Legal recognition for non-opers !

[BunnyBee]

Our energy should be focused on obtaining insurance and government coverage for surgery in those countries where it is not currently an option, in my opinion.

I agree with you on this Valerie.  Doing so would remove a lot of gray area from this issue, but as things exist right now- considering the plight of the pre-op person that wants surgery but can't have it- grayness abounds.  Issues like this one, where both sides can make compelling arguments that can't be refuted, are like napalm- it's an incendiary mix.  Shades of gray help tie the opposing sides together, they help cool the temperature of the debate.  To cut them out is to polarize the issue, dividing people and setting opposing sides against each other.  And for what cause?  To find the truth?  You don't find the truth by asking dishonest questions, and this poll, by taking such a nuanced issue and making it binary/black and white, is doing just that.

[BunnyBee]

I don't like falsely eliminating gray from a nuanced issue so that a fiery debate can rage, like this poll does, but I do approve of actually eliminating gray from a debate so there is nothing left to argue about, like you want to do <3.

[MillieB]

.

Slightly off topic but something to ponder too......

I have a "trans" friend who has in the past said she doesn't think those who have no chance of "totally" blending in as their psycho-sexual identity in public should {on "compassionate" grounds I might add] be allowed to have genital surgery...In the not so distant past the medical and mental professionals also thought along the same lines "If one's birth sex remained quite obvious, then for their own good[mental wellbeing] they shouldn't be allowed to have life changing surgery!

I would say to a certain extent nowadays some mental health professional who deal with trans-people still think the same...However they are not against trans-people having surgery, but just wanting what "they" feel is the best option for them-in other words concerned about how they would cope with the pressure of running society's gauntlet...

Okay I've pondered, then I've raged and now I'll try to put my thoughts about this as calmly as possible.

Gender dysphoria has absolutely nothing to do with how the world sees you, how well you blend or how well you may or may not cope (as if anyone could reliably predict this anyway) with the prejudices of the world. It just is, it never goes away, particularly not  because someone says 'but honey you'll never look like a woman' It just eats away at you until you finally say, I need to be me, I need to look in the mirror and see me rather than something that I don't recognise. It's not really a choice, sure you can try to ignore it, rationalise your fears and try to bury it so deep that hopefully it never comes to the surface, but it will, it always does.

I know a fair few women who know full well that they will never pass completely and they are prepared for the challenges that will come. Not one of them has ever said 'I wish that I hadn't transitioned because everyone can see that I'm trans' anyone who has felt the full force of GD will know how ridiculous that is. I have gone through my entire life knowing full well that I was transsexual but terrified of transition because of how the world might view it and tried every avoidance tactic going to try to 'be normal', most of these were extremely damaging to me and some nearly killed me, so you tell me how refusing people treatment on the the grounds that they won't pass can ever be compassionate? I just wish that someone had simply told me 'You are who you are, and you can't change that'

This attitude was popular with the Charring Cross doctors in the 1960's and 70's and there is a documentary that I haven't seen but I have heard about (if anyone knows the name of it I would be grateful) that follows a transsexual woman who was not 'womanly' enough for the docs so was refused treatment, she ended up homeless, alcoholic and died young. Very compassionate!

I'm reasonably lucky in that I don't have very many overtly masculine features (all of the photos that I have used for avatars are pre hrt) but if I had nothing but masculine features and was 6' 8 with size 14 feet and hands like shovels I would still feel exactly as I do, I would still have come to the point where it was transition or death. The whole point about being trans is that it isn't about what is on the outside, it's about who you are on a very profound level and I think that any moves to restrict treatment on grounds of looks would have the inevitable consequence of sending transsexual people to an early and unhappy death.

[Anatta]

Kia Ora Millie,

The documentary is called "An ordinary marriage" , she was told by her doctor that she would "never" pass etc, etc, however she did end up transitioning and going to Denmark to get married to her F2M husband [who already had a daughter]...Quite a moving documentary well worth seeing if you get the chance...I think for a time she worked for the railways... This link tells you about the documentary...

My apologies, I've just re-read your post-wrong doco, but you still might want to have a look at the "An Ordinary Marriage" one...

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s781301.htm

I should also point out a far as I'm concerned "whatever turns one on" is my motto, if transitioning is what one wants to do then I wish them all the best...Over the years, I've meet a number of post transitioned trans-people who still "challenge society's concept of gender", and they are all quite comfortable with who they are and wouldn't go back for all the money in the world...They may not "pass" as such, but they are "accepted" and that's good enough for them...

Metta Zenda

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Kia Ora all,

The aim I guess of this topic was to see how others if put in a similar position to those groups who oppose the rights of all trans-people, would react if put in a similar position...I guess I got my answer...All discrimination can start off innocently enough that is, with "good" intent ...

Thanks for your participation...And my apologies to those who responded but in doing so felt they were being attacked by others for voicing their opinions...

Metta Zenda

[Sarah B]

I would also agree with this:

If insurance or government coverage became available to transsexual people for compassionate reasons and cost were no longer a factor, then the majority of transsexual people would be able to complete their transitions.

Unfortunately society is tied to the two sexes.  What is the most common question asked, when a baby is born?  Yep, you guessed it in one, "Is it a girl or a boy?"  This is the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

Kind regards
Sarah B

[Mika]

I want to preface my comment with the following: this thread is a poll about personal opinion regarding this matter. Many people have strong opinions, myself included. This is intended in no way, shape or form to flame or as personal attacks. This is my own opinion, and one I feel strongly enough about to voice, as others have. Without civil dialogs and diversity in ideas, polls like this are pointless.

If insurance or government coverage became available to transsexual people for compassionate reasons and cost were no longer a factor, then the majority of transsexual people would be able to complete their transitions.

As others have pointed out, some people are medically unable to transition, and others do not want to transition or are unwilling to for whatever reason. A tax-funded single-payer system would eliminate class barriers to transitioning, but does not eliminate medical or emotional barriers. Even if a majority of people would be well served with such a policy coupled with universal health care, refusing to recognize the minority that cannot or do not want to transition is erasure of an entire group of oppressed people, a part of our own community.

The risk of status while in transition is faced by all of us, it is not the same topic as this (which is permanent legal gender change). I went through it myself during my period of RLE, it is frightening. But, I had a birth defect that was MY problem, not the states and it was MY responsibility to resolve it as quickly as possible. An issue I faced and went through. I lived it, as all of us going through transition did. I understood that if I was arrested I would go to a male prison. It was a risk I was willing to take because I had no choice. As it was there were things I was not able to participate in, such as going to the gym with locker rooms. Though it was upsetting and a hindrance, I dealt with it. In the grand scheme of things of my life, it was a minor issue.

This is a risk for many non- and pre-opers, and not all make it through alive and well. For many people it is more than a minor issue, but one of life or death. We all must make decisions in the face of oppression, and these decisions are neither easy nor identical. But how does experiencing oppression and facing risks such as transphobia motivated violence in prisons a reason to advocate the state perpetuating these oppressive policies?

If a person is in an unfortunate position due to their health, then their health is the major priority, not transition and they may have to live with their birth defect, as people with other birth defects have to. That is an unfortunate reality of all handicapped people. Yet, we all feel extreme compassion for those people (whatever the handicap is). We are no different.

I am not in the position to decide what the priorities of other people should or shouldn't be. People living with disabilities that preclude medical transition should not be restricted from legal recognition. People living with disabilities are not to be pitied and denied legal protections and recognition.

I am compassionate for all handicap people who have to live with their handicap. If there are solutions for them, then I say go for it.

Again, people living with disabilities aren't asking for pity. A solution isn't to advocate denying legal recongition and protection to those who can correct their physical barriers to transitioning. Not all disabilities are curable, not all need a cure, and even those people who can be cured shouldn't have to wait to be recognized for their identity and for safety.

Our energy should be focused on obtaining insurance and government coverage for surgery in those countries where it is not currently an option, in my opinion. I believe we need to send a clear message to our governments that we need this. Clouding the issue by triggering phobias does not help us. Rather getting transsexual people the medical help they need is vital (I am not elitist, I desire and advocate medical help for all).

A socialized, single-payer healthcare system only solves financial barriers to transitioning. But quite frankly, to deny legal recognition to transsexual people with disabilities is ableist. In edition to this, not everyone wants or needs to physically transition to be happy: isn't it about the individual, not about meeting society's or the state's requirements? And what about non-binary identified people? Should we invalidate their identities, oppressions and needs?

The solution I present is removing legal sex/gender from all legal documents except for applicable medical records. Having anyone's sex in government documents is only used to further oppressions, and only harasses non-cisgendered people. Nobody's identity or body should be policed by society, and definitely not enforced through violence by the state. Making sex/gender a non-legal matter doesn't support any theory or perspective on gender, it just means removing state sponsored violence from the equation. One can believe that the only valid gender identity is toaster, but you don't have to advocate enforcement through state coercion.

[rejennyrated]

This attitude was popular with the Charring Cross doctors in the 1960's and 70's and there is a documentary that I haven't seen but I have heard about (if anyone knows the name of it I would be grateful) that follows a transsexual woman who was not 'womanly' enough for the docs so was refused treatment, she ended up homeless, alcoholic and died young. Very compassionate!

Millie

The documentary was called George into Julia and eventually became the first part of a series of five following Julia Grant. The ending isn't quite as you state though. She was first refused and did for a time go downhill and become homeless etc. Then she obtained SRS. She then had a bad road accident, was prolapsed, went downhill again - got very depressed and took to drink for a time. She ran a nightclub, and gradually pulled back from the brink finally having a revision in the early 90's (that was the episode I worked on) and finally settled down later in life with a man.

The first episode was actually the first time that the subject had been properly covered on TV.

Two things about that may amuse you - it really is a very small world. The documentary was made by my very good friend David Pearson and indeed I worked in a minor way as a post-production manager on one of the followups. The therapist was John Randall who was my first therapist and the one who stopped me from being able to gain medical treatment aged 16 when I had grown up as an "almost" girl. Randall was indeed a bit of a B*stard - but he did what he did out of genuine motives. He himself was secretly a transvestite and so in his eyes passing meant everything.

[MillieB]

Hi Jenny,

Oh okay, if that's the case then I did see the Julia Grant stuff as that was the first time that I realised that how I felt had a name (I was about 10 when I saw it) It was also one of the singulaly most upsetting things I have ever seen and made me terrified of the docs at CHX GIC for a long long time, enough to put of my transition until now, I don't envy you having to deal with Dr Randall, I have enough trauma with Dr Barret! I also know that Julia Grant is alive and well (and back in Manchester, I think). The story that I was told about was a fair bit earlier, late 60's I think and I thought that it was a documentary, but seeing as you are a woman of trans history and also work in television, I'm thinking that you would know if such a programme had been made, so I'll bow to your superior knowlege 

But the point that I was trying to make about the whole, it's more compassionate to refuse non passing trans women treatment' argument is deeply flawed. I know that I have reached a point in my life when I'm out of options and have run away from my self for 3 decades causing myself immesurable pain along the way, there would be nothing compassionate about denying me treatment. It would be a slow but sure death sentence. Fortunately things have moved on and there is a greater understanding of the condition, also fortunately for me, I have never been anywhere close to really  masculine looking, but I think that to take that kind of thing into consideration is still discriminatory and very very wrong.

It's annoying me as I can't remember where I read this story now but it was quite harrowing 

[Ann Onymous]

I want to preface my comment with the following: this thread is a poll about personal opinion regarding this matter. Many people have strong opinions, myself included. This is intended in no way, shape or form to flame or as personal attacks. This is my own opinion, and one I feel strongly enough about to voice, as others have. Without civil dialogs and diversity in ideas, polls like this are pointless.

reasonable enough...

As others have pointed out, some people are medically unable to transition, and others do not want to transition or are unwilling to for whatever reason.

If someone is not set to transition, for whatever the reason (even moreso if they are unwilling to do so), then the issue of legal recognition of that person as someone of the opposite sex is, IMO, rendered moot. 

I'm deliberately skipping over the universal health care stuff because I can guarantee that my opinions on that will undoubtedly piss off too many people here...not to mention it is not germane to the original topic at hand. 

The solution I present is removing legal sex/gender from all legal documents except for applicable medical records. Having anyone's sex in government documents is only used to further oppressions, and only harasses non-cisgendered people. Nobody's identity or body should be policed by society, and definitely not enforced through violence by the state. Making sex/gender a non-legal matter doesn't support any theory or perspective on gender, it just means removing state sponsored violence from the equation. One can believe that the only valid gender identity is toaster, but you don't have to advocate enforcement through state coercion.

State-sponsored violence?  I guess someone needs to explain that one because I have yet to see a law in any of the 50 States that would currently condone violence. 

Suffice it to say, if one has not gathered it from my other posts, I am not a fan of anything that moves from the basic binary concepts within government records.  Can statutes related to marriage be made more flexible?  Sure.  But there are times where segregation by sex is a necessary public practice and a compelling policy interest. 

[Ann Onymous]

Unfortunately society is tied to the two sexes.  What is the most common question asked, when a baby is born?  Yep, you guessed it in one, "Is it a girl or a boy?"  This is the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

But for some of us (because I know I am not the only one on the board that has voiced such), the binary concept is NOT a bad thing.  Not everyone has an objection to the either/or and not everyone wants to see the deconstruction suggested by some...

[rejennyrated]

Hi Jenny,

Oh okay, if that's the case then I did see the Julia Grant stuff as that was the first time that I realised that how I felt had a name (I was about 10 when I saw it) It was also one of the singulaly most upsetting things I have ever seen and made me terrified of the docs at CHX GIC for a long long time, enough to put of my transition until now, I don't envy you having to deal with Dr Randall, I have enough trauma with Dr Barret! I also know that Julia Grant is alive and well (and back in Manchester, I think). The story that I was told about was a fair bit earlier, late 60's I think and I thought that it was a documentary, but seeing as you are a woman of trans history and also work in television, I'm thinking that you would know if such a programme had been made, so I'll bow to your superior knowlege 

But the point that I was trying to make about the whole, it's more compassionate to refuse non passing trans women treatment' argument is deeply flawed. I know that I have reached a point in my life when I'm out of options and have run away from my self for 3 decades causing myself immesurable pain along the way, there would be nothing compassionate about denying me treatment. It would be a slow but sure death sentence. Fortunately things have moved on and there is a greater understanding of the condition, also fortunately for me, I have never been anywhere close to really  masculine looking, but I think that to take that kind of thing into consideration is still discriminatory and very very wrong.

It's annoying me as I can't remember where I read this story now but it was quite harrowing 

Yeah George into Julia was made over a 30 year period the first episode being filmed and Tx'd as a documentary in 1972 - the final installment went out in about 2001. At several points  during the extended series the audience was left with Julia in poor place and looking as though she was about to check out. There may have been an earlier doco - but if so it is long gone. When was the BBC Archive supervisor I made myself a catalogue of all the relevant holdings and I don't recall anything earlier.

But as to your other point you will get no argument about that from me. When I went through I never intended to "pass" just to be myself - in fact that was part of my row with Randall because he wanted me to conform to his idea of a woman - whereas I had actually more or less grown up as a girl and told him he was certifiably nuts if he though that I was going to adopt his out of date sexist 1950's style compliant little woman attitudes! He didn't like that and threatened to section me! 

As you can see - Randall is dead - and I won! I didn't comply, I just found uncle Russell (Reid) - who was a deal more helpful, and indeed remains so to this day... He is a very good friend and he came to stay with us in our new home last weekend. This pic was at Paignton as we were waiting to board the stem train to Dartmouth.

[MillieB]

Nice to see that Dr Reid is okay 

You may be right about the George to Julia doc being the one if the first episode is from that far back, the one that I saw was in the Eighties, and as I've said I haven't seen it so may have the details a bit screwy, I'll have to try to get hold of a copy of the first one.

Thanks for the info. 

[Tippe]

In Denmark to be recognized as a man a transsexual has to get his ovaries and uterus removed (but for some odd reason not the breasts or the vagina). These operations are carried out quite often (for reasons of cancer i.e.) so there is really no reason to fear complications for FTM's.
I know a couple of men who had these surgeries - not because of dysphoria, not because they felt they needed them and not because there were any medical indications - simply because they had to.

Frankly I think it's ethically problematic to force people to undergo medical procedures for legal purposes and to use huge sums of money on surgeries which are not medically necessary, when the money could have been used to care for those in need.

It doesn't even appear to be consistent with considerations about parenting since transsexuals are fully able to adopt and in the case of MTF's we are allowed to store gem cells and receive IVF and ICSI treatment.

The criteria are sexist too, since recognition as a woman requires penectomy, orchidectomy and vaginoplasty, whereas recognition as a man did not require external genital surgery. In practice MTF SRS is carried out perhaps once every two years in Denmark yielding a very high complication rate too.

Body modifications should be provided for those who have issues with their bodies. Separate legal and medical issues from each other.

[Lisbeth]

I was talking about afternoon tea and cucumber sandwiches...surely the EU didn't have a hand in that.

LOL! Very true!

[cynthialee]

I can pretty much promiss you that if we went to a one payer system in the states there would be zero SRS on the state dime.
The right wing is very efficiant at freaking out when ever someone does something with federal funds that they do not aprove of.

Also I have noticed a few opinions that sound like 'my standards are most important. Society should follow my ideas.' Also I hear alot of 'FEAR FEAR FEAR'!

So long as we have red states we will not have universal coverage of transition costs. Not going to happen.
This nation is far too conservative. Maybe in 20 years.

[Ann Onymous]

Body modifications should be provided for those who have issues with their bodies. Separate legal and medical issues from each other.

That sets a dangerous threshold...after all, it tends to suggest that, as an example, someone who had significant issues with their nose but no other health-issues associated with the perceived defect should be permitted rhinoplasty on either State or insurance expense.  Ditto for any number of other procedures that can be performed in body dysmorphic situations...

[Sean]

I find it interesting that the people advocating for mandatory SRS for legal recognition all identify as women.

Whenever anyone mentions that SRS is NOT the same for FTMs, that it is NOT effective in making FTMs fully functional AND fully passable at the same time, the response seems to be that no one is talking about FTMs.

Except...legal policies affect ALL of us. When you advocate for SRS for legal recognition, you are advocating for ALL of us. Both MTFs and FTMs. In fact, given sex discrimination and equality laws, in many places it would be ILLEGAL to create one policy for MTFs and one policy for FTMs, even if the legislators were nuanced enough to understand why they should create differences.

Please stop advocating policies that you KNOW exclude trans men. And if you don't know all the details of SRS for trans men, please educate yourself before holding such strong opinions and advocating positions that stem from ignorance about the experience of the other side.

I understand that many trans men advocate for genderqueer or androgyne or third gender stuff, so no one has tackled this on, but I am personally extremely BINARY in my gender. I am a man and the reality is that in a BINARY system, with a BINARY world, SRS still is pretty sucky for FTMs. It does NOT leave us with a body that on the outside is indistinguishable from cis men, and there is NO surgery that can do this.

When a trans woman pronounces how important SRS is and how great it is and how she is happy to have a body that finally matches what she feels on the inside, I am happy for her, and I share in her happiness.

When a trans woman pronounces how important SRS is, so that legal rights should depend on it for EVERYONE, simply because SRS is "better" for women, she becomes an ignorant oppressor of trans men.

[Ann Onymous]

I can pretty much promiss you that if we went to a one payer system in the states there would be zero SRS on the state dime.
The right wing is very efficiant at freaking out when ever someone does something with federal funds that they do not aprove of.

Let me clue you...it is NOT just the 'right wing' that is opposed to single-pay.  And my opposition to Obamacare was based on FAR more than simply the Constitutional implications of how it was shoved down the throat of the American public. 

So long as we have red states we will not have universal coverage of transition costs. Not going to happen.
This nation is far too conservative. Maybe in 20 years.

Do you REALLY want to take this down the political track?  It would seem you forget that we have *gasp* persons who have a more conservative leaning than they do a liberal bent...and I know I am NOT the only one with some conservative viewpoints around the board.  While admittedly more of a Constitutional constructionist than anything else, I do get extremely conservative in matters related to fiscal matters.  And 'universal coverage' is, to me, far more of a fiscal issue than a social issue.

[Sean]

I do not see how I or my view oppresses anyone. I advocate medical help for all transsexual people.

Are we talking of gender recognition or not? How does the human race identify a gender other than physically since the beginning of time?
I'm still asking, do you expect to change a system that works for billions of people?

Maybe that is what the transgender movement is about. I will fight against it because of my own concern for the creation of 3rd gender status that I might be forced into.

You advocate "medical help" yet you then define it as genital reconstruction surgery, despite this option not being adequate for trans men. Perhaps you should be advocating medical research to improve our surgical options rather than attempting to define medical transition by a particular surgery that is ONLY available for women who are transitioning and not men.

I do not want to be third gender. I want to be treated as a man, not an other. I would like this recognition in EVERY facet of my life, including LEGALLY.

Part of my transition is PHYSICAL. My transition has had plenty of "medical help." I have had surgery. I take hormones.

However, your definition is that until I agree to get genital reconstruction surgery, a set of surgical options which will NOT leave me with a fully functional adult sized penis, and will not make me outward "physically" a man in the way YOU deem necessary, I am not entited to legal rights as a man. That, in a nutshell, is oppression, and I believe it only stems from ignorance about what genital reconstruction surgery IS for trans men, and lack of empathy.

There are other ways in which you can fix legal sex/gender OTHER than genital reconstruction surgery, including ways that also include medical help or physical transition. It is not a question of othering and third gendering versus genital reconstruction. You have simply chosen a line that is meant to ensure that YOU are as politically safe as possible, without regard for others, and it is a dangerous line for all of us. Perhaps in the future, MTF surgery will improve, and someone else will deem YOU inadequately female for not having the "right" genital surgery too.

[rejennyrated]

Valerie & Cynthia. I am addressing this to you two as representatives of the two sides of this debate - but it is not intended as "Personal" because as you know I love you both dearly and count you both as friends.

What I am hearing from both sides in this argument is indeed as Cynthia observed fear. Both sides in the debate are passing like steam trains in the night because neither seems able to step outside of their own individual set of concerns and see things from the others point of view.

Valerie does not feel that she wants a third gender to exist because she fears being wrongly ascribed to it.

Meanwhile the non-op community fears that without a third gender they, as a small minority of people who do not feel able to conform to the current binary, are left without an appropriate identity.

The problem as I see it - is that people will wrongly ascribe one to all sorts of things anyway - it does not require the creation of a third gender for people to mislabel others and there is very little that we can do other than smile and put people straight. However the bottom line is that fear about our own identity isn't really a very good reason to deny someone else theirs.

It's a bit like me saying "well as an original BRITISH person I am fed up of continentals wrongly calling me an American, so I am going to fight and deny anyone the right to be American, because basically everyone knows that there are only two valid nationalities British, and Foreigners..." 

Meanwhile the non-op and third gender community do have an unfortunate tendency to want to "include" people like Valerie (and even myself) who probably do not wish to be so "included." I certainly wouldn't wish to belong to any third gender...

And indeed then there is the whole can of worms which is the lack of any satisfactory FtM surgery at present...

For all these reasons this is therefore a problem with no solution and every time we debate this issue we will run the risk of people getting upset and tempers fraying.

All I can do is again appeal to people to realise that YOU are all individuals in your own right. You are NOT a label. So perhaps we should worry less about what other people are doing and more about what WE, as individuals, are doing.

This also precisely is why I don't generally join clubs, political parties, campaign groups, military groups, teams or indeed any corporate activity (unless I can be the leader and a (hopefully) benevolent dictator). There is just too much scope for some silly arse to go doing something, in my name, which I don't approve of, or agree with!