have enough in common to have a discussion or a debate. Arguably, that's why people start making accusations. I don't know if that's true here. But if there is enough common ground for a useful discussion, I think it would take some time to find it. 

Red Tory Tea Girl

Um... just a couple of points.

Sineed: I was writing about people who are exclusively attracted to people of the opposite gender when I used the term heterosexual. I was NOT writing about all people in opposite-sex relationships. It'd be, for example, pretty bi-phobic of me to refuse to acknowledge my fiance as anything but lesbian, simply because she's in a monogamous relationship with me, instead of with a man.

For all the people clucking their tongues about the permanence of transition and hormones and surgery:

Puberty has long-term and permanent consequences. Should we put our teens on hormone blockers until they're 30 and old enough to wisely decide to go through adolescence? Or are we just working to reinforce the privileging of assigned-sex-as-gender-identity? Restricting transition to those who are in their 30's ensures that the hormones will have done as much damage as possible to our bodies, and that's what it is: Damage. Forcibly treating a cis woman with testosterone is tantamount to refusing testosterone blockers to a trans woman. It is causing long-term damage to be done to our sense of self, our bodies, and our agency.

Sineed

As I mentioned upthread, I did some research on a university database for a transitioning coworker, and discovered the lack of data in trans-related medicine in general.  My friend was wondering about hormone dosages, for instance, and I couldn't find consistent recommendations on these for her.

Considering the lack of information on something as basic as drug dosages, what about the evidence for the suitability for transition?  How can we be sure a 15 year old kid is really trans, or just confused?  Your point about puberty is a good one - transition would be much easier without it, if transition is in fact the right thing for that person to do.

I'm not suggesting there be limits on treatments.  But I sometimes have transgendered people under my care, and as a medical person, I find the whole field long on opinion, and short on verifiable facts.

j.m.

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

For all the people clucking their tongues about the permanence of transition and hormones and surgery:

Puberty has long-term and permanent consequences. Should we put our teens on hormone blockers until they're 30 and old enough to wisely decide to go through adolescence? Or are we just working to reinforce the privileging of assigned-sex-as-gender-identity? Restricting transition to those who are in their 30's ensures that the hormones will have done as much damage as possible to our bodies, and that's what it is: Damage. Forcibly treating a cis woman with testosterone is tantamount to refusing testosterone blockers to a trans woman. It is causing long-term damage to be done to our sense of self, our bodies, and our agency.

Now that you put me on the defensive...

Since when does ruminating over something = prohibition or anti-choice?

What a false comparison and completely out of context with what I said earlier. Are you really going to put puberty as both a period of hormone production and a phase of development (in variegated ways) on the same plane as injecting hormones or taking hormone blockers, especially given that not everyone is decided about their gender (or how they want to look in terms of their sex) at the time of puberty? That's a lot of reductionism. And if you think it is unjust to expect someone to wait until their adulthood (and thus postpone puberty) in order to make a decision (something which I think is an unreasonable scenario), isn't it also unfair to hastily advocate for treatment without consideration of the range of consequences (both good and bad)? And that is not to say that treatment should be denied to adolescents whatsoever.

I am a bit put off by the "our bodies, our agency" line because it is actually a very personal choice which cannot be made by anyone else even if they identify as trans. It is about the person's body isn't it? I respect that you are concerned about the structures that try to force trans individuals to take their assigned sex-as-gender (especially considering the role of inflexible doctors and parents in this issue), which is all the more reason people should be accepting and aware of trans issues. And it is all the more reason to have networks available to discuss these very issues for those interested in or wanting sex-reassignment. But we have to be responsible for what we are conveying to others and what we advocate, especially with the issues of dosage as mentioned by sineed and the realities of experimentation with gender/sexuality/identity during adolescence.

What about SRS and Mastectomy? Care to touch on those?

 

 

Red Tory Tea Girl

j.m. wrote:

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

For all the people clucking their tongues about the permanence of transition and hormones and surgery:

Puberty has long-term and permanent consequences. Should we put our teens on hormone blockers until they're 30 and old enough to wisely decide to go through adolescence? Or are we just working to reinforce the privileging of assigned-sex-as-gender-identity? Restricting transition to those who are in their 30's ensures that the hormones will have done as much damage as possible to our bodies, and that's what it is: Damage. Forcibly treating a cis woman with testosterone is tantamount to refusing testosterone blockers to a trans woman. It is causing long-term damage to be done to our sense of self, our bodies, and our agency.

Now that you put me on the defensive...

Since when does ruminating over something = prohibition or anti-choice?

What a false comparison and completely out of context with what I said earlier. Are you really going to put puberty as both a period of hormone production and a phase of development (in variegated ways) on the same plane as injecting hormones or taking hormone blockers, especially given that not everyone is decided about their gender (or how they want to look in terms of their sex) at the time of puberty?

Yes. If I've said, 'I don't want these levels of testosterone in my body, I'd like medication to reduce them.' And you make me wait months to years to get a diuretic that will do just that, that's sitting behind the pharmacy counter, then yes, that's compelled. Failure to treat a condition which is easily treatable is compelling someone to live with it.

Quote:
That's a lot of reductionism. And if you think it is unjust to expect someone to wait until their adulthood (and thus postpone puberty) in order to make a decision (something which I think is an unreasonable scenario), isn't it also unfair to hastily advocate for treatment without consideration of the range of consequences (both good and bad)? And that is not to say that treatment should be denied to adolescents whatsoever.

You think we don't know, for example, that for people who take a 15 mg course of progesterone that there are up to 15 more cases per 1000 of breast cancer over the following decade? You think I don't know about potential liver problems, blood clots, or for that matter the reduction in heart disease, basal metabolic rate, and more? And I'm not uniquely educated on the subject. XY and XX men and women (and other variations) are all perfectly capable of reacting to hormones in the exact same way. Any poor data is the result of the continued and willful marginalization of those receiving the treatment, so that many of us don't go through the system. Ultimately though, like with any person's hormone replacement regimen, what feels right for the patient is often a better measure than what is standard.

Quote:
I am a bit put off by the "our bodies, our agency" line because it is actually a very personal choice which cannot be made by anyone else even if they identify as trans. It is about the person's body isn't it? I respect that you are concerned about the structures that try to force trans individuals to take their assigned sex-as-gender (especially considering the role of inflexible doctors and parents in this issue), which is all the more reason people should be accepting and aware of trans issues. And it is all the more reason to have networks available to discuss these very issues for those interested in or wanting sex-reassignment. But we have to be responsible for what we are conveying to others and what we advocate, especially with the issues of dosage as mentioned by sineed and the realities of experimentation with gender/sexuality/identity during adolescence.

I can tell you from firm experience just how much the time to consider is, to the medical establishment, more or less irrelevant, and just how undeniably wrong having such a horribly out of balance endocrinology feels. That if I'd been educated about transition when I was 12 it would have felt just as right as it did when I was 23 and trying to live the rest of my life in the closet or when I was 26 and battling doctors for the right to what any other woman would have.

Quote:
What about SRS and Mastectomy? Care to touch on those?

Lot easier to get if the doctors believe it makes you cis/in no way imperils your cisness. Google John Money for an excellent case study. Regardless, would you care to touch on the fact that trans women can't use many public facilities today, can't even be legally recognized as female, without SRS? I think the fact that a system requires a person to get a surgery to change the gender on their identification from M to F or F to M (or for that matter allows no other identity) is far more genitally obsessed than any 'trans activist' than I've ever known.

As a final note: People who come forward, asking for medical transition are about as likely to be unhappy with their decision as any random person will be with society's decision to assign them a gender based on their appearance at birth. Why is this the one sort of pain and discomfort that you're so unwilling to let someone self-diagnose?

j.m.

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

Yes. If I've said, 'I don't want these levels of testosterone in my body, I'd like medication to reduce them.' And you make me wait months to years to get a diuretic that will do just that, that's sitting behind the pharmacy counter, then yes, that's compelled. Failure to treat a condition which is easily treatable is compelling someone to live with it.

I never put myself as a gate-keeper of these things, nor did I advocate conditional limits. I think for the very reasons that you and I are concerned there need to be networks available and discursive political campaigns to make trans issues more visible. I think it is equally irresponsible, however, as an advocate to push someone into taking hormones in their teenage years without letting them consider it because of a personal worry about the efficiencies of phenotypical outcomes or the real discrimination that occurs from being publicly trans services pre-treatment. Both of those items are not solved by advocating someone else's hasty acceptance of hormone treatment (even if it leads to better acceptance due to society's skewed values).

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

You think we don't know, for example, that for people who take a 15 mg course of progesterone that there are up to 15 more cases per 1000 of breast cancer over the following decade? You think I don't know about potential liver problems, blood clots, or for that matter the reduction in heart disease, basal metabolic rate, and more? And I'm not uniquely educated on the subject. XY and XX men and women (and other variations) are all perfectly capable of reacting to hormones in the exact same way. Any poor data is the result of the continued and willful marginalization of those receiving the treatment, so that many of us don't go through the system. Ultimately though, like with any person's hormone replacement regimen, what feels right for the patient is often a better measure than what is standard.

Absolutely, and all the more reason for trans issues to be legitimized and visible. If there can be acceptance then there can be better science on hormone treatments and hopefully less-risk to health. I get the issue of qualitative measurements vs. ostensible health risks. Again, we're adults who have wrapped their heads around this, not teenagers. There are many things to consider, obviously, and getting someone who may want therapy to consider them at a young age is an important step.

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

I can tell you from firm experience just how much the time to consider is, to the medical establishment, more or less irrelevant, and just how undeniably wrong having such a horribly out of balance endocrinology feels. That if I'd been educated about transition when I was 12 it would have felt just as right as it did when I was 23 and trying to live the rest of my life in the closet or when I was 26 and battling doctors for the right to what any other woman would have.

I think ex-post-facto analyses are troubling, and had I known a number of things when I was younger I would have opted out of some therapies and taken others so that I wouldn't be - healthwise - where I am today. I think there is a narcissism of small differences here, I find very little disagreeable with what you say about needing to know about transitioning at a young age. So, yes, I think I should qualify my responses to say that lack of information, social marginilization and delegitimization are much larger concerns than what I previously voiced. Still, are all 12 year olds ready to transition even if it is biologically optimal?

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

Lot easier to get if the doctors believe it makes you cis/in no way imperils your cisness. Google John Money for an excellent case study. Regardless, would you care to touch on the fact that trans women can't use many public facilities today, can't even be legally recognized as female, without SRS? I think the fact that a system requires a person to get a surgery to change the gender on their identification from M to F or F to M (or for that matter allows no other identity) is far more genitally obsessed than any 'trans activist' than I've ever known.

I agree. Thank you for articulating this.

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

As a final note: People who come forward, asking for medical transition are about as likely to be unhappy with their decision as any random person will be with society's decision to assign them a gender based on their appearance at birth. Why is this the one sort of pain and discomfort that you're so unwilling to let someone self-diagnose?

 

I am fine with self-diagnosing (I don't think I ever suggested otherwise), and I think that it is of utmost importance (hence why I find "our bodies, our choice" off-putting at the scale of the individual, although I should have articulated that it has more importance at other scales of politics). I am not fine with society and doctors imposing cisness on trans individuals, either. In terms of what you and I are advocating, it is fuzzy because there is no indication of what time scale we are referring to. I don't think it is about "waiting months" to think about it, either. I would certainly hope that people have the option to consider it seriously with better information available. I should have stated that earlier.  

G. Muffin

Don't concern yourself with the DSM V, my friend. It's a political document with fascist implications.

You've got bigger fish to fry.

Le T Le T's picture

j.m. - you sound like an anti-choicer. Don't get defensive, get introspective. Maybe you need to do some more education on trans issues before you go making proclimations that are totally out of line with what trans communities have been saying for years.

 

G. Muffin

Le T, I have introspected on this issue for years and I believe switching genders is a tragedy. Sorry.

G. Muffin

It's permanent and only available through the miracle of modern medical science.

What else do you need to know?

G. Muffin

And if anybody wants to do it, I'll support them in that decision.

But I won't expect things to turn out well. I have never seen things turn out well for a trans gendered person.

That's a problem that they won't address for political reasons and that's a shame.

G. Muffin

How does one impose "cisness"? Seriously, how do they do it? What is the nature of this complaint?

I'm a gay male. What's the problem?

I'm a straight female. What's the problem?

I prefer men.

OMG

G. Muffin

I would say that if you're willing to get carved up in order to attain bliss, you are disordered and I don't use that word lightly.

I think it's a dysfunctional response to a problem in living.

G. Muffin

In some respects, I feel better when I harm myself.

Is society fascist for wanting to prevent me from slashing my wrists?

Do the police have a duty of care?

Is my capacity diminished?

And who is qualified to make that assessment?

I hope you're at PsychOUT in May. I'm presenting "BC's Mental Health Act & the Lunatics' Case For Its Repeal." Again.

j.m.

Le T wrote:

j.m. - you sound like an anti-choicer. Don't get defensive, get introspective. Maybe you need to do some more education on trans issues before you go making proclimations that are totally out of line with what trans communities have been saying for years.

I never claimed to know what's best for anyone. I merely stated that I think deep consideration is important, especially for adolescents, and then I later qualified that with issues that I overlooked.

Now, if you call that defensive....

G. Muffin

JM, I don't believe you're being defensive.

I think you might be horrified at the tragedy of the DSM V, that's all.

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
Le T, I have introspected on this issue for years and I believe switching genders is a tragedy. Sorry.

Flagged as transphobic. I think that transphobia is tragedy.

Quote:

I never claimed to know what's best for anyone. I merely stated that I think deep consideration is important, especially for adolescents, and then I later qualified that with issues that I overlooked.

Yeah, I read what you wrote. Your continued instistance that people are just having surgery and taking hormones will-nilly like it's some kind of fad is offensive. As is infering that trans activists are pushing surgery and hormones on kids, as Sineed did. Can you imagine saying the same thing about abortions, as if women just whip in and have it done on a whim? Are feminists going around covincing young women to have abortions? That's what anti-choice people say. That's why I told you that you sound like them and yes it is defensive to re-state your point as if i missed something.

 

RTTG - I'm sorry for what has happened in this thread. I take some of the responsibility for calling out these transphobes and not just flagging their posts and ignoring them. I think it's a really interesting article and thanks for sharing it with us in what is evidently a transphobic, unsafe space.

G. Muffin

I think you're mind is a tragedy, Le T.

If I'm transphobic, I'm also homophobic & racist & a whole bunch of other things.

You have to learn to Deal With Your Hypocrisy.

G. Muffin

Let the typoes begin.

 

G. Muffin

That's right, JM.

You have to want it enough to purchase it.

Just like Starbucks.

G. Muffin

I will never support the waste of public money.

Not on trans gender issues. Not on mental health issues, either.

I am a true pro choicer.

A capitalist.

Who read Atlas Shrugged & thinks Ayn Rand's mockable.

G. Muffin

If I like your product, I will purchase same.

Society Be Damned.

G. Muffin

Okay, I didn't actually read Atlas Shrugged.

But I talked to an intelligent person who did.

And I purchased it.

Because I heard it's worth reading.

Support amazon.ca

G. Muffin

Everybody knows Alan Dershowitz is a sanctimonious git & that The Fink Rules.

Still, read Goldhagen, so you can comport yourself effectively in a debate.

Then read "Nation on Trial" by The Fink & Thank Your Lucky Stars we have free speech (sort of) in this fine country of ours.

G. Muffin

G. Muffin wrote:

That's right, JM.

You have to want it enough to purchase it.

Just like Starbucks.

Why not support a trans gender foundation, then?

I support humane slaughter. I really do.

G. Muffin

So does Temple Grandin.

So does anybody who is swayed by Dr. Grandin.

G. Muffin

You won't "win" this one, Le T. Not up against me, you won't. At best, you can pray the thread gets closed.

G. Muffin

You can kill me but you'll never shut me up.

j.m.

G. Muffin wrote:

It's permanent and only available through the miracle of modern medical science.

What else do you need to know?

...and the ability to afford it.

I don't think the right to sexual-reassignment can ever be universal (outside of developed states).

Further, I find it hard to believe that there is some grand injustice in countries where this modern science isn't praciticed, as if the ability to physically change one's body through these procedures is a God-given right. It is rife with ethical dilemna and assumes that there is a teleology to trans issues. 

I acknowledge that transpeople who live in squatters don't have access to these procedures, but are we going to close soup kitchens so that they can have their procedure? Sorry, Jhonny, but Ximena doesn't want to grow up with a penis and broad shoulders, so we decided to cut funding to the comedor popular and you can't have your potato soup anymore. (Flag as offensive if you will, and come live with me and my family a block away from the soup kitchen where the urban poor who are trying to scrape by don't have access to affordable food or health care).

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:

Le T, I'm sorry you feel offended by my positions, but I think adopting your positions is very Western-centric and involves uncritical support of the "flawless politics" of the trans community. Yes, I think there is something to support, but why so eager to push the point of hasty adoption of permanent procedures (I take it that's why there is attack over my "rumination" comment).

Again, for like the fucking hundreth time, no one is pushy for the "hasty adoption of permanent procedures". I am telling you that you do not get to police tran people's bodies. You don't know better. Your insight is not enlightening. You are using your CIS-privilege to say that trans people should only do certain things until you and other cisgendered people are suficiently convinced that these people are really trans.

I'm done with this thread. Sorry again RTTG.

j.m.

Le T wrote:

Quote:
Le T, I have introspected on this issue for years and I believe switching genders is a tragedy. Sorry.

Flagged as transphobic. I think that transphobia is tragedy.

Quote:

I never claimed to know what's best for anyone. I merely stated that I think deep consideration is important, especially for adolescents, and then I later qualified that with issues that I overlooked.

Yeah, I read what you wrote. Your continued instistance that people are just having surgery and taking hormones will-nilly like it's some kind of fad is offensive. As is infering that trans activists are pushing surgery and hormones on kids, as Sineed did. Can you imagine saying the same thing about abortions, as if women just whip in and have it done on a whim? Are feminists going around covincing young women to have abortions? That's what anti-choice people say. That's why I told you that you sound like them and yes it is defensive to re-state your point as if i missed something.

 

RTTG - I'm sorry for what has happened in this thread. I take some of the responsibility for calling out these transphobes and not just flagging their posts and ignoring them. I think it's a really interesting article and thanks for sharing it with us in what is evidently a transphobic, unsafe space.

 

Le T, I'm sorry you feel offended by my positions, but I think adopting your positions is very Western-centric and involves uncritical support of the "flawless politics" of the trans community. Yes, I think there is something to support, and I get that in the context of developed countries with considerable wealth that these are possibilities, but why so eager to push the point of hasty adoption of permanent procedures as if it is an inherent necessity without question (I take it that's why there is attack over my "rumination" comment)?

 

j.m.

Le T wrote:

 

Again, for like the fucking hundreth time, no one is pushy for the "hasty adoption of permanent procedures".

Really? So I didn't read the advocacy to teenagers "if you "feel" trans now, you better start taking hormones and go through SRS" in any of the previous posts? If that wasn't other people's intentions, then I apologize for my interpretations.

Le T Le T's picture

No, you're thinking of the strawperson that you and Sineed created. I did read RTTG telling you that people don't "feel" trans they know they are, as RTTG knew and then you not accepting that and continuing to infer that there is some major problem of young people who are not trans having hormones and surgery pushed on them by trans people. Which sounds a hell of a lot like teachers turning kids gay, feminists forcing women to have abortions or any number of other fear mongering tropes made by biggots.

Pages

Topic locked