Transgender Thread.
- Thread starter Com Fox
- 2,194 comments
- 129,625 views
- 1,382
- Minnesota
- SQE_HAZ3L
If possible, I'd like to interrupt the general negative attitude for a moment with some super duper great news! ^-^ I got my doctor's letter for my name and gender marker change today!
- 2,858
- Australia
Damn, in Australia we can change our names at any time, to almost anything of our choosing. Honest congratulations.
It would be good if you could see the discussions as something other than negative though. I really don't think it's accurate to view much of it at all that way. A person arriving with a truly negative approach will likely promptly get themselves their own "medical" procedure, and be "torn a new one" by the very people you have perceived as the "enemy". There's enough hate out there, don't turn something that's not, into something that is.
- 11,118
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
The problem is that unlike a career change, any switch backs in terms of gender is going to badly affect the transgender, especially if they went through procedures.
The switch backs show that the children don't really know that they identify with the gender.
It's fine for a child to feel like a particular gender but going through the transgender process should be halted off until they're around 18 where the childs brain is developed enough to get the full understanding and knowledge if they really are genitically the wrong gender.
- 874
- United Kingdom
Obviously you missed this.
As I stated before the majority of places that offer medical assistance for this hold off anything that is considered irreversible (i.E hormone replacement therapy) till the age of 16, and in the vast majority of cases hold off surgery till the age of 18. The only thing given before that point would/should be hormone blockers, which staves off puberty. This is fully reversible and causes no lasting effects on the body.
One of the main reasons that surgery is held off (least here in the UK) till a person is 18, is because the body needs to be pretty much fully grown, otherwise corrective surgery could be needed; increasing both cost and potential trauma (physical and psychological). Here in the UK even private gender clinics where the patient pays have to wait till the person is at the age of 18. Some do travel to Thailand for private surgery though.
There have also been studies (and in some cases forced gender change as infants) enacted in the past, back when doctors believed the nurture played a part in all of this. As well as some misguided but concerned parents buying into it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml
This stuff used to go on a lot in times past, especially if ambiguous genitalia where present and doctors would 'decide' what physical sex the baby was and give corrective surgery. Sometimes they got it right, other times they got it wrong. You can not raise someone to be a gender they are not though. As keeps getting pointed out, gender, physical sex, and even biological sex are not one and the same thing. Ironically, each one of them can potentially say something different. Also, if we go right back to my very first post in this thread, I posted a series of links to places of information that discuss how the physical brains of transgender people are different, and how they more coincide with a transgender individuals gender identity:
Just to quote this little bit again:
If you want all this stuff to be halted till the brain is fully developed, then chances are a high proportion of us transgender people would need to be placed in psychiatric care; as the brain isnt medically considered fully developed for humans until we reach the age of around 25.......
Holding off on any corrective help, especially in regards to male to females like myself; would make things a lot harder with regards to social transition and how people see us. Testosterone, as I have stated before; works wonders for transgender males in most cases. For those of us that need to go the other way, it increases the chances that we will need more than just female hormones and bottom surgery. It can add things such as facial feminizing surgery into play, which means having pieces of the skull shaved off. Some biological and physical males can lose all their hair by the age of 25, imagine how that might feel for someone with the gender identity of a female.
Male hair loss usually comes into play through DHT (Dihydrotestosterone). DHT is produced after enzymes have turned testosterone into it, DHT is the primary cause of male pattern baldness. Giving a transgender female medication to stave off puberty as an adolescent, and then proceeding to give them oestrogen once they turn 16/17 can stop that from happening; as testosterone is reduced to the levels that a biological female should have.
But then this is the danger with armchair sociologists, scientist and Doctors talking about what it means to be transgender, and to why we should just be content to be either a feminine male or masculine female because that is how we was born; or hold off on any and all medical intervention till the "brain is fully developed". Most people have not done the appropriate research into any of this, they just go of what is sensationalized in media (rag, radio, tele, social). Most people have no idea how it feels to live with your entire sense of self screaming at you, telling you your body is wrong, that it doesn't match your gender. Or how it feels to be treated like something that has been stepped in by society at large.
There are many a reason why doctors deem it best practice to stave off puberty in a transgender persons adolescents, why they begin HRT once they reach 16/17; why they do what they do the way they do it. They are trained to deal with this stuff, some of them have been gender specialist doctors for over 30 years. They might be psychologists, but they work very closely with endocrinologists. Here in the UK they have to have at least one Endo on staff at a Gender Identity Clinic. The professionals who deal with this stuff daily know what they are doing, and they know not to do anything irreversible till the ages of 16/17.
Having being through the system here in the UK, I can tell you without a doubt that no one is pushing these children to change. All the Doctors do is listen, if gender dysphoria is diagnosed; options are placed on the table. Those options are explained in detail to give people the information needed to make an informed decision, and then the patient (and/or their parents depending on age) are left alone to decide what they themselves believe will be the best way to move forward. There is no prodding to proceed one way or the other, just help with whatever choice the patient makes.
Last edited:
- 11,118
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
Did I even say "fully developed". I said "developed enough". I think 25 is a little bit extreme, when the drinking age is around 18 - 21 for most countries and licences is usually 16.
Ok, lets say you wanted to transition at a young age, sure the short term effects is that it's easier to be socially transition but there is an issue with a pretty large % of people regretting their decision and switching back. You started yours at 16 as you said, 16 is a pretty alright age. Imagine if 12 or younger person decided to do the same thing and regretted it, some procedures are unchangeable for awhile or forever leaving the child with an ugly mess of a body for a very long time. If the child waited and understanded himself and trans more better, then this wouldn't happen.
I read the opposite, a lot of transgender regrets suffer massive cases of suicide even though the media ignores this highlight:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/19/transgender-regret-is-real-even-if-the-media-tell-you-otherwise/
It's a real issie and the reason why doctors hold off. They aren't cancelling you transitioning in general, they want to make sure you can fully go through with it and not regret it later down the line. Just because you might "feel" like your a different gender isn't necessarily enough reason to transition at a young age. People who wait until they transition tend to be much more happier later in life than people who transition early.
- 12,893
- Divided States of America
- MikuHime80
- 11,118
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
No fully developed is 100%, enough can be at any comfortable range that is deemed appropriate.
I'm comfortable with that.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Which is why I said this in my first post on the topic:
--
My objections to this logic have already been covered quite nicely here:
Everybody changes their minds all the time, and in most other cases we don't dismiss people's present just because their future is likely to be different.
I agree (and as far as I can tell, mostly everyone here does too) that surgical/hormonal steps shouldn't be decided upon lightly, and it's probably wise to wait until the person is older to take them. But that doesn't mean that the person involved doesn't know what they know/want/feel/etc.
I'm not advocating that children undergo gender re-assignment procedures. What I am advocating that we don't tell them that their feelings and their identities are somehow invalidated by their age, and we provide them with the same support and understanding that we all expect from each other.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I know you aren't intentionally advocating that, but your language in other places is muddying the waters a bit:
There's absolutely no reason to think that a child or adolescent is incapable of understanding their own gender identity. Implying otherwise, and invalidating that identity, isn't supportive at all.
- 11,118
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
- 2,858
- Australia
I actually see no reason not to perform gender re-assignment surgeries on a child, of any age, considering other accepted practices. The "lynch pin" being proving that it is corrective.
I'd go so far as to suggest that anyone that believes that people are born the wrong gender, but also hold the view that children should not get full gender re-assignment treatments, is bordering on hypocritical. An adult should be able to do/not do anything to their body that they choose, including doing things to it that others would think crazy (amputation of healthy limbs, for example), and not doing things that others would think them crazy for refraining from (insert low risk/high reward surgery/treatment). I don't think we can give that power to children, and if we're not giving the power to the children decide their own fates in this regard, we should surely at least be consistent in the application of our own rationales, in deciding their fates.
For any person that views gender identity as innate, and as important, I don't understand why you would not support full blown gender re-assignment for children.
I'd go so far as to suggest that anyone that believes that people are born the wrong gender, but also hold the view that children should not get full gender re-assignment treatments, is bordering on hypocritical. An adult should be able to do/not do anything to their body that they choose, including doing things to it that others would think crazy (amputation of healthy limbs, for example), and not doing things that others would think them crazy for refraining from (insert low risk/high reward surgery/treatment). I don't think we can give that power to children, and if we're not giving the power to the children decide their own fates in this regard, we should surely at least be consistent in the application of our own rationales, in deciding their fates.
For any person that views gender identity as innate, and as important, I don't understand why you would not support full blown gender re-assignment for children.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Ok, given that I fall close to this category, I should probably respond.
I'm not sure I see gender identity as "innate" necessarily - because it responds to social norms in so many ways. But, given that social norms are going to be present, it would be innate. So, for example, what a woman or man is "supposed to be" isn't necessarily innate. It's a social convention that we apply based on likelihood of behavior as observed in the general population. The social convention could easily run counter to that, and I think that there have been plenty of examples where what someone is "supposed to be" socially is only represented by a tiny minority of the population at the time. In fact, one could argue that what a woman is "supposed to be" according to our social convention includes things beyond behavior and includes appearance (which is the only reason it'd relevant to this thread), in which case many people argue that the social convention for what a woman is "supposed to look like" is actually currently based on a tiny minority of the population.
Regardless, the social convention is what it is. It itself isn't innate, but if you take the fact that it exists as a given (which I think you have to do), then gender identity is actually innate. Given an arbitrary social convention, one's particular innate characteristics will align with that arbitrary social convention in some given way.
TL;DR - technically I don't think gender identity is innate, but for the purposes here, it should probably be considered innate.
I also don't necessarily think that it's important. If you recognize the the social convention is arbitrary, then how your identity aligns with the arbitrary convention is also arbitrary - which means it can't be truly important. However from a practical standpoint, differences with gender identity and social convention are going to have an impact. Regardless, the only person who can truly decide whether it's important is the person themselves. I can't decide for them whether their gender identity alignment with social convention is important to them. As a result, I have to defer to their judgement of its importance, and I think in some cases people elevate it to a level of life or death importance. So I conclude that it's important.
TL;DR - technically I don't think gender identity is important, but for the purposes here, it should probably be considered important.
However, I don't support full blown gender re-assignment for children in cases where there is not a quantifiable medical risk (ie: when the person is not suicidal). The problem is not one of whether their views on their gender identity is important, or innate. The problem is one of knowledge. You can hear what they're telling you, but you cannot assess whether what they're telling you is accurate. It could be accurate, but there's no way for you, as a parent, to know that. Acting on that would be irresponsible. It would be akin to having a 9 year old tell you that they're responsible enough to handle a gun, and then handing them a gun based entirely on their 9 year old assessment of the situation. The job of the parent is assess the situation and understand the risks.
In other words, I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to postpone gender re-assignment for children even if one thinks that gender is innate and important.
- 7,599
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I agree. I don't think the idea of wanting to change your body is so strange. With most things, people like to choose something that fits them. Your body doesn't work that way unfortunately. If you don't like your body it's not a matter of it being "wrong", you were just unlucky in the genetic lottery. The transgender condition should not be so hard to empathize with as many people probably have similar feelings with regard to some aspect of their body. Unfortunately arbitrary societal rules/norms can cause people to be close minded, things like insisting that men be "masculine" and women be "feminine" when there is no reason to expect that on an individual basis. Those things just make it harder for people to accept another's desire to change their body as well as making it harder for those seeking to change themselves to feel comfortable with what they have. Everyone loses.
Caution in the face of the unknown only makes sense. As long as surgery remains difficult and carries risk it shouldn't be done at the flip of a hat. If technology gets better and transition becomes easier and possibly reversible, then it makes sense to be more loose with it. Risk works both ways though, and if living without surgery is a huge burden on a child, then surgery might become the better option as it is less risky as you go on to say. I still don't like the idea of a hard age limit for body modification, but the process should be slower the younger the person in question. The reasoning behind the slow and cautious approach also needs to be openly shared with the child. Even in the case where someone is mentally mature enough to make the decision, they will still need knowledge about the process and its limitations to make a proper decision.
- 2,858
- Australia
When I say innate, I mean hard-wired. We've now got to the point where we're told by the correct boffins (and have also widely accepted) that homosexuality is hard-wired. The thing about that though is that it really doesn't matter. There's no "standard-practice" body modifications that go with it. Little Timmy says "I'm gay" or "I like boys, not girls"........ whatever floats your boat, Timmy. Much more complex for gender dysphoria if viewed as similarly hard-wired though, as there would be a truly innate pull toward certain bodily phenomena and functions.
Ultimately I'm stating that it makes no sense to hold that gender is hard-wired, and also be against surgery for the sake of a child's level of maturity in regards to gender-suredness. Other factors remain entirely relevant - "Will they be able to cope with the physical trauma?", "Will they be able to cope with the non-gender-related mental aspects of surgeries?", but I don't think that those sorts of universal aspects are what really matter in this discussion.
People tend to get a bit wishy washy with things like this, and adopt a view that will keep them "saving face" with the highest number of others. In a religious environment, there's every chance that total opposition would still be king. Your average modern western society though may be steering toward the "progressive" attitude of recognising gender identity as if hard-wired, but contextually regressive in opposing gender re-assigment for children. I think that that combination makes no sense.
- 11,118
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
Does anyone actually have any sort of biological evidence, studies or sources in terms of non-binary trans people (trans people who don't identify as male or female)? It would probably help me in terms of thinking if there really is more than 2 genders and I can't find any sort of sources or studies that are for or against.
I know there plenty of evidence to support binary transgender people in terms of hormones and testosterone (or something else like that) being in the "wrong body", but what about non-binarys like Gender Fluid or Agender? Do Gender Fluid people constantly switch the levels elements of gender of male and female? Do Agender have none or have their own level?
I know there plenty of evidence to support binary transgender people in terms of hormones and testosterone (or something else like that) being in the "wrong body", but what about non-binarys like Gender Fluid or Agender? Do Gender Fluid people constantly switch the levels elements of gender of male and female? Do Agender have none or have their own level?
- 11,118
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
Found out about an odd and curious term called "Transtrender".
Apparently it's used for people who say they're trans but "do it for the attention" and has nothing to do with gender dysphoria.
This term I always felt is too hard to pinpoint on binary trans people . It is possible a select few trans people do, do it for the attention but there really is hardly any evidence you can use to prove it.
As for non-binary, without any scientific proof (at least what I can find) it is a bit easier but I still feel like it is a bit too much of a assumption to say "you're a transtrender" as while I don't think non-binary trans is a real thing, there are definitely more reasons why people might think to themselves as non-binary.
IMO, throwing the "transtrender" label around without any real proof is just as bad as people throwing the "transphobic" word around without any real proof.
Apparently it's used for people who say they're trans but "do it for the attention" and has nothing to do with gender dysphoria.
This term I always felt is too hard to pinpoint on binary trans people . It is possible a select few trans people do, do it for the attention but there really is hardly any evidence you can use to prove it.
As for non-binary, without any scientific proof (at least what I can find) it is a bit easier but I still feel like it is a bit too much of a assumption to say "you're a transtrender" as while I don't think non-binary trans is a real thing, there are definitely more reasons why people might think to themselves as non-binary.
IMO, throwing the "transtrender" label around without any real proof is just as bad as people throwing the "transphobic" word around without any real proof.
Dan
Premium
- 15,396
- United States
The only person I normally hear that says "transtrender" is Blaire White. She is an intelligent and entertaining transgender YouTuber who debates SJWs and pokes fun at people who make absolutely ridiculous statements. Some of the people who she calls "transtrenders" are Riley Dennis and Milo Stewart who claim to be transgender, but have made almost zero effort to transition.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Sorry to beat a dead horse. But this remindes me of Caitlyn. The process still has not finished as far as we know. Is she "transtrender"?
- 6,293
- Canada
I haven't read through this while thread, so apologies if this has been brought up before.
What are people's thoughts on prefered pronouns, and more importantly, their mandated use?
In Canada, federal government passed legislation (Bill C16) which puts trans gender people as a protected catagory - and basically that failure to use someone's prefered pronoun is a Hate Crime. It has triggered a debate in Canada and outside) about how this bill infringes on free speech, as this new legislation basically puts compelled speech into legislation.
One of the main opponents of Bill C16 has been Univeristy of Toronto Prof Jordan B Peterson.
Here is an interview with Peterson on the Rubin Report, explaining his position
And here is the free speech debate that Peterson took part in
I'm curious as to what people's thoughts are on the issue of these prefered pronouns, and whether or not this infringes on free speech. Also, I realise the trans gender aspect is only a small part of the greater issue being presented by Peterson, so if this should be in a different topic, I've no issue of its moved.
What are people's thoughts on prefered pronouns, and more importantly, their mandated use?
In Canada, federal government passed legislation (Bill C16) which puts trans gender people as a protected catagory - and basically that failure to use someone's prefered pronoun is a Hate Crime. It has triggered a debate in Canada and outside) about how this bill infringes on free speech, as this new legislation basically puts compelled speech into legislation.
One of the main opponents of Bill C16 has been Univeristy of Toronto Prof Jordan B Peterson.
Here is an interview with Peterson on the Rubin Report, explaining his position
And here is the free speech debate that Peterson took part in
I'm curious as to what people's thoughts are on the issue of these prefered pronouns, and whether or not this infringes on free speech. Also, I realise the trans gender aspect is only a small part of the greater issue being presented by Peterson, so if this should be in a different topic, I've no issue of its moved.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I have to agree - the least offensive approach to conversation is not one that should be legally mandated. I'd form my own view of somebody who deliberately refused to recognise a correct self-identified gender pronoun (unless genuinely mistaken, which can easily happen) but I'll be damned if I'm going to be told to do it by a court.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Yup. To put it in context, it is legal in the US to belligerently call a black person the N word.
Dan
Premium
- 15,396
- United States
How would you feel if you were charged with a hate crime if you accidentally called someone a man because they looked, acted, and sounded like a man, but actually identify as a woman? It was a mistake, right? You didn't know. But in this age of hyper-reactionary SJWs, you're guilty until proven innocent.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
Could either of you clarify what this bit is based on? Reading through the bill I can't find any mention of pronouns. Knowing squat about Canadian law I'm probably missing out a lot of information but in the bill's summary it says this
Is it an assumption that the courts will now interpret misusing pronouns (accidentally and/or deliberately) as hate propaganda? If so what is the basis (or is there any precedence) for that?
