An interesting conundrum: Are we harming the LGBT movement?

[Elsa Delyth]

I favor a differential ontology, or that everyone (everything) is different, and it is their difference and uniqueness that even qualifies them as distinct entities. I view categories as heuristics -- something we certainly can't go without, and are useful beyond measure, but still just cognitive short-cuts to deal with the overwhelming diversity of the world.

That said, I was talking with my sister yesterday about this topic. I guess I'm group three, there, as much as I don't like it. When I hear those claiming to have been aware of their gender incongruity since three, I have a hard time believing that they aren't lying, and if I wasn't aware of so many documented cases, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, but because I am, I have to. Makes me feel less transgender than them... not like it is a competition... but it kind of is... having not realized it myself until puberty, and not having super stereotypically female interests, and being masculine in appearance...

I still count though, and I don't need to meet a gold standard, even if I stand out, and make the gold standards look bad -- I'm still doing it. 

[Hikari]

I do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality.  It's who I am, and what I like-and I don't appreciate it when people insinuate it's because of some external circumstance or because I'm somehow defective.  I feel strongly about this issue, and while it's true that we do have a wider range of sexual orientations than most people, It makes me feel uncomfortable when you say that this is just some birth defect. 

And I'm sorry for being so aggressive here.  I really am-this has been a hard time for me, and this whole trans thing is starting to really frustrate me.  I just want this phase of my life to be over to be honest-I'm going to continue to advocate for our rights, that's never going to change.  But, I'm sick of every single soul I've ever met knowing about my medical history.  Frankly, I wish I had the option to pull off flawless stealth; I know we all do.  It's not that I'd use that opportunity, but being able to control which people know does sound like something we all strive for.  So, I'm sorry if I sound so angry.  I'm feeling a bit stuck at the moment, and I apologize for how I'm coming off.

I have to admit, it makes me quite uncomfortable to think of my sexuality in terms of being "screwed up", and I am of the opinion that perhaps it is the fact that being trans makes one confront so much social stigma that barriers to sexuality are more irrelevant to us that that is why our range tends to be much wider than the cisgender population.... I have to admit, I really did like the idea that hormones would make me straight or at least bisexual, since that would give me the option of seeming more "normal" but, I have long since made peace with the idea that I am a woman who likes women. There is nothing wrong with my sexuality or anyone elses really.

Also, I think you are being pretty reasonable Andogynouspainter26, I mean you are being tactful and respectful, giving opinions on things from your own experiences and points of view, I don't think you are coming off badly at all. I have to admit, I just want to be done with this whole trans thing, and I expect that at some point after I complete my physical transition, that is exactly what I will be for all intents and purposes.

[Elsa Delyth]

Andogynouspainter26 is clearly impressively intelligent, but reasonable? I want to slap her in her gorgeous face!

I know she's an artist, and maybe it took her a week, and a team of fifteen to pull off that avatar, but based on that she looks beautiful, and super cool.

[Beverly]

I do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality.

I said our development was screwed up and that results in a wider range  of sexualities than is common in the cis population.

Our development leads 41% of us to attempt suicide and all of us to have a dysphoria that affects us to the point that we are prepared to take huge risks and treatments to quell it. Personally I think that means our development is screwed up. Cis people's natal development generally results in their identity, sexuality, gender and physical states all being aligned and they form the vast majority of the population thus defining "normal development" by simple weight of numbers

As far as having everyone know your medical history, I feel much the same myself so I only discuss it with doctors.  If anyone else is crass enough to ask I just tell them that it is a personal issue and is not available for discussion.

[ImagineKate]

I do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality.  It's who I am, and what I like-and I don't appreciate it when people insinuate it's because of some external circumstance or because I'm somehow defective.  I feel strongly about this issue, and while it's true that we do have a wider range of sexual orientations than most people, It makes me feel uncomfortable when you say that this is just some birth defect. 

If you feel that it is not screwed up and you embrace it, absolutely wonderful. However, bear in mind that not everyone shares your view. Otherwise it wouldn't be called gender dysphoria. Granted, some refer to it as gender variance, but the notion that we are how we are because "some anomaly happened somewhere along the way, which is how we got here" is not uncommon.

And I'm sorry for being so aggressive here.  I really am-this has been a hard time for me, and this whole trans thing is starting to really frustrate me.  I just want this phase of my life to be over to be honest-I'm going to continue to advocate for our rights, that's never going to change.  But, I'm sick of every single soul I've ever met knowing about my medical history.  Frankly, I wish I had the option to pull off flawless stealth; I know we all do.  It's not that I'd use that opportunity, but being able to control which people know does sound like something we all strive for.  So, I'm sorry if I sound so angry.  I'm feeling a bit stuck at the moment, and I apologize for how I'm coming off.

No worries. I am just beginning and I don't know what is in store for me. But I am prepared to go all the way and do whatever it takes. I think that you too will find your place. It just takes time and effort, some of which you've expended already, I know.

[ImagineKate]

I have to admit, it makes me quite uncomfortable to think of my sexuality in terms of being "screwed up", and I am of the opinion that perhaps it is the fact that being trans makes one confront so much social stigma that barriers to sexuality are more irrelevant to us that that is why our range tends to be much wider than the cisgender population.... I have to admit, I really did like the idea that hormones would make me straight or at least bisexual, since that would give me the option of seeming more "normal" but, I have long since made peace with the idea that I am a woman who likes women. There is nothing wrong with my sexuality or anyone elses really.

Spider-man is awesome. But he's the result of someone's screwing up... it doesn't have to necessarily be a bad thing. We all know a lot of people weren't planned either, but here they are, and their life is a wonderful thing. The process is what is screwed, not the result.

[Elsa Delyth]

To speak of defects and such is just idealism... the divine/natural order not being conformed to -- which is arguably the sole cause of our plights. Something screwing up means that something else was intended, and this was prevented from coming to fruition for whatever reason.

Also, consider that if we're mutants, then perhaps there is a cure(!) that isn't what you'd prefer, but is based on the perceived natural/divine order? Maybe your female characteristics are the mistake, and need to be extirpated from your being, in order to make things wholly again!

[ThePhoenix]

So I guess my point is from my experience is that the LGB part of th LGBT community seems to have a problem with transgender girls I am not sure about trans guys, but a whole lot of the straight community just sees a girl and it makes it easier for them I think. I am not naive enough to believe this to be the norm, but I don't think it would hurt the LGBT movement. In fact, if you are trying to appeal to straight America it might help in some ways. I know it would help our portion of the community.

It seems that a great many trans* guys still emerge from the lesbian community.  Or at least I still know quite a few.  And it's amazing how many of them I hear expressing regret over there transitions because of how they are now treated in society.  That seems to be both because of how men are treated generally and because of distress over the way they are treated by the lesbian community.  The L community does not sound very friendly to trans* people. 

And this is before we even start talking about TERFs and how some of them feel about transmen. 

I said our development was screwed up and that results in a wider range  of sexualities than is common in the cis population.

Nothing's wrong with me.  I'm just a habanero pepper.  If the world is a bowl of soup, then I am the spice that makes it taste a lot more interesting.

Nature loves variety and trans* people are a part of that variety.  There is a tendency to think that things that differ from the majority are somehow wrong.  But I'm not so sure that really is wrong.

I recognize that some feel that being trans* is a defect.  I'm not sure it is possible to definitively answer whether it is or not, but obviously I do not feel defective.

Our development leads 41% of us to attempt suicide and all of us to have a dysphoria that affects us to the point that we are prepared to take huge risks and treatments to quell it.

Really?  Our development does that?  Don't you think the severe, pervasive, extreme levels of discrimination, violence, and stigma that we face might have something to do with the suicide rates and the degree of dysphoria?  I don't know that much is inherently all that difficult about being trans*.  It seems to me that alleviating the discrimination, violence, and stigma might do a great deal to both lower the suicide rate and the levels of distress associated with dysphoria. 

In January 2014, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute released a study entitled Suicide Attempts Among Transgender And Gender Non-Conforming Adults.  Among its findings was a determination that "mental health factors and experiences of harassment, discrimination, violence and rejection may interact to produce a marked vulnerability to suicidal behavior in transgender and gender non-conforming individuals."  In other words, if trans* people weren't subject to such outrageous discrimination, there probably would not be a 41% suicide attempt rate. 

That said, I was talking with my sister yesterday about this topic. I guess I'm group three, there, as much as I don't like it. When I hear those claiming to have been aware of their gender incongruity since three, I have a hard time believing that they aren't lying, and if I wasn't aware of so many documented cases, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, but because I am, I have to.

To me that article was kind of an "aha" moment.  I have always felt a gulf of identity between myself and other trans* people, especially trans* women.  So I always wondered why.  After all, they and I both say we identify as women, so why does it seem like there is such a large gulf between us that makes it so hard to understand one another's identities?  Why do we so seldom seem to be on the same page? 

Well . . . If Anne Vitale is right, then it's because we identify differently.  Her ddescription of G1:

Group One (G1) is best described as those natal males who have a high degree of cross-sexed gender identity. In these individuals, we can hypothesize that the prenatal androgenization process--if there was any at all--was minimal, leaving the default female identity intact. Furthermore, the expression of female identity of those individuals appears impossible or very difficult for them to conceal.

I spent my entire pre-transition life with people telling me I didn't seem much like a guy, there was something "very female" about me, etc.  I never entirely managed to pass as a guy.  And when you put me in with a group of ciswomen, we fit one another like gloves.  All the social stuff fits.  In fact, from my very first meeting with my very first trans* person, before I transitioned, I've had people putting me under the microscope for how much of a %#+* girl I am.  It sounds very much like "the default female identity" is intact and "the expression of female identity . . . [was] impossible or very difficult . . . to conceal." 

Her discrimination of group one (G1) sounds a lot like me. And most of the trans* women I know sound more like group three (G3).

Makes me feel less transgender than them... not like it is a competition... but it kind of is... having not realized it myself until puberty, and not having super stereotypically female interests, and being masculine in appearance...

I still count though, and I don't need to meet a gold standard, even if I stand out, and make the gold standards look bad -- I'm still doing it. 

You most definitely still count.  And no, it is not a competition.  It also really is not about how people look.  With respect, I think that ImagineKate was reading something into the excerpt I posted that simply is not there.  Neither the excerpt nor the entire article has anything to do with how people look or how they pass.  The point of the article is that there are different degrees of identity.  When we say we identify as female (or male) we don't entirely mean the same thing because some people have a very intact female identity and others have one that is largely female, but with a greater degree of male identity having formed.  The very definition of non-binary.  It just means the diversity of the trans* community is much greater than even we often realize.  Because there are different kinds of MTF, FTM etc.  I like variety, so I like that thought.

But it definitely does NOT make anyone better, worse, less, or more trans*. 

And socializing with trans* people has been a rather painful experience for me at many times.  This insight helps it hurt less because I feel like my experience is validated and explained.

[Elsa Delyth]

Well, I would consider myself under group one too, under your interpretation. I figured like identified, and asked for dolls and dresses and insisted they were a girl since three, or something. Sure, I've never been able to pass as a normal guy, that is for sure. Everyone ALWAYS thinks I'm gay, even though I think I'm being super manly. My older brother said that the Katy Parry song "you're so gay" was about me when it came out.

I meant only by appearance, and self-awareness. I'm not psychologically divided at all. My identity isn't partial, I will however disagree with stereotypes being substantially indicative of one's gender.

Even my Dad told me awhile ago that I had women's hands. I have small slender hands for my size, and my digit ratio is in the female range for the 12th week hormone wash that they reference.

[Elsa Delyth]

So, just to be clear...my sexuality is an abberation from the natural order, is that what you're saying?  My sex at birth was an unfortunate accident of biology (group one, if you care-although that list is incredibly limiting, and also very inaccurate in my own opinion.  Frankly, I think it's a bit silly even), but my sexuality is by no means a defect.  It's of the same significance as hair color-Homosexuality and bisexuality frequently occur in nature, and even if they didn't, why do you think that the natural order is a good thing?  If we kept conforming to the natural order, what would out state of being be?  We'd die at thirty, we'd all be living in caves and kill each other for scraps.  Murder, rape, canabalism, all of these things are our natural state of being.  Frankly, I think you're being very heterosexist and I'd appreciate it if you could apologize.

You've misinterpreted me, I'm saying the opposite. That there is no natural/divine order, or ways that things ought to be, things just are. I'm opposed to idealism, and was saying that I see it as the major, if not the sole cause of our problems, in the sense that people wish to impose normativity on us, and authorize they're doing so through idealism, or the reifying of categories as metaphysically foundational to reality.

If however, it was my slap your face comment, that you may have found off putting, I meant nothing by it, and meant it to be a compliment -- but if it was in bad taste then I apologize.

I feel some adrenaline responding to your comment. I would like for you to like me.

[androgynouspainter26]

Hahaha, ohhhhh!!!!  See, this is why I never have philosophy discussions on forums.  There's always a miscommunication like this at some point.  No, you're absolutely right-but, as long as it doesn't cause anyone harm, I have a hard time seeing anything as a defect.  Hence, my dysphoria is, but my fluid sexuality, not so. 

[Elsa Delyth]

I accept instrumental oughts, in the sense that if you don't want bad teeth then you ought to brush 'em.

So, I accept the modern definition of a mental illness problem only in this sense, and thus I would call dysphoria dysfunctional, or a defect in the sense that it interferes with normal functioning, and our senses of well-being, and is a problem only to this extent. Because we wish to function happily, and with a half-decent sense of well-being, dysphoria can be said to be a defect, or a malfunction with regards to these aims -- but like I said, I see an inadequate lexicon, and idealistic inclinations to be the major, if not sole cause of the dysphoria. Otherwise we could be who we are, and no one would think much of it.

[androgynouspainter26]

Agreed!

Hmm...I'm not sure I understand one thing though.  Are you saying there is no biological component to this at all?  Because I don't think that's right either.  Otherwise, why would we need to alter our bodies?  I'm certain there is a real medical component to this; I don't feel the need to change my body because of my feminine inclinations, I feel feminine inclinations because of my need to change my body.  You know, if you havn't read it yet, you really should check out Whipping Girl by Julia Serano; it's not completely in line with my own way of thinking, but it's an interesting look at how we exist as we do.

[Elsa Delyth]

Agreed!

Hmm...I'm not sure I understand one thing though.  Are you saying there is no biological component to this at all?  Because I don't think that's right either.  Otherwise, why would we need to alter our bodies?  I'm certain there is a real medical component to this; I don't feel the need to change my body because of my feminine inclinations, I feel feminine inclinations because of my need to change my body.  You know, if you havn't read it yet, you really should check out Whipping Girl by Julia Serano; it's not completely in line with my own way of thinking, but it's an interesting look at how we exist as we do.

I haven't read Whipping Girl yet, but I've heard plenty about it, and think I grasp its main thesis -- but still plan to check it out.

I'm not saying that there is no biological basis... I don't think that I'm allowed to give links to other forums, but surely just referencing it is fine! On the crossdream life forum I made a thread about the biological components, under the same name I use here in the "what is crossdreaming" section.

Thinking in terms of difference is difficult, (dare I say "unnatural"!), but we can have deviation and relatedness without a standard. We are all related, and similar, trancing back to a common ancestor, but not an original human, that had all of our original features, morphologies, concepts, and such. Our common ancestor, the source by which we trace our relatedness is quite removed from a modern human, and no historical source of similarity actually accounts for the similarity itself, the features themselves, only their possibility.

Now, neither nature nor nurture is solely responsible for any of our features, or traits, it takes both genetics and environments to produce biological traits and morphologies. All natal women wouldn't be dressing the same, doing similar exercises, attempting to conform to different standards if not for the environmental factors of culture, geology, and archetypes -- but they also have a biological, hormonal affinity which makes them wish to emulate, and conform to certain standards, and archetypes, which binds them together into the female category. This is my belief, and I attribute these visceral urges to hormonal balances, which generate archetypal affinities.   

If any of that makes sense!

[androgynouspainter26]

I understand.

Personally, I believe that gender is entirely the result of social conditioning.  Sex, however, is not-there may not be any biological basis in my penchant for dresses, but I do know there is a biological reason for my desire to alter my body.  At least, this is how I see it.  My thought is that the brain makes for itself a map of the body during development; and, due to hormonal imbalances in-vitro, that map comes up wrong for transexuals.  We are literally born expecting a body different from the one we have, if that makes any sense.  So, gender and sex are seperate-one is cultural, the other is not.  That's my two cents!

[Elsa Delyth]

I understand.

Personally, I believe that gender is entirely the result of social conditioning.  Sex, however, is not-there may not be any biological basis in my penchant for dresses, but I do know there is a biological reason for my desire to alter my body.  At least, this is how I see it.  My thought is that the brain makes for itself a map of the body during development; and, due to hormonal imbalances in-vitro, that map comes up wrong for transexuals.  We are literally born expecting a body different from the one we have, if that makes any sense.  So, gender and sex are seperate-one is cultural, the other is not.  That's my two cents!

Not to be critical, but I don't think that makes evolutionary sense, as if we had an a priori expectation for our morphologies, we couldn't adapt, and change them with our environments. We wouldn't need to exercise and lead certain lifestyles in order to control our morphologies to the extent that we do. Before the age of twelve, even bones are changeable. We lose adaptive potential as we age.

We can have visceral expectations for our bodies though, which, I think is due to hormonal affinities -- we don't have the forms we're supposed to, using the archetypes of those that we emulate, and take as life idols, or guides for functioning, and surviving in the world.

This becomes all the more traumatic when we're told that our visceral identifications are wrong, and we're not supposed to be like, and look to the people that know that we're supposed to.

[stephaniec]

I favor a differential ontology, or that everyone (everything) is different, and it is their difference and uniqueness that even qualifies them as distinct entities. I view categories as heuristics -- something we certainly can't go without, and are useful beyond measure, but still just cognitive short-cuts to deal with the overwhelming diversity of the world.

That said, I was talking with my sister yesterday about this topic. I guess I'm group three, there, as much as I don't like it. When I hear those claiming to have been aware of their gender incongruity since three, I have a hard time believing that they aren't lying, and if I wasn't aware of so many documented cases, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, but because I am, I have to. Makes me feel less transgender than them... not like it is a competition... but it kind of is... having not realized it myself until puberty, and not having super stereotypically female interests, and being masculine in appearance...

I still count though, and I don't need to meet a gold standard, even if I stand out, and make the gold standards look bad -- I'm still doing it.

well, just for the sake of argument, if there is a genetic bases to the development  of dysphoria, as such biological in nature, it can be stated the genes can be activated at any time by whatever mechanism the prompts them to active, so theoretically a person greater then 100 could have the dysphoria activated the same as a 3 or4 year old.

[Elsa Delyth]

Genes are tricksy business...

They are environmentally activated, but also have the effects that they do due to their relation to other genes, or their place in the system as a whole. Dogs use the same genes for scent discernment that we use for colour discernment. That's one level of complexity -- the theoretical level has to do with their survival/mating function. For their structure to be preserved down the generations, they have to at least be benign, but usually advantageous. If they are merely benign, then it is just a coincidence that there are so many of us, and we could easily be phased out without harming the gene pool...

For them to be advantageous we have to come up with some narrative that would suggest that these traits are advantageous to our own individual survival/reproduction. People tend to come up with kin selection narratives, which suggest a benefit to the group or community, but kin selection is considered a fairly defunct idea in biology since the selfish gene. Now, most biologists believe that every gene must be in itself advantageous to its own survival.

Genes are complex, and our research into them specifically is still in its infancy, and I'm not a huge fan of evolutionary just-so stories, which are nigh impossible to falsify, so I tend to steer clear of speaking about them specifically. 

[androgynouspainter26]

Nonsense, Asami!  I welcome the discourse-you seem like one of the rare people in the world with a well-formed opinion on this, and it's good to discuss this with someone on an intelectual level.

I don't think it's an absolute priory expectation of our morphologies-just a vague guideline for what parts to expect where.  We are innately predisposed to recognize faces, and even to find harmony in the proportions of the human boy (for example, hellenic architecture)  Consider the phantom limb phenomenon...remove someone's leg, and they are going to be convinced that it is still there, because their brain, both through biology and adaptive learning expects a leg to be there.  An even stranger thing happens when the opposite happens; I'm under the impression that for some ridiculous reason, discussing BIID, but you understand where I'm going.  I think this must be the result of a brain that has been femimisned in vitro and therefore expects a female anatomy.  Anything relating to feminine behavior from the person is just a symptom.   

It doesn't fully make sense to me even now, but I simply cannot come up with any other explanation for why I hate my genetalia, and why I hated them before I had any idea what part was considered "normal" for boys and for girls.  What is your theory on the matter?

What's your thought on this?

And Stephaniec, I must disagree---I don't believe dysphoria can suddenly become activated.  It's simply something that some people are able to repress for longer than others. 

[Mariah]

We are not trans because of evolutionary reasons. Whether it is biological, hormonal, environmental or some combination of those is hard to say. It is safe to say it can differ for many of us as why we are the way we are, but we didn't evolve into be trans. Some may have realized earlier or later than others, but we didn't evolve to become trans. For what ever reason are mind and bodies are the way we are  and respond to hormones the particular way we do.
Mariah

Not to be critical, but I don't think that makes evolutionary sense, as if we had an a priori expectation for our morphologies, we couldn't adapt, and change them with our environments. We wouldn't need to exercise and lead certain lifestyles in order to control our morphologies to the extent that we do. Before the age of twelve, even bones are changeable. We lose adaptive potential as we age.

We can have visceral expectations for our bodies though, which, I think is due to hormonal affinities -- we don't have the forms we're supposed to, using the archetypes of those that we emulate, and take as life idols, or guides for functioning, and surviving in the world.

This becomes all the more traumatic when we're told that our visceral identifications are wrong, and we're not supposed to be like, and look to the people that know that we're supposed to.