There seems to be a battle between the Transgenders and Transsexuals.
I don't understand why? I feel stupid since I am trying to read all these threads and understand it. Maybe I really don't get the difference between the two. What is this about?
Someone help me out? Dumb it down? Draw a picture? :-\
To be honest it's a war between those who say "transgender is the only way to identify ourselves because I don't like the word transsexual" vs those who say "transsexual is the only way to identify ourselves because I don't like the word transgender."
Those who are against the word "transsexual" do not like it because it can imply to an outsider as "someone who is sexually attracted to trans people" just as heterosexuals are attracted to the opposites sex and homosexual are attracted to the same sex. It's heavily connotated in sexuality when being trans is more about gender than sexuality.
Those who are against the word "transgender" do not like it because crossdressers use that word and many trans do not want to be associated with crossdressers for whatever reasons (or anyone else under the transgender "umbrella"). Also, a trans person will say they are transsexual because it is the right medical definition and they want to be labeled correctly.
In all honesty, either term is fine. Whatever you use, you use. I personally use transgender but I will never impose my opinions on another trans person. If he or she wishes to be labeled as transsexual then that is their right.
A war happens when, out of ignorance, people fight over something as silly as labels and then try to make their label more superior than the other.
It's always better when you can accept the other person for who they are and not what label they have affixed to themselves.
There are actually a few camps at work here.
We have the TS not TG crowd. They object to the transgender umbrela. They believe that by ascociating ourselves with the TG crowd that we are loosing rights.
We have the TS under the TG umbrela. They object to seperatism and feel that a large umbrela brings us all togather and gives us more clout politicaly.
We have the TG not TS crowd. They tend to be separtist and feel that transition can be acomplished without medical intervention.
We have the HBS crowd. They believe that complete surgical transition is the only way to be recognised in ones gender. Without surgery you are probably just some form of fetishist and should not be taken seriously. They seek to woodwork and remain stealth for the most part. We do not have to fight for our rights in many places as we already have them as men and women who have transitioned. If we are asimilationalist and we pass there are no reasons to worry about rights.
Then we have the gender deconstructionalists who seek to break down all the walls between man and woman and make society a more androgynous place.
What group did I miss?
Quote from: cynthialee on July 28, 2011, 12:28:48 PM
What group did I miss?
Oh, I'm sure there's about fifty others LOL
Quote from: Annah on July 28, 2011, 12:30:48 PM
Oh, I'm sure there's about fifty others LOL
QFT!
Isn't it kind of funny that just as some forward progress is being made that all sorts of people jump up from within our own community to muddy things up and slow it all down? I'd love to see some financial disclosure on some of the bigger critics and separatists just to make sure that they are not doing that because some anti-trans advocates are paying them to.
Hahahah.
Wow, thanks so much. I don't know why I was having so much trouble with that. There were so many heated discussions I felt like I couldn't get a straight forward explanation.
I always thought to refer to myself as transgender until I had surgery then I was to refer to myself as transsexual but I live mostly in stealth so it really doesn't matter I guess. I know it is risky to use these boards I just like to have others to talk to about these things since I can't anywhere else.
I've seen people refer to others write it as trans* which is probably a good idea if you don't want to offend anyone. People seem to be pretty upset over some of the labels, which I can understand everyone is different.
Quote from: tekla on July 28, 2011, 12:37:45 PM
Isn't it kind of funny that just as some forward progress is being made that all sorts of people jump up from within our own community to muddy things up and slow it all down? I'd love to see some financial disclosure on some of the bigger critics and separatists just to make sure that they are not doing that because some anti-trans advocates are paying them to.
I am pretty sure that some of the online personalities that are the bigest ->-bleeped-<- stirers are actually sock pupets for some religous right group looking to tear us down from within.
It's always a lot easier to destroy from within than from without. And doing this inside the trans movement is a hella lot easier than infiltrating the gay movement.
I think it'll be the sad truth that the far-right etc don't have to infiltrate the trans community to set them at odds with each other.
Quote from: Da Monkey on July 28, 2011, 12:40:03 PM
Hahahah.
Wow, thanks so much. I don't know why I was having so much trouble with that. There were so many heated discussions I felt like I couldn't get a straight forward explanation.
I always thought to refer to myself as transgender until I had surgery then I was to refer to myself as transsexual but I live mostly in stealth so it really doesn't matter I guess. I know it is risky to use these boards I just like to have others to talk to about these things since I can't anywhere else.
I've seen people refer to others write it as trans* which is probably a good idea if you don't want to offend anyone. People seem to be pretty upset over some of the labels, which I can understand everyone is different.
as a transman i assume you are somewhat involved in the FTM communities. From your experience, do you find that transmen do not hold so passionately onto labels as MTF do?
I found in my observations that transmen really don't get riled up as much as transwomen do. Do you find that to be the case with the FTM community?
Just to add to the entertainment, the statement:
a trans person will say they are transsexual because it is the right medical definition and they want to be labelled correctly
may apply in, for example, the US, but in the UK the "right medical definition" is transgender. So there are people battling about different definitions of the same term in different countries. Sigh.
Personally, I sidestep all this as often as possible by avoiding identity labels and saying instead "I'm going through a gender transition at the moment." As far as I'm concerned, it's something that's happening, not something I am.
Quote from: Annah on July 28, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
I found in my observations that transmen really don't get riled up as much as transwomen do.
I don't think there is a single group on the planet in any arena or area who get riled like transwomen do.
Quote from: Pica Pica on July 28, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
I don't think there is a single group on the planet in any arena or area who get riled like transwomen do.
*cough* feminists *cough*
oh yeah
Quote from: cynthialee on July 28, 2011, 12:40:36 PM
I am pretty sure that some of the online personalities that are the bigest ->-bleeped-<- stirers are actually sock pupets for some religous right group looking to tear us down from within.
::)
How about the fact that some of us who were of transsexual history simply do not feel we have anything of significance in common with those who fall under the rest of the 'transgender' umbrella, and as a result, want NOTHING to do with the umbrella. Any issues I *might* have from a legislative standpoint have next to nothing to do with the non-surgical tracked person. I was opposed to the consolidation when I first heard Frye and others trying to make it a much more common terminology issue twenty or so years ago and I remain as firmly opposed to the notion now...
But hey, why let something like that get in the way of casting aspersions for being vocal in my beliefs on the matter...
Quote from: Annah on July 28, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
as a transman i assume you are somewhat involved in the FTM communities. From your experience, do you find that transmen do not hold so passionately onto labels as MTF do?
I found in my observations that transmen really don't get riled up as much as transwomen do. Do you find that to be the case with the FTM community?
Yeah I am only stealth in the city I live in. When I go back and visit my last town I lived in I am pretty open about myself. Mostly because either people know, my ditsy twin sister outs me, or I don't have to deal with people I see there everyday.
Anyway I personally only know of 4 FTMs and it's hard to figure out. One considers himself transgender (he doesn't want to call himself transsexual because it sounds freakish). He tends to be very in-your-face about being trans, very aggressive, to the point where people crap themselves when they see him in fear that they might accidentally misgender him. He is also uh, uncomfortable around MTFs for some reason. I don't know why. We went to a trans group that was in the city but he 'warned' me that most of them were 'strange MTFs' ( I think because in his opinion they didn't pass in his standards ). He actually got into heated discussions with some of the MTFs and stopped going. He also has a 'more trans than thou' mindset. For the longest time I didn't even think I was trans because I wasn't as aggressive and sensitive about it. He even told me when I first came out that I wouldn't be able to pass or handle it. Then again this was a long time ago I don't think he is like that anymore.
The second one transitioned, moved away, and is in stealth and denies being trans at all.
The third is easy going but is very much an LBGT etc. activist.
The fourth, my roommate (hahah) he is a bit more androgynous and gender-bending I suppose and doesn't care for a label either.
So I guess 1 out of 5 from my experience are passionate about labels or being trans in general.
Quote from: tekla on July 28, 2011, 12:44:30 PM
It's always a lot easier to destroy from within than from without. And doing this inside the trans movement is a hella lot easier than infiltrating the gay movement.
This makes a lot of sense too.
There was a girl I will call "DL" that had been banned from 4 of the trans sites I frequent because she was so militant on her label that anyone else who disagreed with her label was just a man fantasizing about being a girl. Not only is this foolish behavior but it can be dangerous to an impressionable new trans person who will then say "sigh, I guess im not a girl/boy."
Quote from: Ann Onymous on July 28, 2011, 01:24:36 PM
::)
How about the fact that some of us who were of transsexual history simply do not feel we have anything of significance in common with those who fall under the rest of the 'transgender' umbrella, and as a result, want NOTHING to do with the umbrella. Any issues I *might* have from a legislative standpoint have next to nothing to do with the non-surgical tracked person. I was opposed to the consolidation when I first heard Frye and others trying to make it a much more common terminology issue twenty or so years ago and I remain as firmly opposed to the notion now...
But hey, why let something like that get in the way of casting aspersions for being vocal in my beliefs on the matter...
Then that is your opinion and your convictions and that's awesome about wanting to be labeled as a transsexual!
However, we are really talking about those who will attack a person who uses another label than the other or say "your label is wrong and my label is right." That to me is wrong.
I remain as firmly opposed to the notion now
She says...
On a sight clearly labeled 'transgender'...
hmmmm...
Quote from: Ann Onymous on July 28, 2011, 01:24:36 PM
::)
How about the fact that some of us who were of transsexual history simply do not feel we have anything of significance in common with those who fall under the rest of the 'transgender' umbrella, and as a result, want NOTHING to do with the umbrella. Any issues I *might* have from a legislative standpoint have next to nothing to do with the non-surgical tracked person. I was opposed to the consolidation when I first heard Frye and others trying to make it a much more common terminology issue twenty or so years ago and I remain as firmly opposed to the notion now...
But hey, why let something like that get in the way of casting aspersions for being vocal in my beliefs on the matter...
This is what I don't get.
Why do some people get so mad about it?
People are going to group people into things no matter what. That's like saying you don't want people to think you're emo when you dye your hair black because you're really goth. People don't know the damn difference and think what they want anyway. If you don't want to get grouped with the wrong thing that is your job to show them that YOU as a PERSON is different by being yourself. Labels are for generalizations anyway.
Quote from: Ann Onymous on July 28, 2011, 01:24:36 PM
being vocal in my beliefs on the matter...
And how vocal; barely three days go by when there isn't an article or opinion piece stating what a millstone, how awkward, how embaressing, how wrong, how irritating, how ugly, how strange or how unnatural people like me are.
Oh, and Da Monkey - yours is one of the best signatures I have read in ages.
when it comes to fighting about which label is better, it really is pointless and fruitless.
There are so many pros and cons about either label that you can argue for centuries and you will never come to an agreement...no matter how passionate you think your label is.
For example
Transsexual
Pros:
1.Widely used medical term in the US
2.Can be seen as a separate label distinctive from the umbrella term of Transgender
Cons:
1.People associate it with being sexually attracted to a trans or have some type of sexual meaning behind it.
2.One does not transition sexually as it is a gender issue.
3.Can have the connotation of being in the same group as "homosexual" "Heterosexual" "BiSexual"
Transgender
Pros:
1.There is no connotation behind anything sexual behind the label as the label suggests "crossing genders"
2. It is the widely used medical term in the United Kingdom
Cons:
1. Those who say they were the other gender since they could remember do not like transgender since they never crossed genders as they always felt the gender they were suppose to be
2. It is the word associated with the entire umbrella and can be confused for one distinct part of it.
Really, I could go on forever but these are a few examples of how the label issue will NEVER be resolved. So it is best if we just have the maturity to not attack someone else for using a different label than ourselves.
Quote from: Pica Pica on July 28, 2011, 01:54:58 PM
And how vocal; barely three days go by when there isn't an article or opinion piece stating what a millstone, how awkward, how embaressing, how wrong, how irritating, how ugly, how strange or how unnatural people like me are.
Pica, I find you absolutely adorable!
Stay as you are!
Quote from: Pica Pica on July 28, 2011, 01:54:58 PM
Oh, and Da Monkey - yours is one of the best signatures I have read in ages.
Hahahahah yeah from American Dad. I love Roger.
And Annah: that's a very good idea. I don't know why people want to hold on to a word so badly.
Quote from: tekla on July 28, 2011, 01:47:08 PM
I remain as firmly opposed to the notion now
She says...
On a sight clearly labeled 'transgender'...
hmmmm...
gee...and posting in a section labeled as "transsexual talk."
hmmmm...
Annah,
When I first came out and joined the local trans comunity it was me and a bunch of transguys. They are pretty mellow and laid back, certainly not getting as involved in identity politics as trans women get.
Mainly they seem focused on being guys.
Quote from: cynthialee on July 28, 2011, 02:04:05 PM
Annah,
When I first came out and joined the local trans comunity it was me and a bunch of transguys. They are pretty mellow and laid back, certainly not getting as involved in identity politics as trans women get.
Mainly they seem focused on being guys.
Yeah.
Sadly people are screaming at their labels than just being the women they are. The whole argument is just plain silly to me!
Someone can scream "I AM TRANSSEXUAL/TRANSGENDER AND THE LABEL OF TRANSGENDER/TRANSSEXUAL LABEL IS WRONG" tell they are blue in the face or until hell freezes over. At the end of the day, the labels are just that. Labels.
Quote from: Da Monkey on July 28, 2011, 01:52:12 PM
This is what I don't get.
Why do some people get so mad about it?
I have a transsexual history. I do NOT have a transgender history. I abhor having MY right to define my history usurped and co-opted by activists who want to redefine that history and who seek to create a conglomerate umbrella. I never asked for my history to be placed under an umbrella term that does not apply to me and that incorporates individuals who are making lifestyle decisions that do not accurately reflect my medical history.
And while labels may only be for "generalizations anyway," I still hold the right to have the CORRECT generalization utilized...and that right is not something that I should lose even though I tend to more closely identify with the label of lesbian than anything else (and have since my early teens, roughly 30 years ago).
Hahah yeah eh.
I remember at my old job a woman came up to me and said "I think it's great what you and [other FTM] are doing." I was like "yeah..?" and she said "yeah I love all homosexuals, I don't see a problem with it at all."
I just laughed and said yuuupp.. I wasn't going to correct her. You can already tell she'll never understand the difference anyway.
The problem lies with the fact that people generally find it objectionable when someone trys to force an identity on them, which is what most militant activist types try and do.
Quote from: Annah on July 28, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
I found in my observations that transmen really don't get riled up as much as transwomen do. Do you find that to be the case with the FTM community?
I've noticed this too. I won't presume to speak for other guys. But I think part of it may be that we don't have another group we're mistaken for. There aren't really women crossdressers or part timers. At least they're not recognized by the public as such. So, we don't have this need to differentiate ourselves from some other group. I suppose we're often confused with butch lesbians but it seems they get more riled up about that than we do.
Also, so many trans men don't get bottom surgery that it's not much of a divisive factor among us. Most of us seem to recognize that whether another guy has surgery or not is a personal decision with no reflection on us or ftms as a group. I find that ftms tend to take more issue with the actions and behavior of fellow ftms than what they do with their bodies. At least that's what I've noticed with myself.
Quote from: Forum Admin on July 28, 2011, 02:15:55 PM
I've noticed this too. I won't presume to speak for other guys. But I think part of it may be that we don't have another group we're mistaken for. There aren't really women crossdressers or part timers. At least they're not recognized by the public as such. So, we don't have this need to differentiate ourselves from some other group. I suppose we're often confused with butch lesbians but it seems they get more riled up about that than we do.
Also, so many trans men don't get bottom surgery that it's not much of a divisive factor among us. Most of us seem to recognize that whether another guy has surgery or not is a personal decision with no reflection on us or ftms as a group. I find that ftms tend to take more issue with the actions and behavior of fellow ftms than what they do with their bodies. At least that's what I've noticed with myself.
Since you choose not to speak for me, I'll just repeat it since you said it so well.
Quote from: cynthialee on July 28, 2011, 12:28:48 PM
What group did I miss?
The "I'm a woman, not a trans-anything" group.
Quote from: Neko on July 28, 2011, 02:12:23 PM
The problem lies with the fact that people generally find it objectionable when someone trys to force an identity on them, which is what most militant activist types try and do.
But it's a transgender umbrella, not a transgender rainmac.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud.graphicleftovers.com%2F23142%2F662379%2Fumbrella.jpg&hash=568cca2a32436782933b5cfbdc1b70757f4dd28c)
Each of these people are under the umbrella, none of them are compromising who they are, none of them are having a new identity forced onto them for being under the umbrella, but each of them get to stay dry.
Quote from: Padma on July 28, 2011, 01:19:58 PM
Quote from: Pica Pica on July 28, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
I don't think there is a single group on the planet in any arena or area who get riled like transwomen do.
*cough* feminists *cough*
I'm afraid I belong to both of those categories, and I only get riled by people who try to exclude each other.
Quote from: Da Monkey on July 28, 2011, 01:52:12 PM
This is what I don't get.
Why do some people get so mad about it?
I suppose for the same reason as the loudest homophobes. They somehow feel their identity threatened by someone who made different coming-out choices than they did.
Case in point:
Quote
I have a transsexual history. I do NOT have a transgender history. I abhor having MY right to define my history usurped and co-opted by activists who want to redefine that history and who seek to create a conglomerate umbrella. I never asked for my history to be placed under an umbrella term that does not apply to me and that incorporates individuals who are making lifestyle decisions that do not accurately reflect my medical history.
According to Susan Stryker's book Transgender History, sex is anatomical and gender is cultural. Transsexual would be used in reference to a person who is transitioning from one sex to another and transgender would describe a person who crosses the gender norms of their society. Gender norms are often pinned on people according to their sex.
Taking these definitions, I am both a transgender and transsexual person.
For the most part I can't say I have seen allot of people drafting others into definitions they don't agree with.
I have seen a number of folks jump up and start asserting that they are not this or that when someone else identifies as whatever it is.
Fine your not an 'insert variable'. Someone else is and it doesn't chalenge or invalidate your identification as 'insert variable'.
Quote from: Lisbeth on July 28, 2011, 02:42:57 PM
*cough* feminists *cough*
I'm afraid I belong to both of those categories, and I only get riled by people who try to exclude each other.
I suppose for the same reason as the loudest homophobes. They somehow feel their identity threatened by someone who made different coming-out choices than they did.
Case in point:
sad isn't it :(
Cynthia, you forgot two groups, the AFNR (Angry For No Reason) and the NAAA (Not Angry At All) I belong to the latter!
Quote from: cynthialee on July 28, 2011, 03:20:40 PM
For the most part I can't say I have seen allot of people drafting others into definitions they don't agree with.
I have seen a number of folks jump up and start asserting that they are not this or that when someone else identifies as whatever it is.
Fine your not an 'insert variable'. Someone else is and it doesn't chalenge or invalidate your identification as 'insert variable'.
To me, when I see someone get so riled up whenever someone uses a label that they themselves do not use and then make it a point how damning and wrong it is or how using the other label somehow usurps our civil rights, then that is to me, being very militant of trying to force their label on another...its just a sly way of doing it.
Almost like
"well you can use whatever label you like but in the end, your label is wrong and my label is right."
To me it's the same and it's very destructive behavior too!
Annah,
We seem to be on the same page.
:)
Quote from: Laura91 on July 28, 2011, 02:57:03 PM
The only labels I put on myself are: music fan, noise maker and dork.
;D Yes. This is awesome.
I suppose if I were to label myself, I'd cloose "transgender," "(two-spirited) androgyne," and I crossdress, but am not overly flamboyant or rude to others about any of these things. :-\ I'd like to be seen as just me, and not to only be known as 'that trans guy' or 'that girl who thinks she's a dude.'
I wish people wouldn't get so very angry sometimes. :( Regardless of gender identity issues or whatever, we're all humans here, and we won't always agree with each other or get along; that's just how things are.
Hugs all around? :) Please don't kill me, I'm just trying to be nice and offer some happy to what seems to be an angry conversation. ;D
Quote from: Pica Pica on July 28, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
But it's a transgender umbrella, not a transgender rainmac.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud.graphicleftovers.com%2F23142%2F662379%2Fumbrella.jpg&hash=568cca2a32436782933b5cfbdc1b70757f4dd28c)
Each of these people are under the umbrella, none of them are compromising who they are, none of them are having a new identity forced onto them for being under the umbrella, but each of them get to stay dry.
It's not really about TG vs TS, at least not in my mind...both describe a medical condition albeit slightly differently. The real issue is activists vs non activists.
We need activists, but the problem is as they get steadily more militant about their cause, the grow increasingly less flexible when it comes to understanding anyone elses point of veiw until they reach a point where they can't understand why anyone wouldn't identify the way they do and generally act like complete muppets as they loadly proclaim "My way is best!". They also just can't get their heads around the fact that TS and TG are at one and the same time both linguistic labels (which apply to everyone) and cultural labels (which only really apply to those that are happy to wear them). There is a world of difference between being a transexual woman and identifying as a transexual woman...same goes for being transgendered as opposed to identifying as transgendered. Taking on being TS or TG (of a tree if you really want to, I don't really care) as an integral part of your cultural identity has the effect of marking you out as different, not everyone wants to single themselves out as different. What effectively happens in these stupid and pointless arguments is the people who have chosen to take the cultural identity of TS/TG upon themselves get narky and aggressive and really condescending with the people who don't want to. The people who don't want to take the cultural identity of TS/TG upon themselves, get scared by the narky, aggressive condescion and get defensive and angry in return because what they just want to live their lives and don't like the pressure (perceived or real it doesn't matter) from the activists to take the cultural labels of tg/ts upon themselves.
We need both sorts of people in this world, neither way is best, neither way is wrong and the world would be a far nicer place if people actually thought for a second before opening their cake holes.
Quote from: Laura91 on July 28, 2011, 02:57:03 PM
The only labels I put on myself are: music fan, noise maker and dork.
My labels (identities): woman, mother, lover, bisexual/lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, photographer, graphic artist, computer programmer, writer/author, singer, musician, human, animal lover, tree hugger, liberal, etc.
Quote from: Annah on July 28, 2011, 12:25:58 PM
To be honest it's a war between those who say "transgender is the only way to identify ourselves because I don't like the word transsexual" vs those who say "transsexual is the only way to identify ourselves because I don't like the word transgender."
Personally I don't like either word, but so far the medical industry has not invented a proper term. No it is not a mental disorder. My mind is fine, it's this body that has the problem.
Sometimes the use of one term is required for a quick explanation when you don't want to give the full details, in which case I don't really care which term.
I'm not going to let an industry define me. It's a word, not a sentence.
Quote from: Annah on July 28, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Pica, I find you absolutely adorable!
Stay as you are!
but ditch the vest.
IMO and I may be wrong in yours, transsexual is a sex thing to many people.
I am transgendered, it wasn't about sex, it was about gender.
I'm beginning to wonder if there's a generation thing here too - I'm more used to the word "gender" meaning simply male/female/other (as well as its more recent application to "sense of gender" or "gender role" from a sociological/experiential perspective) rather than the word "sex" being used for that, when it comes to people.
And I think it's specious to claim that the "sexual" in transsexual refers simply to "sex" as in male/female/other, because in our culture, "sexual" is a profoundly sexualised term whose meaning points towards sexual activity, not gender. I've just started reading Transgender Warriors, and I am more uncomfortable than I expected with the term "transsexual", especially as a noun - because it reminds me of "homosexual" used as a noun (and used as a weapon), as if it somehow defines someone, and defines them purely in sexual terms. It feels really loaded to me, in a way that transgender does not.
I find it significant (but in what way, I have no idea!) that transsexual is the medical term of choice in the US, and transgender is the medical term of choice in the UK. I wonder how that happened.
Quote from: Padma on July 29, 2011, 02:38:15 AM
"sexual" is a profoundly sexualised term
Favourite sentence in this thread.
Quote from: Padma on July 29, 2011, 02:38:15 AM
I find it significant (but in what way, I have no idea!) that transsexual is the medical term of choice in the US, and transgender is the medical term of choice in the UK. I wonder how that happened.
We often disagree on out linguistic markers it would seem.
Padma, it's quite simple, the UK wanted to tax the US on the use of "transgender" so we had a revolution and started using "transsexual!"
Quote from: Tracey on July 29, 2011, 05:53:36 AM
Padma, it's quite simple, the UK wanted to tax the US on the use of "transgender" so we had a revolution and started using "transsexual!"
Nah, Harry Benjamin coined the term "transsexual" in the US before the term "transgender" was coined, so from our point of view over here, "transsexual" is just another dodgy US export :). Just to be clear, I have no problem with anyone else wanting to call themselves transsexual - I'm just saying that I don't wish to call myself or be called that.
I note as well that I come across both SRS and GRS on this forum as acronyms for reassignment surgery. Curiously enough, "gender reassignment surgery" gets almost twice as many google hits as "sexual reassignment surgery", even though "transsexual" is more predominant there than "transgender". I don't know what to make of this, but I find it interesting.
Quote from: Padma on July 29, 2011, 02:38:15 AM
And I think it's specious to claim that the "sexual" in transsexual refers simply to "sex" as in male/female/other, because in our culture, "sexual" is a profoundly sexualised term whose meaning points towards sexual activity, not gender. I've just started reading Transgender Warriors, and I am more uncomfortable than I expected with the term "transsexual", especially as a noun - because it reminds me of "homosexual" used as a noun (and used as a weapon), as if it somehow defines someone, and defines them purely in sexual terms. It feels really loaded to me, in a way that transgender does not.
I think you're absolutely right. Passing through the gay community before arriving here, its the non-gay, non-transgendered people that insist on stressing the -sexual part of the identity. What's worse is our -sexuality is a bigger deal to them then it is to us, masking and yet expressing their discomfort with our identities and using it as a weapon to marginalize us. Add in a gay pride parade sound bite, out of context, and we're all a bunch of sex freaks.
We're not doing ourselves any good by dressing up like a slutty Cat Girl for the next parade, but at the same time the "we're just like you campaign" (no we're not) seems to have backfired as well. Either you're not comfortable with me catting around in fishnets (becuase if that's what I do at a pride parade, that's my every day life of course) or I don't need these "special rights" you've been told I'm looking for because I'm just like you. Somewhere in between is where we need to position ourselves and yet we haven't been able to do that as a GLB T community for 50 years.
I am TransMutual
and I am declaring war on all other trans-anythings. That includes TransFats and TransDucers.
When my army is finished, you'll never know what hit you because they'll have wandered off into the woods smelling flowers and comparing wardrobes.
Which do you prefer, A or B?
A
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.pinesolutions.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F215.126.3.4.jpg&hash=4d1f4f556b9e8b13ff8cf6a8c362a19d97a925c0)
B
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrbeasleys.com%2Fstore%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F44566.JPG&hash=1cf89954a489fd33d59cc42d4212a13d55333163)
A.
Quote from: Adele on July 29, 2011, 11:27:06 AM
While I agree with this, it's useful to remember what's normally meant by "disorder". A condition is labeled a disorder when it causes significant distress and impairment in day-to-day functioning. The depression and anxiety caused by GID definitely fits that standard, in my humble opinion (they did for me, anyway). So, GID is the disorder; transition is the cure. That's just my take on it. :)
I 100% agree with this!
I suffered through GID and the symptoms were depression. If anyone suffered from Gender Identity Dysphoria, they have a mental disorder. However, this is just my opinion.
My much vaunted troops just got their heads caught in tubs of Marshmello Fluffernutter. :-\
Quote from: Padma on July 28, 2011, 01:19:58 PM
*cough* feminists *cough*
Cisgender lesbian militant separatist feminists.
"Trans War" sounds like a fun card game...a cross between Mille Bornes, Nuclear War, and...RuPaul's Drag Race.
Quote from: Arch on July 29, 2011, 05:54:13 PM
"Trans War" sounds like a fun card game...a cross between Mille Bornes, Nuclear War, and...RuPaul's Drag Race.
Or a new reality mini series on the Discovery Channel on the world's most avid Trans Am dealers and collectors.
What about the Cooking channel's show "Chopped"? It's got trans potential... ;)
Quote from: regan on July 29, 2011, 08:38:29 PM
What about the Cooking channel's show "Chopped"? It's got trans potential... ;)
Oooohhh, ouch.
TransMutual sounds more like an insurance company that hates paying out even when justified.
TransMutual! Number Six is TransMutual!!!!! (Okay, if you understand that reference, then you're as big a geek as I am.)
I'm not a number! I'm a free... er...
:)
Sitting on the transom, sailing the gender sea, I be...
"So, here we have....Apple...and Orange. But in the end...we all Fruit!" (From the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding -- a favorite of mine.)
A lovely sentiment, I think. :)
I thought you were all nuts.
This forum should have a "may contain traces of nuts" warning on it :). (I may need one tattooed on me after I transition, just in case the surgeons are not thorough ;D.)
Trans Wars sounds like a post-apocalyptic video game, set in approximately the same universe as Road Warrior, except with more trans people. Manly Trans Men and Glitter Trans Men are fighting, but the Butch Trans Women and Femmy Trans Women have maintained a truce. The Androgynes, a strange nomad tribe (they travel one by one, but all are nomads), are neutral and pacifists. The CisLesRadFems, a pseudo-fascistic group, have taken over a intact nuclear bomb from The War, and the Main Character must try and negotiate with them to keep them from blowing the entire world to cinders over a petty conflict, and also try and solve the various trans conflicts.
(above is intended as mere silliness, if you're offended then I apologize as it wasn't my intent)
Or the CisLesRadFems have uncovered a stash of Agent BluePink, and they're threatening to spray the Unicorn Forest with it - RGM* write a suitable protest song. I see the Androgynes riding around on the backs of indulgent but amused unicorns :).
*Rapid Gender Movement
Quote from: Neko on July 28, 2011, 07:02:59 PM
It's not really about TG vs TS, at least not in my mind...both describe a medical condition albeit slightly differently. The real issue is activists vs non activists.
We need activists, but the problem is as they get steadily more militant about their cause, the grow increasingly less flexible when it comes to understanding anyone elses point of veiw until they reach a point where they can't understand why anyone wouldn't identify the way they do and generally act like complete muppets as they loadly proclaim "My way is best!". They also just can't get their heads around the fact that TS and TG are at one and the same time both linguistic labels (which apply to everyone) and cultural labels (which only really apply to those that are happy to wear them). There is a world of difference between being a transexual woman and identifying as a transexual woman...same goes for being transgendered as opposed to identifying as transgendered. Taking on being TS or TG (of a tree if you really want to, I don't really care) as an integral part of your cultural identity has the effect of marking you out as different, not everyone wants to single themselves out as different. What effectively happens in these stupid and pointless arguments is the people who have chosen to take the cultural identity of TS/TG upon themselves get narky and aggressive and really condescending with the people who don't want to. The people who don't want to take the cultural identity of TS/TG upon themselves, get scared by the narky, aggressive condescion and get defensive and angry in return because what they just want to live their lives and don't like the pressure (perceived or real it doesn't matter) from the activists to take the cultural labels of tg/ts upon themselves.
We need both sorts of people in this world, neither way is best, neither way is wrong and the world would be a far nicer place if people actually thought for a second before opening their cake holes.
I'm kind of surprised that Neko's post went without any commentary. I think it is one of the most valid points shared. I think a lot of the anger comes from people perceiving that they are being pressured into something they don't want to do. People on both sides feel they are being told what to do and how to identify and who to identify with.
Personally I don't care which word is used for me, however I do see a difference between me and someone standing right next to me using the same word to identify themselves who believes in totally opposite things than me and has a totally different experience. My experiences as a transsexual who wants to transition and live in stealth is not the same as the genderqueer ftm also calling himself transsexual who wants to transition naturally if at all and wants to break down the gender binary. We are not one and the same, we have a completely different mind set, a different desire, a different dream.
I think people take it personally because it feels forced. And I also think we overlook exactly how different some of these identities are. Some of the identities we want to put together under an umbrella are working towards political goals that actually go against what other groups in the same umbrella are working towards. We don't all want the same thing... and that is going to make it hard to agree overall.
Mmm... it is interesting how a word like queer gets to mean pretty much what anyone wants it to mean these days, but trans-whatever is really tightly delineated by a lot of people who use it. I think we all want to be included (and inclusive) on the one hand, but on the other, not to lose our sense of individuality and uniqueness. So in a sense, we're each looking for a name for what each of us uniquely is, but as you say, we're all slightly-to-very different, so that's never going to completely work. It's an inherent problem with labels, as compared to descriptions. You wrote:
QuoteMy experiences as a [person calling himself] transsexual who wants to transition and live in stealth is not the same as the genderqueer ftm also calling himself transsexual who wants to transition naturally if at all and wants to break down the gender binary.
...and I've added that extra bit in the square brackets just to point out that you're both "people calling yourselves transsexual" (rather than that one of you "is" and the other's just "calling himself" that :))... and to me, if each of you just said "I want to transition and live in stealth" or "I want to transition naturally if at all, and want to break down the gender binary" then you'd both know exactly what was going on without needing a label to disagree on :).
I usually don't even touch these threads, but I'm beginning to think the "umbrella term" needs to be changed for there to be any resolution to the conflict. Firstly, we have the issue of transgender being so close to transsexual that it's likely to confuse people outside the movement. Secondly, we have the issue of people liking one term better, e.g. preferring the "proper" term based on definitions versus preferring the less abrasive word. And thirdly, we have the problem of different official terminologies in different countries.
My ideal solution would be to make the two words mean the same thing and change the umbrella term to something without "trans*" in it. That way, we trans* folks (or people of trans* history) would have no ambiguity and we could choose whichever word we prefer without getting politics involved. I'm not saying the new word should have a negative connotation, it should just be different. Something that emphasizes the natural human variance in gender that could be an all-inclusive term without rubbing trans* people the wrong way. Because whether we like it or not, being born into a male body with a female brain (and vice versa) is a variance. And so are androgyny, crossdressing, and everything else along that spectrum. I'm still thinking of what such a word be, but I think it could go a long way toward ending this dumb war.
Quote from: PixieBoy on July 30, 2011, 05:54:57 AM
(above is intended as mere silliness, if you're offended then I apologize as it wasn't my intent)
I'm angry that it wasn't your intent to offend. >:(
Quote from: AmySmiles on July 30, 2011, 12:07:43 PM
I usually don't even touch these threads, but I'm beginning to think the "umbrella term" needs to be changed for there to be any resolution to the conflict. Firstly, we have the issue of transgender being so close to transsexual that it's likely to confuse people outside the movement. Secondly, we have the issue of people liking one term better, e.g. preferring the "proper" term based on definitions versus preferring the less abrasive word. And thirdly, we have the problem of different official terminologies in different countries.
My ideal solution would be to make the two words mean the same thing and change the umbrella term to something without "trans*" in it. That way, we trans* folks (or people of trans* history) would have no ambiguity and we could choose whichever word we prefer without getting politics involved. I'm not saying the new word should have a negative connotation, it should just be different. Something that emphasizes the natural human variance in gender that could be an all-inclusive term without rubbing trans* people the wrong way. Because whether we like it or not, being born into a male body with a female brain (and vice versa) is a variance. And so are androgyny, crossdressing, and everything else along that spectrum. I'm still thinking of what such a word be, but I think it could go a long way toward ending this dumb war.
I am gender variant.
words are the bane of all languages and ego is the bane of peace (as is want, desire, greed, and other things but, to me, this is an identity issue and is more about ego)
You can call me gender nutty, trans, unsuitable for ingestion, hetero-gendered, queer, genderqueer, Bert Parks, fab, or anything. It is all one groove as I am defined by something other than words. Something I cannot even identify.
Maybe the friction results from individuals struggling to
define their identity. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if you try to define your identity as that cannot be done. However, struggle is an inherent trait in many individuals.
feel free to attack :P despite the fact that these are my thoughts and feelings and I am not calling anyone wrong or judging anyone in any way. (this disclaimer is not directed at you, Amy) :)
Quote from: Padma on July 30, 2011, 07:21:33 AM
Mmm... it is interesting how a word like queer gets to mean pretty much what anyone wants it to mean these days, but trans-whatever is really tightly delineated by a lot of people who use it. I think we all want to be included (and inclusive) on the one hand, but on the other, not to lose our sense of individuality and uniqueness. So in a sense, we're each looking for a name for what each of us uniquely is, but as you say, we're all slightly-to-very different, so that's never going to completely work. It's an inherent problem with labels, as compared to descriptions. You wrote:
...and I've added that extra bit in the square brackets just to point out that you're both "people calling yourselves transsexual" (rather than that one of you "is" and the other's just "calling himself" that :))... and to me, if each of you just said "I want to transition and live in stealth" or "I want to transition naturally if at all, and want to break down the gender binary" then you'd both know exactly what was going on without needing a label to disagree on :).
I have not read all of the other responses yet, kind of about to run out the door, but I just wanted to say YES to your edits lol. I was having trouble really thinking of how to word what I was saying WITHOUT labeling people in the example lol. I was concerned that would just lead to someone going off on a tangent about my use of labels instead of an actual response (because lets be honest, that happens here lol) but just couldn't think well enough in the middle of the night to get it "right" :)
Quote from: Da Monkey on July 28, 2011, 12:04:24 PM
Someone help me out? Dumb it down? Draw a picture? :-\
lol Well, nobody will EVER Agree (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthegenderxchange.com%2Fimages%2Fmoresmilies%2Ffencing.gif&hash=820236b1eef8087c0191b35c3baea4b7b33fea90) (but here goes!)
"Transsex" means just that, "boy become girl" (and visa-versa) by chopping
THANG(s) OFF whereas . . .
"Trans-gender" is more an
Self-Identity Thing, relates more to societal roles and normal, everyday expectations.
( i stand corrected! ) (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthegenderxchange.com%2Fimages%2Fmoresmilies%2Fbolt.gif&hash=969649a1352189ddae5118148aba6f9907d2eed7)
Quote from: Kiera on July 30, 2011, 04:14:22 PM
"Transsex" means just that, "boy become girl" by chopping THANG OFF whereas . . .
...which excludes all trans men, so that's a pretty bad start :).
And in the UK (for example) transgender covers both your definitions. (Just meeting your expectations never to agree... ;D)
Quote from: Rebis on July 30, 2011, 01:19:14 PM
words are the bane of all languages and ego is the bane of peace (as is want, desire, greed, and other things but, to me, this is an identity issue and is more about ego)
You can call me gender nutty, trans, unsuitable for ingestion, hetero-gendered, queer, genderqueer, Bert Parks, fab, or anything. It is all one groove as I am defined by something other than words. Something I cannot even identify.
Maybe the friction results from individuals struggling to define their identity. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if you try to define your identity as that cannot be done. However, struggle is an inherent trait in many individuals.
feel free to attack :P despite the fact that these are my thoughts and feelings and I am not calling anyone wrong or judging anyone in any way. (this disclaimer is not directed at you, Amy) :)
You won't find any attacks from me. I don't think many of us personally need to define our own identities so much as the government, laws, and (to some extent) other people require definitions
of us. I can agree with you on that fundamental level. I define myself as "me." But until humanity can get past their prejudices and start considering all human beings people, regardless of what particular quirks they might have, labels are going to to be necessary. :-\
Quote from: Padma on July 30, 2011, 04:27:15 PM
...which excludes all trans men, so that's a pretty bad start :).
And in the UK (for example) transgender covers both your definitions. (Just meeting your expectations never to agree... ;D)
I know eh, trans men are always left out for some reason. That's fine :-\
Quote from: Da Monkey on July 31, 2011, 08:45:56 AM
I know eh, trans men are always left out for some reason. That's fine :-\
Isn't that because you're not supposed to exist? >:-) I know what you mean.
There are 1 in 30,000 F to Ms and 1 in 100,000 F to Ms? Give me a break!
10,000 seems low perhaps, but 100,000 seems high, and it's not anywhere near a million yet, so at least that figure has the right order of magnitude to it.
Quote from: tekla on July 31, 2011, 04:01:08 PM
10,000 seems low perhaps, but 100,000 seems high, and it's not anywhere near a million yet, so at least that figure has the right order of magnitude to it.
I'll just use a quote from my Information Technology background... "Without data to back it up, yours is just another opinion."
*musical fanfare*
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg36.imageshack.us%2Fimg36%2F1144%2Ftranswars.jpg&hash=90f35c83a8f0ba1564c568195758d197c059fce1)
you have to have some way of being able to estimate a head of time to know if the answer is true or not
Quote from: Lisbeth on July 31, 2011, 07:51:32 PM
*musical fanfare*
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg36.imageshack.us%2Fimg36%2F1144%2Ftranswars.jpg&hash=90f35c83a8f0ba1564c568195758d197c059fce1)
Hahahah that's amazing, I love it.
Quote from: tekla on July 31, 2011, 07:56:46 PM
you have to have some way of being able to estimate a head of time to know if the answer is true or not
My college degree is mathematics and physics. Measurement is the only truth I recognize here.
Quote from: valeriedances on August 01, 2011, 03:58:39 PM
Who is being counting?
For real, no one counted me lol.
I don't put a lot of value in the studies showing the amount of people who are things like glbt, because there is no real way to count that. They are things you can't see looking at a person, so you don't know if you got a true answer to rather or not they are anyhow. And if you just look at stuff like how many people have gone in for certain treatments or surgeries related to being trans you still won't end up with an accurate number because not all of us go those routes.
To me it's easy to see why there seem to be less FTMs than there are MTFs, how are they going to count us? In many societies it is acceptable for women to dress in mens clothes, but not the other way around. How many people out there just deal with having to be a "tomboy"? Or on the other hand, how many people deal with just being a "sissy" and never pursue treatment?
There are too many factors to why those types of studies just don't work. And half of them are actually brought up in this conversation, the differences in our community, the differences in the ways we live and the things we do to transition (or not transition at all) cause a curve we can't possibly measure.
Quote from: valeriedances on August 01, 2011, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: tekla on July 31, 2011, 04:01:08 PM
10,000 seems low perhaps, but 100,000 seems high, and it's not anywhere near a million yet, so at least that figure has the right order of magnitude to it.
Who is being counting?
Oh, I should have readup, lol. MtF's and FtM's.
You hit on a basic part of the problem. The numbers were from counting post-op transsexuals in the 60's, and today is being used to describe all transgendered people. Apples and oranges.
Quote from: tekla on July 28, 2011, 12:44:30 PM
It's always a lot easier to destroy from within than from without. And doing this inside the trans movement is a hella lot easier than infiltrating the gay movement.
Well, yeah, you can say you're trans without having to sleep with anyone you're not attracted to.
Quote from: kyril on August 01, 2011, 06:41:21 PM
Well, yeah, you can say you're trans without having to sleep with anyone you're not attracted to.
I think Kyril just won. Debate over lol.
Not necessarily - I call foul on the grounds that you can be gay without having to sleep with anybody, let alone with people you don't fancy. Being gay (or bi or het or whatever) is about attraction, not about sex :). I spent years being bi without sleeping with anyone (but that was out of fear, not out of infiltration!)
Quote from: Padma on August 01, 2011, 07:07:50 PM
Not necessarily - I call foul on the grounds that you can be gay without having to sleep with anybody, let alone with people you don't fancy. Being gay (or bi or het or whatever) is about attraction, not about sex :). I spent years being bi without sleeping with anyone (but that was out of fear, not out of infiltration!)
Yes, but the point was regarding the idea of tearing a community apart, so you're having sex with someone you don't like for a specific reason lol
Yeah, but my point was that you don't have to have sex with anyone to infiltrate a community and tear it apart :). All it takes is to be a dab hand at gossip and back biting ::).
Quote from: Lisbeth on July 31, 2011, 07:49:34 PM
I'll just use a quote from my Information Technology background... "Without data to back it up, yours is just another opinion."
Tekla lower bundary is close to todays number. Do read the last referenc for an enlightened discussion on why this numbers are deliverately kept low in certain countries,
New Zealand MTF 1:3,600; FTM 1:22700 (Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2008 Oct;42(10):887-9.)
Serbia 1:1 MTF:FTM (J Sex Med. 2009 Apr;6(4):1018-23. Epub 2008 Mar 4.)
Sweden 2:1 MTF:FTM (Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Aug;32(4):381-6.)
Netherlands 11,900 MTF : 1:30,000 (Arch Sex Behav. 1996 Dec;25(6):589-600.)
Belgium 1:12,900 for male-to-female and 1:33,800 for female-to-male (Eur Psychiatry. 2007 Apr;22(3):137-41. Epub 2006 Dec 26.)
Singapore ~ 1:3000 MTF 1.2:10000 FTM (Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1988 Oct;78(4):501-4.)
USA 1:1500 MTF )http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html)
Kate D
"follower of Tekla"
Quote from: kate durcal on August 01, 2011, 08:03:55 PM
Tekla lower bundary is close to todays number.
How do we know that? I mean like, do you mean it's close to todays number and is accurate or just it's close to the same numbers they claim today?
Quote from: Padma on August 01, 2011, 07:47:29 PM
Yeah, but my point was that you don't have to have sex with anyone to infiltrate a community and tear it apart :). All it takes is to be a dab hand at gossip and back biting ::).
Duh, so true. And being raised as a girl in my house I should know, underhanded comments and whatnot are a specialty of the females in my family lol.
I do enjoy that you never agree with people but always have a good point for why you don't. It makes it much more worthwhile to read your posts :P
Quote from: Lisbeth on August 01, 2011, 03:23:42 PM
My college degree is mathematics and physics. Measurement is the only truth I recognize here.
Mine's in geophysics and applied mathematics. Order-of-magnitude estimates as 'sanity checks' are standard procedure for most fields outside pure math and theoretical physics (mostly because you pure types don't require...or encourage...sanity >:-))
Quote from: Padma on August 01, 2011, 07:47:29 PM
Yeah, but my point was that you don't have to have sex with anyone to infiltrate a community and tear it apart :). All it takes is to be a dab hand at gossip and back biting ::).
Well, yes, but if you claim to be gay in order to infiltrate the community and tear it apart, sooner or later someone's going to expect you to sleep with someone. Or at least date someone. If you're being a total jerk, creating rifts in the community,
and not even dating anyone, eventually we're going to pull your gay card.
Interesting - so you have a closed-door policy on celibate people? Back when I was calling myself gay (before I realised not all gay men hated bisexuals and came out as a bi man - way before I admitted I was actually a bi woman), the only time I remember having that stupid "how do you know you're gay if you're not sleeping with men?" conversation was back when I was 17 ::). After that I don't recall anyone threatening to revoke my gay card for not being sexually active (back when I was not sexually active...). I feel like you're saying "you're not gay unless you're screwing" but maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
Nonono. You're misunderstanding. Of course you can be gay without being sexually active.
But...let's say you come out as gay. Let's say you're very very vocal and politically active in a way that caused a lot of strife within the gay community - let's say that you insist that you get to define what "gay" meant, and you are a Real Gay and those Other People you didn't like, perhaps the drag queens and faerie boys and Pride Parade marchers, are Not Really Gay. You insist that you deserve equal rights but those people don't, and that laws need to be written in a way that would explicitly exclude them from protections. You oppose any law (for instance, ENDA) that might accidentally protect them. You support highly socially-conservative social policies that mirror the Republican Party platform. You basically act like the gay version of the HBS club.
You're not going to be terribly popular within the gay community with those views no matter what. You'd fit right in at GOProud, but you won't get far with the mainstream inclusive majority. However, if on top of all that you have no actual same-sex relationship history, nobody's ever seen you being affectionate with a same-sex partner, you don't flirt convincingly with anybody, and you give no indication of any actual interest in the above...if for all intents and purposes you're acting like a right wing homophobe and you give no indication in your relationships/interactions that you're actually attracted to people of the same sex...at some point, somebody's going to notice and call you on it.
That's what I mean. It has nothing to do with celibate GLB people who just want to live their lives. Most GLB people are aware of their sexuality long before their first same-sex sexual experience; they're still GLB. Nobody has the right to question anyone else's self-described identity...as long as they're not attacking yours.
My observation is strictly limited to the sort of people I imagine being analogous to the instigators of the 'Trans Wars' - people who act, for all intents and purposes, like hostile outsiders, like enemies of the broader community. People who object to inclusiveness and attack other people's identities. A hypothetical straight 'infiltrator' who wants to be taken seriously as an actual gay person while instigating political strife in the gay community, pushing a socially-conservative agenda, and marginalizing/devaluing/excluding the visibly-gay majority is going to find themselves in a fairly awkward situation because they're opening the validity of their own identity to questions by denying the validity of other people's.
A hypothetical cis infiltrator into the trans community, on the other hand, wouldn't have any such problem.
Oh, okay then :).
I guess it's all a matter of what we think the word means.
We should keep in mind though that the map is not the territory, and the word is not the object. On top of that when people in different countries have a different definition of the same term......
Why don't we all get along and agree that it's all a bit messy and subject to change.
Karen.
Most people hate those math 'story problems' they always handed out in school, tragically, in real life, story problems are the ones most like what we are required to solve. Same with all the stuff where they wanted you to 'guess' (oh sure they used a fancy word, 'estimate' - but face it, you were guessing). Either way, what they wanted you to do was take the available information and at least string it together in such a fashion that you could arrive at a basic range that the answer would fall into. Sometimes you can bring outside information into it, other times you can't, and you never know all of it, as the wise one once pointed out:
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
—Former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
So you take numbers you have a familiarity with. Number that are real to you (This is where we lose a lot of people, as they have no real personal association with numbers). And as long as you're at it, might as well take numbers that are easy to work with - hence rounding. I have a couple pretty big numbers in my head. Like: the population of the US = 300 Million, of California, 37Million (roughly 10% of the nation as a whole) and Iowa, 3Million, (so about 1% of the nation). I've been in crowds of 1/4Million, 1/2Million and in Chicago over a million. It's a lot of farking people. People for miles. The rough area I live in has 150K in the city, 450K for the county, and 7.3 million for the region (Bay Area). Those are number's that I 'know' (they are 'known knowns'). I can clearly visualize what it would look like if everyone in my city got up and went downtown. Same for the county. And I can project to the region, I already have a very clear understanding of how much space it takes to house them.
Then you take the definitions - which is just you narrowing or expanding the variables (don't matter which at this point) so I'll use 'irreversible surgical procedure' like many of the state laws do. And then you work the numbers. 1 in 30,000, well hell, we got more than five in Santa Rosa for sure. I know of three I see all the time. That number gets you 10,000 for the country and I think they counted some 8K in the Bay Area some 10 years ago, so there has to be more than 2K elsewhere in LA, and that's not even the rest of the US. So that's not right. Let's slip it down one, 1: 10,000 that get's you to 30K, a somewhat more reasonable number. But we do have some statistical back up. One, there are not that many doctors doing the procedure, its' easy enough to figure how many they can do a year. And we can also look at changes in LS/SS records for gender over a couple of years (I'm sure the number is higher ever year) and get a baseline. Those numbers, of records changes, will generally fit the defination of 'irreversible surgical procedure', and since just about everyone in the US has a DL/State ID (same thing for our purposes), will give us a pretty accurate tally.
I want to smash Donald Rumsfeld in the face with his own colon.
I may have slipped off topic ::)
& all the king's horses
& all the kings' men
can't get us out
of the war's Rummy got us in
He was beyond awesome. Evil brilliance sure, but brilliant none the less.
Besides once you bring real math into a thread you've pretty much killed it.
Well, the probability rapidly approaches 1, anyway :).
Quote from: kyril on August 01, 2011, 10:53:44 PM
Mine's in geophysics and applied mathematics. Order-of-magnitude estimates as 'sanity checks' are standard procedure for most fields outside pure math and theoretical physics (mostly because you pure types don't require...or encourage...sanity >:-))
The history of science is filled with "sanity checks" preventing scientific progress. A simple sanity check said that earth can't possibly go around the sun; clearly the sun goes around the earth.
Quote from: Cowboi on August 01, 2011, 08:38:17 PM
How do we know that? I mean like, do you mean it's close to todays number and is accurate or just it's close to the same numbers they claim today?
The biggest problem scientists have is thinking they're measuring something different than they really are. I don't believe those numbers are measuring trans-people. They are measuring the amount those cultures permit people to come out.
Quote from: Padma on August 02, 2011, 12:33:10 PM
Well, the probability rapidly approaches 1, anyway :).
It may have just been because this followed Tekal's comment about bringing math into a discussion kills it, but that made me laugh out loud Padma.... for real. I think the people around me are curious what is so funny.
My work here is done... 8)
I personally never saw any point in this "war" I have enough enimies as it is. I have no intrest in starting any more fights.