what is your reason for RLE to be valid or invalid

[Sybil]

After reading all the new posts in this thread, I feel the need to post again.

I think of HRT RLE like I think of homework contributing to someone's grade. It might help a lot of people, it might really give some people the boost they need, but not everyone needs it to get by. A lot of people are instead dragged down, stressed, and curbed by it. So why not make it elective? Why not ask people what they want to do for themselves, and trust that, chances are, they know themselves better than we do? It's just not effective to make blanket decisions for everyone's lives.

[Sybil]

It's important for all the reasons. Anyone who thinks that making the decision to use body-modifying and DNA manipulating chemicals, permanently modify the most nerve-ending dense area of the human body, and/or cutting away at their face like a jigsaw puzzle without a serious test of 'is this right for me in the real world'. is either immature, entitled, delusional, or a combination of all three. This is not a game and it's not something you get the hang of in a day, a week, or even a couple of months. Hell, even a couple of years is a stretch but a little 'ol year? Really?

Anyone whining about that is just plain impatient... and probably some of those other things.

I don't think you need to insult anyone or call their character into question. The discussion is about if RLE is something that should be enforced -- as in, is it right for everyone? The supporters of RLE in this thread only seem to be saying "everyone should be forced to do RLE because it teaches you a thing or two about if it's right for you." I think this statement is fairly fallacious not only because pre-anything RLE is such a grossly out of character socialization for post-everything and ciswoman life (for most), but because it is also in stark contrast with the idea that we cannot know someone better than they know themselves; we cannot unequivocally understand and prescribe the needs of others.

It isn't as though no one has ever gone on HRT quietly, gotten FFS, and then suddenly and favorably leapt into female shoes with happiness to spare. It happens all the time. If that were the case -- that these successfully quiet people didn't exist -- I think it'd be okay to state RLE necessitation as though it were fact or gospel, but it simply isn't. There is substantial empirical data to the contrary of the doom and gloom spun about how someone with no RLE will be lost, confused, in for a real surprise, so on and so forth.

[vlmitchell]

There is substantial empirical data to the contrary of the doom and gloom spun about how someone with no RLE will be lost, confused, in for a real surprise, so on and so forth.

You use this phrase but I don't think you mean what you think you do. If I'm incorrect, please do tell me where I can look up the relevant studies. I'm not sure that anyone can say one way or the other on this as there isn't a significant body of work regarding the trans population's outcomes. Again, I'm open to being wrong but I sincerely doubt that what we know about this is as definitive as you say and I would say that the doctors behind the SoC which determine the requirement for medically assisted RLE to be one calendar year have a good deal more knowledge in this area than lay persons.

As for the rest of your response, you can rationalize all you like but the fact is that many people start transition and then back out at some point in the process. It's true that many will try again at some point but it's also true that many will not and live happily cis lives or GQ or something else. The 1yr RLE is the breaks that keep you from doing something irreversible and fighting against the need to have a medical/mental support network be present during the care required for transition seems like people saying "I know better than the doctors." which, with exceptions being acknowledged, is actually rarely the case. One year isn't a big ask for surgical clearance and if you're progressing to SRS, unless you're very rich at the outset, you'll probably need at least that much time to prepare financially if for nothing but the time off required for recovery.

It's a safeguard there to catch those who enter transition for all the wrong reasons. They happen. It wasn't the case with me. It might not be for you. Hell, my medical staff told me flat-out that I would be getting my letters as little as a couple of months into things (and I went from zero to RLE in less than a week) but I don't begrudge caution and anyone who does, I sincerely believe, does not have the maturity to waive it, believes that the rules should not apply to them because they're 'special' (entitlement), or they've got issues beyond that. You can disagree all you want but I'll not change my stance.

[Beverly]

It isn't as though no one has ever gone on HRT quietly, gotten FFS, and then suddenly and favorably leapt into female shoes with happiness to spare. It happens all the time. If that were the case -- that these successfully quiet people didn't exist -- I think it'd be okay to state RLE necessitation as though it were fact or gospel, but it simply isn't. There is substantial empirical data to the contrary of the doom and gloom spun about how someone with no RLE will be lost, confused, in for a real surprise, so on and so forth.

What is RLE?

It is not about turning your entire life upside down one afternoon, it is about taking the first easily reversible steps towards your new gender. My RLE started by dressing more adrogynously, wearing clear nail polish, tidying up my eyebrows and so forth. Once I got used to these I pushed a little further and started lasering my face and letting my nails grow. I chose my female name but I did not legally change it. I started attending support groups and going out them.

At any point here, if things felt wrong I could have stopped. I had no bodily changes, no surgery, no hormones, no brain rewiring, etc. However nothing felt wrong so I took more steps. I came "out" to people because I was becoming increasingly confident. I told people i felt I could trust - particularly women - and many of them took me under their wing. I was getting socialised. So I changed my name legally and came out to more people.

A gradual process, not an explosion. A gentle introduction to my new gender. It was slow, gradual and gave both me and those I know time to adjust. When I saw the doctors they still examined me but after two consultations I was put straight on to hormones.

Was this the "nightmarish hell" that people rail against? Was this the soul-rending agony that destroys trans-people? Like anything else, RLE can be done in a way that works or a way that causes problems. Too many people seem to think that transition is a race that needs to be done as fast as possible. From my experience within a large support group I would say that those who rush their transitions have worse outcomes than those who take it more slowly. No matter how fast you want to go, your body goes at its own speed and anyone expecting to do this in less than about 3 years is likely to have a lot of disappointment.

[Sybil]

You use this phrase but I don't think you mean what you think you do. If I'm incorrect, please do tell me where I can look up the relevant studies.

Empirical data can be given by people who have done it; i.e. data via experience. It is not always done via strictly observed science, which would be experimentation .. in fact, in a field like this one, I would say that the scientific approach would be to reap the experiences of people who have done it. Do I have a formal list on hand so that I can refute your particular request? No, of course not, but there are people who post here often supporting this reality; you can find them all over the internet. Could they all be liars? Absolutely. Are they probably or even mostly all liars? Absolutely not. Even more so than people who have never gone out in women's clothing, there are tons of part timers (as in [potentially] not out at work, not out to family, not out to friends, etc. -- and so not RLE) who have posted about doing this.

As for the rest of your response, you can rationalize all you like but the fact is that many people start transition and then back out at some point in the process.

The counterargument for this one is simple. You're right, there could be people who realize, after RLE, that the life they're looking for is not for them. They live happy cis lives afterwards.

The inverse, however, is that someone who is not cis tries RLE. They have a terrible experience and become too afraid to try anything else, or simply don't have access to try something else due to RLE. They live miserable, depressed faux-cis lives until they die -- or worse, they cannot find happiness and kill themselves. Does that mean it wasn't right for them? No, it just means they weren't given a full chance to find out what was right for them, because other people decided it wasn't worth the risk.

[Sybil]

Was this the "nightmarish hell" that people rail against? Was this the soul-rending agony that destroys trans-people? Like anything else, RLE can be done in a way that works or a way that causes problems. Too many people seem to think that transition is a race that needs to be done as fast as possible. From my experience within a large support group I would say that those who rush their transitions have worse outcomes than those who take it more slowly. No matter how fast you want to go, your body goes at its own speed and anyone expecting to do this in less than about 3 years is likely to have a lot of disappointment.

I really cannot reiterate this enough: what works for one person does not necessarily work for others. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying RLE never works. It works great for some people and I, personally, am phenomenally happy for those people. That is seriously wonderful for them. It does not work for everyone, though, and not every person who it fails for is someone who just doesn't belong.

My main argument is that people should be left to make their own life decisions because it's their life. The more rules and regulations we put in place, the more people we damage along the ones we safeguard.

[Sybil]

Ugh, this was originally an edit; I meant to edit one of my previous posts so I wouldn't triple post with the tidbit below. Oh well. I'm sorry.

Victoria, I'm not certain what you're talking about regarding RLE now. You seem focused on GRS and the 1 year standard, which I personally agree with (for the most part) for RLE, but earlier you mentioned "chemicals", which I would assume means HRT. I am only against HRT RLE and that is what I'm arguing. What are you arguing?

[Beverly]

I really cannot reiterate this enough: what works for one person does not necessarily work for others.

Indeed. Just because going straight to hormones or surgery worked for you does not mean it works for others either. I can point at people on this very forum who have tried your method and it is tearing them apart. I can link to historical posts on this forum of people who were utterly confident, had surgery done and then came on here posting that they had just made the biggest mistake of their lives.

No system is perfect. What the medics have come up with is an approach that causes less damage to less people than any other method tried so far. There is no perfect system. There never will be.

[Sybil]

Indeed. Just because going straight to hormones or surgery worked for you does not mean it works for others either. I can point at people on this very forum who have tried your method and it is tearing them apart. I can link to historical posts on this forum of people who were utterly confident, had surgery done and then came on here posting that they had just made the biggest mistake of their lives.

No system is perfect. What the medics have come up with is an approach that causes less damage to less people than any other method tried so far.

You're putting hormones and surgery RLE together. That is not what is being argued. I think hardly anyone is arguing surgery RLE, which is the only thing I ever see regret for.

Also, on HRT RLE, I would disagree and argue that there are tons of people who never try for HRT because they're too terrified to try RLE. How do you count those? How do you know you're following the safest method when you never hear from those people?

[Beverly]

You're putting hormones and surgery RLE together.

That is the sequence. RLE -> Hormones -> Surgery. It becomes increasingly more difficult to stop if you decide you have made a mistake

Also, on HRT RLE, I would disagree and argue that there are tons of people who never try for HRT because they're too terrified to try RLE. How do you count those? How do you know you're following the safest method when you never hear from those people?

I never said it was the safest method, just the one that, to date, is deemed to do less damage to less people.

Initially I took the same position as yourself - that I wanted to avoid RLE. Basically I wanted to be given the drugs without being asked any awkward questions by medics in case they decided that I was not trans. The thought of that failure terrified me.

I would have argued that black was white to avoid medics, RLE and just give me the drugs because I did not believe that anyone would believe me. I suspect that many people here arguing vehemently against RLE are hoping to skip it because they are not convinced that the medics will believe them.

[Sybil]

That is the sequence. RLE -> Hormones -> Surgery. It becomes increasingly more difficult to stop if you decide you have made a mistake


I never said it was the safest method, just the one that, to date, is deemed to do less damage to less people.

Initially I took the same position as yourself - that I wanted to avoid RLE. Basically I wanted to be given the drugs without being asked any awkward questions by medics in case they decided that I was not trans. The thought of that failure terrified me.

I would have argued that black was white to avoid medics, RLE and just give me the drugs because I did not believe that anyone would believe me. I suspect that many people here arguing vehemently against RLE are hoping to skip it because they are not convinced that the medics will believe them.

Sorry, I hope I'm not difficult to interpret; your comment about the sequence didn't really address my comment. I understand the sequence, but I'm only arguing against RLE for HRT. You can have HRT without RLE as well as GRS with RLE.

Also, please do not assume that because I am arguing for this, I'm a subject of what the argument is. I'm not. I'm out to every single person I know and have no issue with strangers. I'm arguing this because I think freedom of body is a basic human right, and I strongly dislike the idea of policing what people do with their bodies just because it's a mistake for a decidedly smaller portion of them.

Edit: I typed my first sentence strangely. I had to fix it!

[kelly_aus]

That is the sequence. RLE -> Hormones -> Surgery. It becomes increasingly more difficult to stop if you decide you have made a mistake

Umm, what? More like Hormones -> RLE -> Surgery..

Requiring RLE before hormones is a cruel and unusual punishment for most - and WPATH haven't required it since the 80's.

Personally, I don't understand why people get so upset by the Surgical RLE requirement - there's also a requirement for 12 months HRT, would it really be that hard to combine all or part of the 2?

[vlmitchell]

I don't think anyone is arguing for a RLE requirement before HRT. That would be insane. The only reason I brought it up is because, to my knowledge, HRT is a requirement for RLE surgical requirement. I don't know any other reason for RLE besides surgery so I'm not sure what you're arguing against Sybil.

[Beverly]

Sorry, I hope I'm not difficult to interpret; your comment about the sequence didn't really answer my question.

OK...

"You're putting hormones and surgery RLE together. That is not what is being argued. "
At present the sequence is RLE -> Hormones -> Surgery so of course I am putting hormones and surgery together since at present you have to do RLE to get to either of them.



"Also, on HRT RLE, I would disagree and argue that there are tons of people who never try for HRT because they're too terrified to try RLE. How do you count those? How do you know you're following the safest method when you never hear from those people?"
I do not know and nor does anyone else. There may be no one being missed. Since there seems to be no data how can anyone know? As I said, no system is perfect and no system ever will be perfect. People will always be missed.

Also, please do not assume that because I am arguing for this, I'm a subject of what the argument is. I'm not. I'm out to every single person I know and have no issue with strangers.

I mentioned my experience of how I viewed RLE. I started by stating that I initially held the same viewpoint as the one you advocate and I then explained my reasons for holding that viewpoint. My reasons. Not yours. Perhaps I should have worded it to make that distinction clearer.

I'm arguing this because I think freedom of body is a basic human right, and I strongly dislike the idea of policing what people do with their bodies just because it's a mistake for a decidedly smaller portion of them.

I am happy for people to be free to do what they wish with their bodies, but you cannot expect medical professionals to be complicit with indulging some people's whims. The line has to be drawn somewhere because not everyone is a clear-headed rational person. Legal disclaimers only go so far. Putting up a legal disclaimer did not save Armin Meiwes from going to jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes People sometimes do not act in their own best interest.

[Sybil]

I don't think anyone is arguing for a RLE requirement before HRT. That would be insane. The only reason I brought it up is because, to my knowledge, HRT is a requirement for RLE surgical requirement. I don't know any other reason for RLE besides surgery so I'm not sure what you're arguing against Sybil.

HRT RLE is a requirement in some countries. I'm arguing against that; RLE for HRT. You also mentioned chemical alterations in one of your posts, as I outlined above, so that's what I had to go on. I thought you were arguing for HRT RLE.

OK...

"You're putting hormones and surgery RLE together. That is not what is being argued. "
At present the sequence is RLE -> Hormones -> Surgery so of course I am putting hormones and surgery together since at present you have to do RLE to get to either of them.

You don't have to do both everywhere. e.g. the US does not require RLE for HRT. Some other places do. I do not support where it is a requirement for HRT. I stated that multiple times throughout the thread in hopes that it wouldn't be misinterpreted. As an example, the third post in this thread, which is mine, makes a very fine distinction of the two.

I do not know and nor does anyone else. There may be no one being missed. Since there seems to be no data how can anyone know? As I said, no system is perfect and no system ever will be perfect. People will always be missed.

Sure, it's possible no one is missed at all, but the odds for that have got to be astronomical given obvious reasons. I'm not arguing that no system is perfect; I'm arguing against the current system that exists in some places and think the alternative is superior.

I mentioned my experience of how I viewed RLE. I started by stating that I initially held the same viewpoint as the one you advocate and I then explained my reasons for holding that viewpoint. My reasons. Not yours. Perhaps I should have worded it to make that distinction clearer.

"Indeed. Just because going straight to hormones or surgery worked for you does not mean it works for others either. I can point at people on this very forum who have tried your method and it is tearing them apart."
"Initially I took the same position as yourself - that I wanted to avoid RLE."
These statements indicate projection to me. If not, I'm sorry, but that's how I read it. I didn't hold it against you in any way.

I am happy for people to be free to do what they wish with their bodies, but you cannot expect medical professionals to be complicit with indulging some people's whims. The line has to be drawn somewhere because not everyone is a clear-headed rational person. Legal disclaimers only go so far. Putting up a legal disclaimer did not save Armin Meiwes from going to jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes People sometimes do not act in their own best interest.

I agree, but I view the examples where medical professionals must delegate with excess caution as extremes. I absolutely would not draw that line at HRT, I think it's grossly inappropriate and a blatant infringement on human rights.

[jebee]

Requiring RLE before hormones is a cruel and unusual punishment for most - and WPATH haven't required it since the 80's.

hormones dont change all that much, HRT will not make you pass. Things are they way they are for goods reasons.

[kelly_aus]

hormones dont change all that much, HRT will not make you pass. Things are they way they are for goods reasons.

Never said they did.

I did no RLE before I started hormones.. And would never have started if I was forced to. And my reasons have nothing to do with physical changes. As a confused, T-powered person, I simply lacked the confidence required to present to the world as myself. Hormones gave me a better sense of self, which then helped with the confidence.

EDIT: The peak international body for the treatment of trans people, WPATH,  hasn't thought RLE before hormones was a good idea for quite some time.

[jebee]

Never said they did.

I did no RLE before I started hormones.. And would never have started if I was forced to. And my reasons have nothing to do with physical changes. As a confused, T-powered person, I simply lacked the confidence required to present to the world as myself. Hormones gave me a better sense of self, which then helped with the confidence.

EDIT: The peak international body for the treatment of trans people, WPATH,  hasn't thought RLE before hormones was a good idea for quite some time.

For me rle was part of my life, i spent most my teens dressed as a woman any way.. remember getting grief at school for wearing nail varnish so maybe things are a bit different for me.

[Sarah leah]

I am so grateful Australia has advanced beyond this archaic notion of inflicting mental abuse on patents before you can seek treatment. At one point, before I purchased my home here and began working on my University degrees (completed the first 5 year one last week \0/). I was going to move back to the UK as I have a large family there. However, upon reflection of the medical system, I was appalled and decided to remain in Australia indefinitely as the laws and social policy changes here have been in place to protect our community for years.

Indeed, the mere fact that I will be able to see a specialist in a few months and gain their professional assistance is astonishing. In fact, I will be able to utilise a set of pharmaceutical to rectify a biological issue I have lived with for 30 years, without being forced into a psychology harmful position, where I will be not only disempowered but also victimised is outstanding.

Conversely, do I think being required to live on HRT for 12+ months before gaining GRS is bad? No. It is a smart move as it allows the individual to adapt, grow and feel prepared both mentally and physically before facing a major surgery.

In terms of other cultures and the way they approach this, I am not so ethnocentric as to presume to know or understand their approach, although it does not mean I must agree with it.

SIDE NOTE:
As many people who know from my story I shared, I lived 99% of my teens as a girl, due to my smaller frame from 14-23 years of age. Indeed, it was not an issue as I appeared female then, but to ask me to do that now before I can gain medical assistance to transition (not srs that is not what I am referring too) is unforgivable as I am a 35 year old single parent, overweight (slowly dropping it) with a 5 o'clock shadow in a rural community with huge burly men who shear sheep, chop down trees and could wrestle bears with a single hand! 

Furthermore, there is no clinic here, laser or support networks, and I would not inflict that kind of social abuse on my two 7 & 9 year old kids. Dear god could you imagine if I walked down the street with my stubble, and wig (look at my photo eww!). Yet once I get approved for HRT, I can visit a city once a month to get electrolysis/laser, while I grow out my hair.

[TaoRaven]

Thank (insert supreme power of choice here) for Informed Consent. Some of us just want to get this over with and get on with our lives. And we are doing exactly that, regardless of what gatekeeping systems some people  think should be imposed on others.

I know people who regret tattoos....who regret getting married...regret having children...or having their tongue forked, or spending thousands on a dead-end education. Would you impose a gatekeeping system on these people as well?? Does everyone need to be protected from themselves? If not, why the special treatment for those of us who simply want to correct our defect and live a normal life??

Again...so very glad that these outmoded "Standards of care" are fading away...that compassion, logic and reason are taking over in their place.