Transgender Thread.

[Joey D]

Maybe. I think most of them would be in the fox news "I don't know what woke is but it means whatever I don't like" camp.

A large percentage? Sure. But I think there is a growing number of people who just can't be bothered anymore because no matter how much they try, they get called a transphobe or a bigot. I think this is especially true in the Xennial age group where we're young enough to be seen as more liberal while old enough to start being set in our ways. Like I'm 100% ok with being gay or lesbian and, even though I don't understand it, I recognize trans people's right to exist. It's still a strange concept to me, but I think they should be just treated like people.

Things I struggle with are gender identities like "animaliagender." While it might be a real thing, I have a tough time accepting it and it just seems completely made up. I don't even know how to approach it either. I would attempt to be respectful, but I think there's a line where I just don't want to interact with someone because of it.

There's also the whole "be offended by everything". Conservatives are famous for it, but liberals are just as bad at times, especially younger liberals and I can see how that pushes some people away.

It may well be because many/most of the interactions they've had were from people with bad intentions.

If the situation is that a significant minority of the public may wish you harm (from abuse, harassment, to violence), then assuming 'bad intentions' may well be defensive. That said, this may well vary on a country-by-country/Location-by-location basis, I've LGBT friends from South America (and now live in the UK) who took years to adjust to the fact that being openly gay didn't automatically put their lives in very real danger of death, that they assumed bad intentions on the part of strangers was 100% not surprising.

I'm sure many interactions are bad, and I can understand initially being wary, but assuming everyone has bad intentions is going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If someone isn't indicting they have bad intentions, don't assume they have them. If they start to show bad intentions, then by all means, get away from them or call them on it.

I use the example of pronouns. If your name is something like Tiffany, I will probably refer to you as "she/her," which is reasonable to assume. If you tell me your pronouns are "they/them," I will make an effort to use them, but I still might not do it 100% because it goes against years of ingrained social cues. I think there needs to be some give and take where people with non-traditional genders need to understand that it's going to be difficult for most people to break their habits, and some are not being willfully cruel.

In New Zealand for instance, we're very unlikely to use the term Two Spirit since it's not an identity that is commonly used here.

From what I've learned, "two spirit" is a Canadian First Nations and American Native American concept. Apparently, almost all native and indigenous groups have a different word for the concept.

 

[Daniel]

From what I've learned, "two spirit" is a Canadian First Nations and American Native American concept. Apparently, almost all native and indigenous groups have a different word for the concept.

It's another one of those all-encompassing terms to refer to the various gender identities that don't have a (direct) Western equivalent.

For instance, Cree has a number of different identities that sorta boil down to the Western equivalent of "trans man" and "trans woman", whereas Lakota have one, wíŋkte, that across time has been used to refer to men who dressed and acted as women, but also looks to be used to refer to gay men.

 

[Scaff]

I'm sure many interactions are bad, and I can understand initially being wary, but assuming everyone has bad intentions is going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If someone isn't indicting they have bad intentions, don't assume they have them. If they start to show bad intentions, then by all means, get away from them or call them on it.

I didn't claim it was rational or logical, most defense mechanisms become automatic and can be hard to break, and yes it can also be self-fulfilling, but if you're so used to getting the crap kicked out of you for 'x' then why not get your dig in first (again not always rational, but it is the reality of the situation. I grew up one of the poorest kids in the class, and can relate to it).

I use the example of pronouns. If your name is something like Tiffany, I will probably refer to you as "she/her," which is reasonable to assume. If you tell me your pronouns are "they/them," I will make an effort to use them, but I still might not do it 100% because it goes against years of ingrained social cues. I think there needs to be some give and take where people with non-traditional genders need to understand that it's going to be difficult for most people to break their habits, and some are not being willfully cruel.

Again in an ideal world equal give and take would be perfect, but consider that it's not equal in this regard. For you it's the occasional introduction, for them, it's pretty much every introduction.

 

[Shaun]

I start that by calling every trans person by whatever pronoun they like.

I would like this comment twice if I could.

 

[Duke]

In almost every health system, you have male-to-female trans people attempting to schedule OB/GYN appointments, which obviously makes no sense. On the flip side you have female-to-male trans people attempting to schedule appointments with men's health. In an ideal world, it would be fine to let them because it makes them feel more at home with their chosen gender. In the real world, though, it's taxing on specialties where appointments are already at a premium.

Is it really,though? How much of an actual issue is this, and how much is it a perception?

I'm genuinely asking, though I suspect it's really not a very large number.

 

[Joey D]

Is it really,though? How much of an actual issue is this, and how much is it a perception?

I'm genuinely asking, though I suspect it's really not a very large number.

Based on the internal data I have, it's a big enough problem that I'm being asked to figure out a solution. OB/GYN care is pretty taxed as it is, especially in an area with a high birth rate. Men's health is probably more taxed than OB/GYN, though, just due to there being fewer available providers. OB/GYN care seems to be a more popular specialty for med students to pursue because, presumably, you get to deal with babies and happier patients.

 

[Moglet]

I use the example of pronouns. If your name is something like Tiffany, I will probably refer to you as "she/her," which is reasonable to assume. If you tell me your pronouns are "they/them," I will make an effort to use them, but I still might not do it 100% because it goes against years of ingrained social cues. I think there needs to be some give and take where people with non-traditional genders need to understand that it's going to be difficult for most people to break their habits, and some are not being willfully cruel.

I've taken to using they/them for everyone I meet until I know for certain which pronouns they use. It took a few months of doing it but I got there. Admittedly it helps working in the games industry as the percentage of queer folk is higher than most other jobs, but it has already been noted by several people as being helpful to them.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I would hate to lecture in those specialties now. Most professors are nice folk, and the potential of offending someone would be mortifying to them. But terms would have to be updated to be inclusive, and it's going to be a weird switch from "traditional" labels.

Is there, for example, a suitable replacement for describing the maternal circulation when a person is pregnant when differentiating it from the foetal circulation?

"Host" circulation sounds a bit....yeah

Parental circulation maybe?

EDIT: That reminds me of this post. So the change can be simple, but people have to be willing to change.

 

[Joey D]

I've taken to using they/them for everyone I meet until I know for certain which pronouns they use. It took a few months of doing it but I got there. Admittedly it helps working in the games industry as the percentage of queer folk is higher than most other jobs, but it has already been noted by several people as being helpful to them.

I do attempt to do this, and it's pretty easy when writing e-mails, but it's not as easy when speaking.

Is there, for example, a suitable replacement for describing the maternal circulation when a person is pregnant when differentiating it from the foetal circulation?

It should be uteroplacental circulation since that is the medical term for it. We shouldn't be changing medical terminology to fit specific things since you get into a whole other can of worms.

 

[Duke]

Based on the internal data I have, it's a big enough problem that I'm being asked to figure out a solution.

All right, fair enough. I admit that, on this subject at least, my default assumption is that perceived issues are largely hysteria.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I do attempt to do this, and it's pretty easy when writing e-mails, but it's not as easy when speaking.

I find that it's easier to do when speaking if I treat it as if I'm speaking to impress someone, i.e. when projecting confidence. That way I focus on my words more than usual.

It's not perfect, but it does the trick (mostly) for this socially anxious guy.

It should be uteroplacental circulation since that is the medical term for it. We shouldn't be changing medical terminology to fit specific things since you get into a whole other can of worms.

I think that is distinct from the systemic maternal and foetal circulations.

And medicine is constantly evolving!

For example, granulomatosis with polyangiitis used to be called Wegener's granulomatosis until his Nazi past was brought to light. Sure, you may still get some old-timers referring to it as that out of habit as that's what they've used for decades, but eventually the new term will stick.

 

[Joey D]

All right, fair enough. I admit that, on this subject at least, my default assumption is that perceived issues are largely hysteria.

Ya, it's probably fair to go to hysteria since that does seem to be the norm. I probably would've thought it was hysteria too unless if the request hadn't been accompanied with data.

I think that is distinct from the systemic maternal and foetal circulations.

And medicine is constantly evolving!

For example, granulomatosis with polyangiitis used to be called Wegener's granulomatosis until his Nazi past was brought to light. Sure, you may still get some old-timers referring to it as that out of habit as that's what they've used for decades, but eventually the new term will stick.

Possibly, my OB/GYN knowledge is fairly limited.

Also, in terms of what we call things, it might differ a bit from the UK to the US. We still very much call it Wegener's. I just worked with an otolaryngology clinic and they referred to it as Wegener's/GPA. I get that things need to evolve and names need to change, a good example is Monkey Pox to M-POX, but when it comes to describing systems in the body we probably shouldn't be changing it.

 

[Daniel]

Ya, it's probably fair to go to hysteria since that does seem to be the norm. I probably would've thought it was hysteria too unless if the request hadn't been accompanied with data.

Would it be worth running a focus group with some people from the local trans community to get their thoughts on it, or get in touch with various trans-affirming healthcare providers to see what they do?

Might also be worth seeing what percentage of the trans community in your area do check-ins with clinicians who specialist in what parts they have. In other words, how many trans AFAB people try to make appointments with OB/GYNs that slip under the radar vs. how many of them try to make appointments with 'men's' healthcare specialists (and vice versa)?

I wonder if some trans men don't feel welcome at OB/GYNs because they end up being treated like women (from a gender and sex perspective) rather than men who happen to have female anatomy.

---

@Danoff if you liked Natalie's video essays so far, I'd also recommend Abigail Thorn of PhilosophyTube!

 

[Tornado]

I'm kind of floored just how much flare up there has been because someone got punched once in a boxing match, forfeited and cried about it in the interview after. I'm not even sure if this is the right thread to post it in, because it's open and blatant and particularly nasty transphobia against someone who isn't even trans. Is it actually normal ass racism, because the face puncher was Arab in the face punchee was white? Is it just sexism because the puncher isn't attractive?


I saw someone on Twitter making a campaign speech about it and the person is running for secretary of state of all things. Like of course JK Rowling ran her mouth about it but it's legitimately insane how much of a rallying point someone being surprised she was punched in the face in a boxing match has become.

 

[Duke]

I'm kind of floored just how much flare up there has been because someone got punched once in a boxing match, forfeited and cried about it in the interview after.

She didn't even cry about it, did she?. She said, "I've never been hit that hard before in my life. I wish her the best in her future matches."

FWIW it was Carini's 5th or 6th match and Khelif's 30th or something. They shouldn't even have been in the ring together, but not because of Khelif.

 

[Danoff]

The IOC doesn't appear to be using a solid standard for who gets to compete in women's brackets. It looks to me like the standard is a female designation on your passport (which would be problematic for all kinds of reasons, including countries that have all kind of policies about that), and testosterone levels below a high threshold.

The testosterone requirement leaves open the possibility that some women will be left out, and some men will be let in (regardless of how you define those terms). The testosterone requirement issue is further compounded by the advantage of having a particular testosterone level during puberty. Higher testosterone during puberty will lead to certain advantages, which will be different depending on the sport. Current testosterone levels and a designation on a passport doesn't appear to be remotely sufficient to prevent unfair competitive advantage in the female bracket, thus eroding the validity of the bracket altogether. This only fuels the fire for anti-trans people and anti-trans legislation.

I'm disappointed that the IOC can't manage something better.

 

[Fezzik]

The IOC doesn't appear to be using a solid standard for who gets to compete in women's brackets. It looks to me like the standard is a female designation on your passport (which would be problematic for all kinds of reasons, including countries that have all kind of policies about that), and testosterone levels below a high threshold.

The testosterone requirement leaves open the possibility that some women will be left out, and some men will be let in (regardless of how you define those terms). The testosterone requirement issue is further compounded by the advantage of having a particular testosterone level during puberty. Higher testosterone during puberty will lead to certain advantages, which will be different depending on the sport. Current testosterone levels and a designation on a passport doesn't appear to be remotely sufficient to prevent unfair competitive advantage in the female bracket, thus eroding the validity of the bracket altogether. This only fuels the fire for anti-trans people and anti-trans legislation.

I'm disappointed that the IOC can't manage something better.

https://olympics.com/ioc/human-rights/fairness-inclusion-nondiscrimination

The Framework is not for or against any one approach to regulating eligibility for sex-segregated competition. In the case of eligibility criteria for trans athletes, for example, it neither endorses nor prohibits the use of testosterone levels. The IOC recognises that testosterone could be an important factor shaping performance in elite athletes. However, the limitations of testosterone-based eligibility criteria are widely recognised in the sports science community. In addition to testosterone levels varying across individuals, existing evidence suggests that the relevance of testosterone to athletic performance will vary from sport to sport, and at times even from event to event. This includes considerable variation amongst cisgender male athletes, even in elite sport, where it has been demonstrated some men have testosterone levels considered by sports bodies to be in what some experts consider to be the normal women’s range. In other words, athletic performance varies independently of an individual athlete’s testosterone levels. There is thus no scientific consensus on how testosterone levels can be used across sports to define unfair and disproportionate advantage.
Some trans people will pursue gender affirming care as part of their individual transition journey. It may be reasonable to take such choices into account when assessing eligibility, such as when trans women have lowered their testosterone levels, in sports where it is established that testosterone levels are relevant to mitigating potential performance advantage. However, IFs should avoid drafting eligibility criteria in a way that may pressure or incentivise athletes to undergo medically unnecessary procedures or treatment that they would not otherwise pursue for their own gender identity, health, or wellbeing reasons. Ultimately, the Framework asks that any eligibility criteria be based on an assessment of unfair and disproportionate advantage that is informed by the specificities of a given sport/discipline/event, is supported by appropriate data, and is consistent with the Framework as a whole.

 

[Danoff]

https://olympics.com/ioc/human-rights/fairness-inclusion-nondiscrimination

I'm struggling to understand what you think you're communicating with this quote. It would help if you would go ahead and state your point directly. I don't see anything contradicting anything I said.

 

[McLaren]

The IOC doesn't appear to be using a solid standard for who gets to compete in women's brackets. It looks to me like the standard is a female designation on your passport (which would be problematic for all kinds of reasons, including countries that have all kind of policies about that), and testosterone levels below a high threshold.

The testosterone requirement leaves open the possibility that some women will be left out, and some men will be let in (regardless of how you define those terms). The testosterone requirement issue is further compounded by the advantage of having a particular testosterone level during puberty. Higher testosterone during puberty will lead to certain advantages, which will be different depending on the sport. Current testosterone levels and a designation on a passport doesn't appear to be remotely sufficient to prevent unfair competitive advantage in the female bracket, thus eroding the validity of the bracket altogether. This only fuels the fire for anti-trans people and anti-trans legislation.

I'm disappointed that the IOC can't manage something better.

I think you might be highlighting why the IOC said what it said given the amount of clarification you're asking for from them regarding testosterone.

"Testosterone is not a perfect test. Many women can have testosterone which is in what would be called 'male levels' and still be women, still compete as women," he said.

"This idea that suddenly you do one test for testosterone and that sorts everything out - not the case, I'm afraid," he added.

 

[Com Fox]

Anyone want to help me understand with Pronouns.

So we have he/him for male identities, she/her for female identities, most non-binaries go by they/them but there are some that go by other pronouns.

However I now see people who say their pronouns are he/they or she/they and I don't entirely understand how to address like that. Does it mean they are Non Binary but lean more into male or female and arent bothered by which of the two pronouns you use, or something else?

 

[sw3g005]

Anyone want to help me understand with Pronouns.

So we have he/him for male identities, she/her for female identities, most non-binaries go by they/them but there are some that go by other pronouns.

However I now see people who say their pronouns are he/they or she/they and I don't entirely understand how to address like that. Does it mean they are Non Binary but lean more into male or female and arent bothered by which of the two pronouns you use, or something else?

He/they or she/they AFAIK means that the person in question use both he/him (or she/her) and they/them as pronouns or are cool with either, simple as that. Then whether he/she/they is non-binary or not depends on the individual I think. Some might be, other might not 🤷‍♂️

 

[Duke]

Anyone want to help me understand with Pronouns.

As far as I know that means they typically go by a gendered pronoun, but aren't going to get bent if you call them "they". Like some Christians get shirty if you wish them "Happy Holidays" and think you're trying to oppress Christmas.

 

[Famine]

Anyone want to help me understand with Pronouns.

So we have he/him for male identities, she/her for female identities, most non-binaries go by they/them but there are some that go by other pronouns.

However I now see people who say their pronouns are he/they or she/they and I don't entirely understand how to address like that. Does it mean they are Non Binary but lean more into male or female and arent bothered by which of the two pronouns you use, or something else?

He/they or she/they AFAIK means that the person in question use both he/him (or she/her) and they/them as pronouns or are cool with either, simple as that. Then whether he/she/they is non-binary or not depends on the individual I think. Some might be, other might not 🤷‍♂️

As far as I know that means they typically go by a gendered pronoun, but aren't going to get bent if you call them "they". Like some Christians get shirty if you wish them "Happy Holidays" and think you're trying to oppress Christmas.

As these pronouns are how you refer to someone in the third person, it's about how you refer to them to someone else - and while that can happen while they're there (such as in a group conversation where the person is present - "let's ask Helen what she thinks"; "tell her what you did, Gareth") it's not the most common use of a third-person pronoun, and not really about addressing the person themselves.

Which is part of why I've never entirely grasped the fuss that (especially anti-pronoun) people make about it. You don't have to call Sam "he/they" to his/their face - it's "Sam" or "you" - but when you're talking about Sam to someone else, you say that he/they said or did whatever it was.

 

[Daniel]

As these pronouns are how you refer to someone in the third person, it's about how you refer to them to someone else - and while that can happen while they're there (such as in a group conversation where the person is present - "let's ask Helen what she thinks"; "tell her what you did, Gareth") it's not the most common use of a third-person pronoun, and not really about addressing the person themselves.

Which is part of why I've never entirely grasped the fuss that (especially anti-pronoun) people make about it. You don't have to call Sam "he/they" to his/their face - it's "Sam" or "you" - but when you're talking about Sam to someone else, you say that he/they said or did whatever it was.

I kinda wish people defaulted to including pronouns in their email signatures at work, especially when so much interaction is online and faceless. Sometimes I'll see a name that's either unisex, or from a culture with which I'm not familiar and if sharing pronouns were common it'd be so much easier to know how to refer to someone.

 

[Famine]

I kinda wish people defaulted to including pronouns in their email signatures at work, especially when so much interaction is online and faceless. Sometimes I'll see a name that's either unisex, or from a culture with which I'm not familiar and if sharing pronouns were common it'd be so much easier to know how to refer to someone.

Indeed - and when passed onto colleagues it's nice to know that you can refer to earlier conversations appropriately. It costs little to be nice.

Generally, if I'm not sure (or if I am sure that they're a they ), I'll say "... your colleague [xxxx], and they...".

It needn't be any more complex than that, and the absolute assholery from the anti-pronounists (who of course don't realise that there are first- and second-person pronouns that they use all the time) about the whole thing is mind-boggling.


Utlimately though, nobody is going to use your preferred third-person pronouns to you; they'll use them about you, and rarely in your presence. Although I suppose internet forums and social media increase that possibility.

 

[Duke]

Yeah, it's not really a big deal to me. Unless I know for sure that a person identifies as one of the 2 most-prominent genders, I just default to saying "they". Kind of like how I changed my default habit from saying "you guys" to "you folks".

It was easy and it accommodates the widest variety of people. It's not a campaign issue.

 

[Moglet]

Anyone want to help me understand with Pronouns.

So we have he/him for male identities, she/her for female identities, most non-binaries go by they/them but there are some that go by other pronouns.

However I now see people who say their pronouns are he/they or she/they and I don't entirely understand how to address like that. Does it mean they are Non Binary but lean more into male or female and arent bothered by which of the two pronouns you use, or something else?

I tend to say he/they when asked about my pronouns.

For me it's because I'm mostly happy with my gender being male however I know that I have times when I really disassociate with "being a male" (whatever the heck that even means) and feel more comfortable being a gender neutral "they". It just lets people know that I might sometimes identify differently, although I'll never be offended or upset if someone uses "he/his".

 

[SPhilli911]

I kinda wish people defaulted to including pronouns in their email signatures at work, especially when so much interaction is online and faceless. Sometimes I'll see a name that's either unisex, or from a culture with which I'm not familiar and if sharing pronouns were common it'd be so much easier to know how to refer to someone.

I've been working remote from home for many years and have noticed more and more preferred pronouns listed in signatures. If not, I just stick to using names unless I know for sure how to refer to someone. Instead of saying, "let's ask Bill what he thinks", say "let's see what Bill thinks".

 

[Daniel]

I've had mine added in my email signature for a while despite the fact that my name and overall expression are pretty indicative that I'm masculine-presenting.

Some people might say it's virtue signalling but I prefer to think of it as subtle "hi I'm not secretly transphobic and I'll absolutely respect what you go by" to anyone who might be a little unsure or worried about the vibes of their workplace.

 

[Daniel]