This is stemming from a conversation I had on facebook earlier today; just to be clear, what I'm saying here is purely for discussion's sake, and by no means reflects my own personal views. It's just a thought experiment. Before anyone goes into a rant about how our communities are different-I KNOW THAT THE TRANS COMMUNITY AND GAY COMMUNITY ARE DIFFERENT!!!! However, our oppression stems from the same source, and there have been close ties between us for many decades. Anyhow, onto the conundrum:
As I'm sure most of you know, post-stonewall, the mainstream gay rights movement did everything in it's power to gain public acceptance; they did this by saying to everyone "we are just like you". Well, certainly this is true of some, but obviously there are many members of the queer community that aren't like everyone else: Drag queens, trans women, and fem guys among many others were essentially banned from the movement for many, many years, our needs ignored, and our voices silenced. The reasoning? Our presence in the community would only alienate the community from mainstream hetoronormitive america. And, looking at how commonplace gay and lesbian acceptance is in this day and age, I can't help but wonder: Would this progress have been possible if we had been included?
The narrative that the gay rights movement has been spouting for years is: We have no choice, we are just like you, we only want the right to love who we choose. What about bi/pansexual people? We have a choice. You better believe that we're undermining that part of the naritive. Just like you? This may apply to normative assimilist (usually white) monogamous gay couples, but what about poly folks, and trans people-people in general who upset the norms of gender? And the needs of trans people stem far beyond marriage equality. But, people feel uncomfortable around us. I feel sick saying this, but in a way I do believe that if we had been included, the gay rights movement would have been utterly hopeless. We make people feel uncomfortable. That's a fact.
Even now, looking at the face of the trans* rights movement, it's clear to me that people who don't conform to traditional standards of gender are not at all welcome. And, that makes me wonder...as a queer trans woman who does not (yet?) pass without question, am I harming the movement? Should I be trying to help the community, when it's entirely possible my very existence may be putting the rights of thousands of passable, straight transexuals in jeopardy? I'm genuinely worried about this. I desperately want to help the community, but I sometimes wonder if I'd be helping the community most if I just kept my head down and let the "normal" people do the talking.
What do you think? Is putting aside the needs of the few in order to allow the many to gain mainstream acceptance, even if it comes at the cost of our rights? I don't have an easy answer to this. I'd love to start a conversation about this-it's an interesting if incredibly uncomfortable topic.
Help yourself first. You cannot help others if you are struggling.
Yeah help yourself first but there needs to be more gender non conforming, sexuality 'non conforming' (the sexualities most people know nothing about like pansexuals and asexuals ) and people with different types of relationships like poly that you have mentioned in the public eye to make the difference we need. I don't think it's harming the LGBTQ movement just finally give the full picture of the different types of people there are. I believe we have finally come to the point where trans people are recognised by society, both in terms of equal rights and people generally know what that word means (even though they are under the impression that we 'become another gender). Like the gay movement in the 70s onwards and the strides they have made to get to the point where they have mostly acceptance, understanding and equal rights; now is the time for the other people we haven't given much attention to before. I really think in another 40 yrs coming out as trans, or non binary or pan will just be as normal as coming out as gay. I can't wait.
In a very real sense, they gained acceptance through a lie. The fact that we give truth to the lie and they get bitten on the butt is not our fault, it's theirs. This is the same situation other minorities find themselves in.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 02, 2015, 01:48:41 AM
This is stemming from a conversation I had on facebook earlier today; just to be clear, what I'm saying here is purely for discussion's sake, and by no means reflects my own personal views. It's just a thought experiment. Before anyone goes into a rant about how our communities are different-I KNOW THAT THE TRANS COMMUNITY AND GAY COMMUNITY ARE DIFFERENT!!!! However, our oppression stems from the same source, and there have been close ties between us for many decades. Anyhow, onto the conundrum:
As I'm sure most of you know, post-stonewall, the mainstream gay rights movement did everything in it's power to gain public acceptance; they did this by saying to everyone "we are just like you". Well, certainly this is true of some, but obviously there are many members of the queer community that aren't like everyone else: Drag queens, trans women, and fem guys among many others were essentially banned from the movement for many, many years, our needs ignored, and our voices silenced. The reasoning? Our presence in the community would only alienate the community from mainstream hetoronormitive america. And, looking at how commonplace gay and lesbian acceptance is in this day and age, I can't help but wonder: Would this progress have been possible if we had been included?
The narrative that the gay rights movement has been spouting for years is: We have no choice, we are just like you, we only want the right to love who we choose. What about bi/pansexual people? We have a choice. You better believe that we're undermining that part of the naritive. Just like you? This may apply to normative assimilist (usually white) monogamous gay couples, but what about poly folks, and trans people-people in general who upset the norms of gender? And the needs of trans people stem far beyond marriage equality. But, people feel uncomfortable around us. I feel sick saying this, but in a way I do believe that if we had been included, the gay rights movement would have been utterly hopeless. We make people feel uncomfortable. That's a fact.
Even now, looking at the face of the trans* rights movement, it's clear to me that people who don't conform to traditional standards of gender are not at all welcome. And, that makes me wonder...as a queer trans woman who does not (yet?) pass without question, am I harming the movement? Should I be trying to help the community, when it's entirely possible my very existence may be putting the rights of thousands of passable, straight transexuals in jeopardy? I'm genuinely worried about this. I desperately want to help the community, but I sometimes wonder if I'd be helping the community most if I just kept my head down and let the "normal" people do the talking.
What do you think? Is putting aside the needs of the few in order to allow the many to gain mainstream acceptance, even if it comes at the cost of our rights? I don't have an easy answer to this. I'd love to start a conversation about this-it's an interesting if incredibly uncomfortable topic.
Right there. Like most people, they weren't seeking equality for all, they just want admission to the big club that's allowed to kick minorities around.
Personally no.
We are one and the same with the lgb side.
There are very few transitioning or transitioned trans* that are hetro.
Majority in relationships are gay or lesbian or bi.
So to say we are harming the movement is absurd when we are a deep part of that movement.
More and more I am of the opinion that transsexuals, have different needs than the LGBT community as a whole, many of them coincide, but ultimately the results differ. I find myself at times on differing sides of arguments when it comes to "third gender" recognition, or unisex bathrooms, against others in the transgender umbrella, because I am a binary transwoman. I also find there are quite a few people, especially more conservative who seem totally fine accepting me, whereas; they oppose any notion of "genderfluidity". I suppose when you really think about the idea that gender is this immutable thing that you can only confirm with surgery, and never actually change is much more understandable from a conservative mindset.
I don't know exactly what can be done about this, honestly I see only but so much common ground between members of the LGBT community, and I see lots of the political power within the LGBT community concentrated in the hands of rich, white, gay men. Honestly, I don't know how much good or harm it would do to distance transsexuals or transgender people from the rest of the community (or each other), but I will say I would fight very strongly to separate them culturally I have had far too many people who have watched "RuPaul's Drag Race" think I am very much something I am not, and that infuriates me. I would love to do something that gets across the idea that transsexual women and drag queens are not related.
I think this is an interesting topic, and I have to admit, I have serious doubts if the progress that has been made, would have been made at all had the movement always been as inclusive as it is now. I don't know though, perhaps I am just being a pessimist and we could have made more progress even, but I don't see how. I thank Androgynouspainter26 for bringing up this stimulating and sensitive topic in a thoughtful and tactful way.
We maybe on different spots in the continuum, but we are one and the same. You have every right express yourself in a way that reflects who you are and need to do so. Doing the opposite of that would cause harm because then your conforming to someone else's standards and beliefs and not your own. As a result you would hurt the movement and harm yourself at the same time by conforming to what they want and not what you need. You come before everyone else regardless though because that is what is more important.
Mariah
Just going to butt in here-I think that though we do have separate needs, our causes are invariably intertwined. As I find myself moving more and more towards a binary destination in terms of presentation (if not politics), it has become abundantly clear to me that some of our needs are far outside the umbrella of the general LGBT rights agenda, BUT, I still think that we are fighting against the same ideology: The one that says "men love women and have Y chromosomes and cocks, and Women love men and don't!". So, even if we have very different needs internally, I think to an outsider we are very similar, and therefore have to fight against the same sort of people, negative messages, etc.
Also, Hikari, hon-just because it's not relivent to you doesn't mean it's not very important to other people who actually are asking for said recognition! It might be best to listen to the people who are asking for these things, and trust that their identities are just as valid as yours. Although, for the record, not all non-binary people want a third gender marker. Some of us want markers to go away completely-gender optional!
I have good friends staunchly on either side of this issue, so I just can't have a strong opinion. Society will be quicker to accept things it understands, so I do believe progress would come more quickly (certainly for passable binary types) if passable binary types carried the banner. Would it help non-binary people at all if society did expand its little circle of acceptance to binary types? I don't know. Not for a while anyway. Maybe it would be a first step.
I know I don't have the answers on this. I think it just comes down to whether you want society to change or not. Some people don't, some people do. Maybe a hidden aspect of passing privilege is that keeping society the same is viable, where for non-binary people it may not be. For them the world kind of needs to change.
Anyway, super interesting topic. You explained it really well. Also I love your hair so much! Digression!
I see this starting to get into a binary vs non binary discussion
Please keep it to topic.
Thank you.
I find this argument funny, because I've heard the exact opposite criticism used... that we are not like gay people because we actually do just want to blend in to heteronormative society and not be noticed, while so much of gay culture is about flamboyancy and "we're here, we're queer, get used to it." There is a very vocal subset of the trans* community, usually from highly gender-conforming trans women, who are basically trying to raise the case that being "truly trans" has nothing at all to do with the "gender expression movement." And radical feminists criticize us because we supposedly actually reinforce the rigid gender-expectation binary that most gay people, effeminate men and butch lesbians alike, are actively trying to do away with.
I was actually kind of expecting this post to be about that... how we somehow reinforce the very gender binary that the LGBT movement is trying to do away with.
If we really do harm the LGBT movement in the way that you've suggested, where gay people are somehow more socially "normal" than us, then honestly I think it's more the societal stigmas that people have about trans people, where they think that we're all flamboyant in-your-face deviant sexual-fetishist crossdressing drag queens or something that are the issue, not the actual reality of being trans, which is more often than not even more boring and "normal" to heteronormative culture than being gay is.
Sure, appealing to people's baser, tribal natures, and endearing ourselves to them with a common enemy (the different), and showing how much we're like them (by not being like "the different"), is a good strategy that has a history of working -- if by "working" you mean shifts hate and focus from me, on to someone else, as I mingle back into the crowd. Vicarious redemption; thanks scapegoat!
Imagine if we were talking about racial rights, and you were asking "am I too black? Am I harming our cause by just not being white enough". I'm sure that you know that darker black people get more racism, even by other black people that are lighter. The apartheid in Rwanda was based arbitrarily on how light or dark you were.
It may seem all self-sacrificing, and noble to you to allow people to use you as a vehicle for a better life for themselves -- but climb off the damn cross, you'd be just perpetuating a system of evaluation that is deeply flawed, and deeply harmful. Appealing to people's most base, animalistic sides. Have some faith in humanity, in your fellow humans to be good, reasonable, and just. Appeal to them on those levels, and don't throw in the towel, and think that your life will be the cost of someone else's happiness... no you'd be selling us all up the river. Not just transgender people, but the normies too. All of us.
Hikari - I think you summed it up very well. I have always known that we are very separate from LGB and some of that has been because ordinary LGB folk (not "leaders") have told me and other transfolk that we are not welcome in their clubs or spaces. It is a minority but not a small one. It is not the occasional person.
I think the only reason that the "T" gets tacked on to the LBG is because there is nowhere else for us to go.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 02, 2015, 10:41:21 PM
Also, Hikari, hon-just because it's not relivent to you doesn't mean it's not very important to other people who actually are asking for said recognition! It might be best to listen to the people who are asking for these things, and trust that their identities are just as valid as yours. Although, for the record, not all non-binary people want a third gender marker. Some of us want markers to go away completely-gender optional!
The issue is I do respect them, I mean there are all sorts of identities and sexualities that I don't share, but I still see the people as valid and respectable. The issue I have comes into that I actively oppose things that some people want, because our needs are different. It isn't a matter of what they want being irrelevant to me, because if it doesn't effect me then I generally support within the community.
Basically if third gender or no gender options existed, I would need to be able to opt out of them in order to support them, I am a woman, and I don't want my ID to say anything else. I don't want a "post-gender" society as some do, that is to me a very negative thing since I view gender as a very important thing, that I want to express.
What I want is for everyone to get what they want and have all the options allowed, on a legislative level. I don't think this is very likely, because legislation tends to be black and white and rarely leaving room for options. This website, is a great example of how things should be, we can have gender markers or not, and we can set them to more or less whatever we want. Getting legislation to see things in such an open and inclusive light seems much more difficult to me than simply trying to get everyone to fit in the existing framework with slight modification.
Quote from: dbrhmu on January 03, 2015, 05:11:06 AM
Hikari - I think you summed it up very well. I have always known that we are very separate from LGB and some of that has been because ordinary LGB folk (not "leaders") have told me and other transfolk that we are not welcome in their clubs or spaces. It is a minority but not a small one. It is not the occasional person.
I think the only reason that the "T" gets tacked on to the LBG is because there is nowhere else for us to go.
Don't get my wrong I am a lesbian myself, so I think that my concerns are one in the same with the LGB community when it comes to SSM and other issues, but like it doesn't seem to me to have a connection to my gender. Like I am just a woman who likes women, I don't think that means I should have to buy into any specific culture. So politically the LGB and the T are all things that I go out of my way to support if nothing else thru self interest, but culturally I would like to get a crowbar and pry the T off the LGB, gender and sexuality are not even related like that.
I know this is gonna sound bad, but like, I consider myself a more or less "normal" woman, and I define myself as such, I find the pressure to define myself as "femme" and whatever associated baggage to be just unwanted, and ultimately unnecessary in my life. I am just a woman, I don't want to be defined by who I date, or by what I was assigned at birth.
Well, as the question is framed, I would have to say "no." We can't very well be harming the LGBT movement because it's our movement. We're the T.
But in practice, I am not so sure that there is such a thing as the LGBT movement. I think it is more of a media & public relations creation that has little to do with real life. In reality, LGB issues have a lot in common with one another because they are about sexual orientation. T issues are about gender identity. The two are not remotely the same issue. Some trans* people may identify as LGB in addition to being trans*. And there are many straight trans* people as well. And many (like me) have sexual orientations other than gay, straight, lesbian, or bi.
I find it investing that much of the success we are having at all levels seems to come from separating ourselves out from the LGB communuty and insisting that T issues be recognized as different from LGB issues. Janet Mock, Laverne Cox, et al. are spokespersons for trans* people, not for LGBT as a whole. Trans* inclusive healthcare has not come thanks to NGLTF or HRC. I've had enormous local success by talking about T issues separately and apart from LGB issues.
It also bears noting that we are overshadowed by much more visible, accepted, and welcomed gay and lesbian populations when we try to take a part in LGBT issues. That leads to cisgender people who happen to be gay or bi being our spokespeople on the issues that affect us. When trans* people cannot speak up about trans* issues and are not in control of the advocacy around them, that means always being in a secondary unequal role. Being able to speak for oneself matters. And part of the change that is happening now is about trans* people becoming the ones to speak about trans* issues. That's the big revolution that no one seems to be noticing.
The OP seems to be asking about whether one must be passable and gender nonconforming to do visible work on behalf of the community. The answer, in my opinion, is "no." But there are realities here that matter. I can talk about that if you want me to, but the topic has veered, so I will avoid it unless asked to go there. :)
Hmmm...I don't think "post-gender" is what I'd like; my gender is important to who I am too! What I'd like is a culture in which gender is something that can be a central part of who you are, but does not need to be. Gender should be, dare I say it, optional: People who would like to express gender should be able to, and those who don't should be able to opt out. That being said, I think removing markers would be a positive thing since it does contribute to segregation on the basis of sex, which is obviously a very negative thing, as is any mandatory segregation. I think that having everyone's needs met on a legislative level is never going to happen though-I'm personally hoping for our culture to evolve to a point where we are all able to choose how we relate to traditional structures of gender. But, I think that in making gender a requirement for identification, we've made gender a difficult thing to "opt out" of. So, the only solution I see as viable is to de-legeslate gender, and allow it to be what we all see it as: an identity, and to treat sex as a medical status, and nothing more.
And Phoenix, I'd be happy to hear any thoughts you may have...Honestly, it's a question I'm asking because I'd like to do more for my community, but sometimes I worry that I might be hurting other trans people, since I'm pretty queer looking, and not all that passable, at least I don't think I am when I'm not wearing as much makeup as I am in my avatar. The last thing I want is to set the rights or perception of trans people back, but if my very existence is doing that to many transgender people-well, perhaps I should remain silent and in the shadows.
It seems to me that gender should be no more and no less significant than hair color.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
And Phoenix, I'd be happy to hear any thoughts you may have...Honestly, it's a question I'm asking because I'd like to do more for my community, but sometimes I worry that I might be hurting other trans people, since I'm pretty queer looking, and not all that passable, at least I don't think I am when I'm not wearing as much makeup as I am in my avatar. The last thing I want is to set the rights or perception of trans people back, but if my very existence is doing that to many transgender people-well, perhaps I should remain silent and in the shadows.
Okay, well, I think that our communities--all of them--need everyone they can get. I think that any community that would reject you or claim that you are harmful just for how you look would be weakened by doing so. I am passable. I wasn't always. I got my start in activism when I wasn't. Actually, I got it pre-transition. Then I continued during transition. I'm still going after. I found plenty to do even while not passable.
The places where I think passing has value are those spaces in which you deal with undecided people who don't understand what transgender is and who are not sure whether to support transgender people or not. Janet Mock, Carmen Carrera, and Laverne Cox are all people who are very much in the public eye. The public had to get to a place where it could accept any trans* person at all--but only a fairly "normal" looking one. Similarly, when it comes to appearing before legislators and governmental bodies, I think that someone who looks different might scare some people. We have to fight against opponents who say that transgender is about men in dresses. Someone testifying before the legislature and looking like a "man in a dress" doesn't really help. So when you plan a legislative hearing or anything like it (which, yes, I have done), you have to weigh a person's pluses against their minuses. The risk of a person putting off voters because of their appearance is a reality that has to be considered if you want to win.
But that's a long way from saying that people hurt the community by looking different. And most activism isn't about being on television or in front of the legislature. Most of my activism is about the power of relationships. Something happens for an hour in public because I spent a year having one-on-one conversations, introducing people to one another, telling stories, and making introductions so that other people listen and learn. There are relationships inside the community and outside the community. And there is activism to be done in both places as well.
When it comes to work within the community, I think that passing may actually be a detriment. There's a tendency in this community to be skeptical and distrustful of cisgender people . . . and of people who pass too well. I know I encounter that all the time and it hurts my ability to work with substantial swaths of the community because it puts something in the way that I must overcome from the start. I have had transwomen come right out and tell me that I come across too much like a ciswoman and they find that alienating.
What I said about how passing has its advantages in the public sphere needs to change. And it will. It will change because people will continue pushing to be heard even if they are not totally cisnormative. You'd be doing a great service by being a part of that push.
And the work within the community of building a stronger community, building support systems, etc. is severely neglected, but it is also crucial. And in that sphere, not passing too well may be an asset.
So no, it's not harmful to the community. But the reality is it has pluses and minuses in different settings.
And just for the record, any trans* activist who says that non-binary, non-passing, or non-normative people, hurt the community--and yes, I have heard that said--is a person who has lost their way. Ironically, the local figure who likes to make those pronouncements most is someone who admits to not being passable themselves.
So come join the party. Bring some friends. There's plenty of room for you.
I guess I just wish I could be someone that doesn't make cis people uncomfortable :/ It's very isolating, being that kind of trans person, and I really wish I could get to a point in my life where I don't stick out as much. The truth is, I do sorta think people who stick out like me are hurting our cause sometimes, it's why I started this topic. But, how much of this is based in fact and not shame isn't clear to me.
That makes a ton of sense Phoenix. And thank you for the work you do.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 05:35:02 PM
I guess I just wish I could be someone that doesn't make cis people uncomfortable :/ It's very isolating, being that kind of trans person, and I really wish I could get to a point in my life where I don't stick out as much. The truth is, I do sorta think people who stick out like me are hurting our cause sometimes, it's why I started this topic. But, how much of this is based in fact and not shame isn't clear to me.
You look great in your avatar, so maybe passing isn't such a far away idea for you. I understand the isolating feeling, I think it's hard not to feel that way sometimes being trans, passable or not. Lastly, anytime you wonder about whether you hurt something or another just by being yourself, there probably is some shame going on, but idk.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 05:35:02 PM
I guess I just wish I could be someone that doesn't make cis people uncomfortable :/ It's very isolating, being that kind of trans person, and I really wish I could get to a point in my life where I don't stick out as much. The truth is, I do sorta think people who stick out like me are hurting our cause sometimes, it's why I started this topic. But, how much of this is based in fact and not shame isn't clear to me.
Well, two things about that. First of all, who says you make cis people uncomfortable? There are quite a few who are fine with a trans* person, whether the person passes as cisgender or not.
Second, the cause is ultimately all about making the world safe for trans* people of all kinds. That means people who pass, people who don't, and people for whom passing isn't even a sensible notion. How can you possibly be hurting the cause when at the end of the day, you *are* the cause?
If have no idea where you are. If you're somewhere in the D.C. area, come see me and I'll put you to work if you want to do some work!
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 05:35:02 PM
I guess I just wish I could be someone that doesn't make cis people uncomfortable :/ It's very isolating, being that kind of trans person, and I really wish I could get to a point in my life where I don't stick out as much. The truth is, I do sorta think people who stick out like me are hurting our cause sometimes, it's why I started this topic. But, how much of this is based in fact and not shame isn't clear to me.
Honestly, you look like my sister when she was younger, and my sis is cis.... You also remind me a bit of Lucille Ball.
Quote from: mrs izzy on January 02, 2015, 09:05:10 PM
Personally no.
We are one and the same with the lgb side.
I really do have to disagree.
We are similar to the extent that we share a common struggle of acceptance by society. But to me that's where it abruptly ends. That's not to say we shouldn't stick together and pool our resources, but we have to acknowledge our differences. And our differences are that we want to change ourselves to conform to society's norms in the gender we are more comfortable in. GLB wants to make their lifestyle (for lack of a better world) into a norm.
QuoteThere are very few transitioning or transitioned trans* that are hetro.
Majority in relationships are gay or lesbian or bi.
I'd call this an artifact rather than a desired outcome for many. Many trans are GLB because they are in existing relationships that they don't want break off. They change genders and the partner is the same gender as her/him, boom, same sex relationship/marriage.
Quote
So to say we are harming the movement is absurd when we are a deep part of that movement.
I think it was Sen Barney Frank or someone else who lamented the fact that transgender people are not as vocal as gays and lesbians when it comes to our rights. Indeed, it is this way for a very good reason. The concept of transgender and transitioning for many is a process, not a destination. So once we reach "the end" whether it be SRS or some point where we are satisfied that we've transitioned to where we need to go, we really don't have to worry about the gender issues anymore and move on with life. Not so with gays and lesbians. They don't really have a process. Being gay or lesbian doesn't have a beginning and an end. Sure, they can get married now but after the wedding they are still gay.
Myself I think that at some point my gender issues will be in my past and I will fully move on with life. Whether it be partial stealth or even being out and not caring what people think, there will come a point where I'm just a woman and nothing more.
ImagineKate,
See That's what makes the world go around.
Differences of opinions.
Koodos
Quote from: Dee Walker on January 03, 2015, 03:28:44 PM
It seems to me that gender should be no more and no less significant than hair color.
If it was then a lot of transsexuals would be disappointed. Gender for many is at their core. This is why gender dysphoria strikes so hard, our core is out of sync with our exterior. I have to agree with Hikari - gender is extremely important to me and I am female and I wish to express that to the world. I'm not a third gender and my gender is not insignificant. When I hear of places like India that pass a law giving a special third gender status for transsexuals instead of allowing them to legally be their chosen gender, I view this as an extreme setback. It's separate but equal and is much like civil unions and domestic partnerships vs (same sex) marriage. It is practically segregation. With "third gender" options for transsexuals it is basically saying we cannot be accepted at the table of our chosen gender, for some reason or another, and that is that society and our Government views us as lesser and needs to make a distinction between cis and trans. It's exactly like the segregated lunch counters, bathrooms and water fountains.
Quote from: ImagineKate on January 03, 2015, 10:03:32 PM
I'd call this an artifact rather than a desired outcome for many. Many trans are GLB because they are in existing relationships that they don't want break off. They change genders and the partner is the same gender as her/him, boom, same sex relationship/marriage.
Um...no, and this is really, really offensive. A VAST majority of the trans women I know, young trans woman, who had no prior marriages before their transition identify as either gay or bi. For the record, only eight percent of relationships survive the transition process, but somewhere around seventy percent of trans women are reported to be either bisexual or gay. I am not queer because of an "artifact, rather than a desired outcome", and most of us aren't. I think it's time you re-assess your opinion on the subject.
I actually think that we are less vocal about our identities than LGBQ folk because we still face a stigma far greater than they do. Many never do get past this period of their life, in which they are visibly trans. Furthermore, even if I ever do get past it, I'm going to see this as a pivotal part of my life, and I can't just move past this. Even after the bulk of my transition is finished-I'm still a trans women. I still face a significant stigma unless I can manage to pull off a flawless stealth (which very few can), and I still won't have the right gender marker or the right "parts". The struggle doesn't just end when you start to pass hon...being trans affects us long before we transition and long after too. And, leaving our sisters behind because we've already somehow managed to make it through isn't going to make the world a better place for us. I'm always going to be a trans woman, and you're always going to be a trans women. Never forget that fact hon-it's who you are, and I dream of a world in which we can take pride in that.
Quote from: ImagineKate on January 03, 2015, 10:14:54 PM
If it was then a lot of transsexuals would be disappointed. Gender for many is at their core. This is why gender dysphoria strikes so hard, our core is out of sync with our exterior. I have to agree with Hikari - gender is extremely important to me and I am female and I wish to express that to the world. I'm not a third gender and my gender is not insignificant. When I hear of places like India that pass a law giving a special third gender status for transsexuals instead of allowing them to legally be their chosen gender, I view this as an extreme setback. It's separate but equal and is much like civil unions and domestic partnerships vs (same sex) marriage. It is practically segregation. With "third gender" options for transsexuals it is basically saying we cannot be accepted at the table of our chosen gender, for some reason or another, and that is that society and our Government views us as lesser and needs to make a distinction between cis and trans. It's exactly like the segregated lunch counters, bathrooms and water fountains.
I don't think that comment was meant to be demeaning to the role of gender in establishing our identities. I'm also transsexual, but I'm of this mindset too. Gender, like hair color, should be as significant as we'd like it to be. For many (you and I) gender happens to be more significant to us than hair color. For more than a few of my queer friends, hair color is by far more significant than gender! Everyone has the right to approach the subject from their own perspective, which is why I don't think we should impose gender on anyone. No F, no M, no nothing-if you want to express a gender, great, feel free to do it! But nobody should be required to identify as male, female, or anything else.
And yeah, adding a third gender marker would cause WAY too many problems for me to even consider it a good thing! Hence, my desire to do away with the markers entirely. Having a separate mark for F and M seems to be just another form of segregation to me.
Quote from: ImagineKate on January 03, 2015, 10:03:32 PM
I really do have to disagree.
We are similar to the extent that we share a common struggle of acceptance by society. But to me that's where it abruptly ends. That's not to say we shouldn't stick together and pool our resources, but we have to acknowledge our differences. And our differences are that we want to change ourselves to conform to society's norms in the gender we are more comfortable in. GLB wants to make their lifestyle (for lack of a better world) into a norm.
I agree with you that the T differs rather significantly from the LGB. But I respectfully differ from you in the desire of trans* people to change themselves to fit norms. Some trans* people do indeed desire that. I did and still do. But there are also quite a few trans* people for whom passing, blending in, and seeming cisnormative would be very undesirable.
When we get into non-binary identities, the idea of passing often breaks down entirely. Some non-binary folks are very happy with being perceived as belonging to one side of the binary. But many struggle with the question of how to present in a way that their identity will be recognized and respected. How does a person "pass" as bigender, for example? What does "passing" even mean? And how is it possible to be cisnormative while presenting outside the binary?
See what I mean? Different strokes for different folks and all that. And sometimes that means that conforming to the norms of society is the opposite of the point.
QuoteI'd call this an artifact rather than a desired outcome for many. Many trans are GLB because they are in existing relationships that they don't want break off. They change genders and the partner is the same gender as her/him, boom, same sex relationship/marriage.
The sexual orientations of trans* people have been studied. I'm sorry I don't have the stats off the top of my head. But they seemed to clearly indicate that LGB orientations are over represented in the trans* community. But, if memory serves, they did NOT indicate that the LGB folks made up a majority. I think they showed that a plurality was hetero identified. There were much larger numbers of folks who were LGB, asexual, and otger orientations. But it is definitely incorrect to say that hetero identified trans* people are rare. They are quite common, actually.
QuoteI think it was Sen Barney Frank or someone else who lamented the fact that transgender people are not as vocal as gays and lesbians when it comes to our rights. Indeed, it is this way for a very good reason. The concept of transgender and transitioning for many is a process, not a destination. So once we reach "the end" whether it be SRS or some point where we are satisfied that we've transitioned to where we need to go, we really don't have to worry about the gender issues anymore and move on with life. Not so with gays and lesbians. They don't really have a process. Being gay or lesbian doesn't have a beginning and an end. Sure, they can get married now but after the wedding they are still gay.
Myself I think that at some point my gender issues will be in my past and I will fully move on with life. Whether it be partial stealth or even being out and not caring what people think, there will come a point where I'm just a woman and nothing more.
I too wish more trans* people would be more vocal. :) But why they are is a whole other can of worms.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 10:21:37 PM
Um...no, and this is really, really offensive. A VAST majority of the trans women I know, young trans woman, who had no prior marriages before their transition identify as either gay or bi. For the record, only eight percent of relationships survive the transition process, but somewhere around seventy percent of trans women are reported to be either bisexual or gay. I am not queer because of an "artifact, rather than a desired outcome", and most of us aren't. I think it's time you re-assess your opinion on the subject.
Okay. Rather than try to remember stats I last looked up years ago, I went and looked the actual stats up. According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, "[r]elationships ended for 45% of those who came out to partners." So that would suggest that 55% of relationships survived. That's encouraging. :)
Sexual orientations break down as follows:
Bisexual: 25%
Lesbian/gay: 23%
Queer: 23%
Asexual: 4%
Other: 2%
So LGB orientations do make up nearly half the trans* population. And LGBQ orientations are a sold majority. But I would not describe the 23% who identify as straight as being a rarity or uncommon.
I'd probably describe the 4% who share my orientation as being uncommon though. And that's what I get for relying on stats that I don't often use instead of just looking in the first place! :)
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 10:21:37 PM
Um...no, and this is really, really offensive. A VAST majority of the trans women I know, young trans woman, who had no prior marriages before their transition identify as either gay or bi. For the record, only eight percent of relationships survive the transition process, but somewhere around seventy percent of trans women are reported to be either bisexual or gay. I am not queer because of an "artifact, rather than a desired outcome", and most of us aren't. I think it's time you re-assess your opinion on the subject.
I think you are deeply misunderstanding here. I did not mean to demean you because of your sexual orientation.
Also, yes, existing relationship, but there is also existing orientation. This is why a lot of trans women and trans men are gay/lesbian/bi. From what I see it usually goes like this - I am really a woman/man on the inside, so I want to be one on the outside, but I've always been attracted to women/men and that's not going to change. So in reality, I don't think a lot who are trans decided that they'd be trans so they can be gay/lesbian. It just sort of happened.
I would also take with a grain of salt any so-called definitive figures about transgender people based on surveys because so many of us simply disappear after transition. The turnover rate here, for example, is certainly an indication of just how many people desire to drop the trans label as soon as they are able to.
Quote
I actually think that we are less vocal about our identities than LGBQ folk because we still face a stigma far greater than they do. Many never do get past this period of their life, in which they are visibly trans. Furthermore, even if I ever do get past it, I'm going to see this as a pivotal part of my life, and I can't just move past this. Even after the bulk of my transition is finished-I'm still a trans women. I still face a significant stigma unless I can manage to pull off a flawless stealth (which very few can), and I still won't have the right gender marker or the right "parts". The struggle doesn't just end when you start to pass hon...being trans affects us long before we transition and long after too.
I disagree with the first part. This is because at one time, trans women were pretty much all stealth, with the exception of sex workers, show girls and the like. I'm sure you've read about Lynn Conway, who lived in stealth for years and only came out around the turn of the millenium because she wanted credit for her prior work. Even though I've just started transitioning, in reality I've viewed transgender issues and the process from a distance from a long time now. Much of it was focused on stealth and blending in. It makes sense too, because you are treated differently, from what I was told and you avoid many of the issues that trans-ness brings. Stealth is also a spectrum. I can never truly be deep stealth but I'd be happy being stealth to strangers. Many people are happy with that. Some want full, deep, "it goes with me to the grave" stealth and do not tell anyone, not even their sexual partners. This is dangerous but I can understand why they do it. I really don't want the eyes on me. I don't want the distinction at first glance, is how I'd put it, because human nature is to regard us as lesser.
I don't really believe the struggle ever ends either, but I do believe it gets much easier once you've moved past a certain point. Beyond that point, many want to simply be seen as women (or men) and just move on with life. Being trans can be a nice thing but since it is a condition often brought about by distress, I don't think most people want to linger on it. On a side note, I'm sorry about your situation and passing and I really hope that you can find your way to pass (if you so desire.)
QuoteAnd, leaving our sisters behind because we've already somehow managed to make it through isn't going to make the world a better place for us. I'm always going to be a trans woman, and you're always going to be a trans women. Never forget that fact hon-it's who you are, and I dream of a world in which we can take pride in that.
I don't really view it as leaving anyone behind. There is plenty that can be done while blending, passing or even stealth. As far as making the world a better place, most did not decide to transition to become activists. We just want to relieve our dysphoria and get on with life. There is really nothing wrong with that. And I have no illusion that I'll stop being a trans woman. But at some point the trans label becomes superfluous because trans is a journey, not a destination. Therefore there is less emphasis on being trans, and more about being a woman. I don't plan to go around like Laverne Cox, for example, shouting to the world that I am trans, out and proud. Maybe I'll be more like Lynn Conway, living quietly but still acknowledging my trans-ness to people who won't have a negative reaction. Notice the difference - Laverne is known primarily because she is trans. Lynn is known primarily because of her work. Put another way, I believe in letting my accomplishments, not my identity speak for me. Being trans for me is a footnote. People may or may not know (I won't care much if they do) but I don't want people to focus on it. The reason for this is simple - when your primary feature is that you are trans, people can't seem to stop focusing on it. Look at interviews with Laverne Cox and Janet Mock. The question about surgery and whether her (Janet) husband knew pretty much always comes up. Their work seems to be treated like much of an afterthought.
QuoteI don't think that comment was meant to be demeaning to the role of gender in establishing our identities. I'm also transsexual, but I'm of this mindset too. Gender, like hair color, should be as significant as we'd like it to be. For many (you and I) gender happens to be more significant to us than hair color. For more than a few of my queer friends, hair color is by far more significant than gender! Everyone has the right to approach the subject from their own perspective, which is why I don't think we should impose gender on anyone. No F, no M, no nothing-if you want to express a gender, great, feel free to do it! But nobody should be required to identify as male, female, or anything else.
And yeah, adding a third gender marker would cause WAY too many problems for me to even consider it a good thing! Hence, my desire to do away with the markers entirely. Having a separate mark for F and M seems to be just another form of segregation to me.
It really should be a choice, but at the same time removing all distinction between the genders is going to render gender identity and transition close to useless and merely cosmetic, instead of relieving an underlying condition.
Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 03, 2015, 10:40:07 PM
Okay. Rather than try to remember stats I last looked up years ago, I went and looked the actual stats up. According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, "[r]elationships ended for 45% of those who came out to partners." So that would suggest that 55% of relationships survived. That's encouraging. :)
Sexual orientations break down as follows:
Bisexual: 25%
Lesbian/gay: 23%
Queer: 23%
Asexual: 4%
Other: 2%
So LGB orientations do make up nearly half the trans* population. And LGBQ orientations are a sold majority. But I would not describe the 23% who identify as straight as being a rarity or uncommon.
I'd probably describe the 4% who share my orientation as being uncommon though. And that's what I get for relying on stats that I don't often use instead of just looking in the first place! :)
And bear in mind this is people who acknowledge that they are trans. Many who are in straight relationships don't go out telling the world, because they'd rather not rock the boat... So I suspect the number in straight relationships is actually much higher than polled.
Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 03, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
I agree with you that the T differs rather significantly from the LGB. But I respectfully differ from you in the desire of trans* people to change themselves to fit norms. Some trans* people do indeed desire that. I did and still do. But there are also quite a few trans* people for whom passing, blending in, and seeming cisnormative would be very undesirable.
When we get into non-binary identities, the idea of passing often breaks down entirely. Some non-binary folks are very happy with being perceived as belonging to one side of the binary. But many struggle with the question of how to present in a way that their identity will be recognized and respected. How does a person "pass" as bigender, for example? What does "passing" even mean? And how is it possible to be cisnormative while presenting outside the binary?
See what I mean? Different strokes for different folks and all that. And sometimes that means that conforming to the norms of society is the opposite of the point.
I don't doubt that, but I doubt that non binary is a majority. The majority of trans people do want to conform. I'll grant though, that non binary is not an insignificant stat. But it is not dominant. That said, they still do deserve respect.
QuoteThe sexual orientations of trans* people have been studied. I'm sorry I don't have the stats off the top of my head. But they seemed to clearly indicate that LGB orientations are over represented in the trans* community. But, if memory serves, they did NOT indicate that the LGB folks made up a majority. I think they showed that a plurality was hetero identified. There were much larger numbers of folks who were LGB, asexual, and otger orientations. But it is definitely incorrect to say that hetero identified trans* people are rare. They are quite common, actually.
I too wish more trans* people would be more vocal. :) But why they are is a whole other can of worms.
This revolves around the question of stealth. I really don't think we'll get an exact figure because it is impossible to count the number of stealth. For starters we don't even know how many there are. But I have a feeling that it's pretty big, based on trends even in our small community here such as the high turnover rate.
I don't have time to post a substantial reply tonight...but I will say this: Back in the time where almost all trans women were stealth, it was because you were only allowed to transition if you were straight, passable, etc. I don't know how much history you have about the early programs out there, but they would have barred anyone who looked even slightly masculine-you, me, and most of the other girls here-from even transitioning to begin with. Just something to keep in mind. I have a hard time believing that most of us ever get to move past this phase of our lives and have privacy; my activism is as much a product of my belief that I won't ever be able to "conform" as it is out of a moral commitment to making the world a better place for people like us. I'd love to let my accomplishments speak for me as well of course, and that's how I want to approach the situation. But have you ever considered what you might do if this continues to be all people see? How will you cope if you find yourself getting stared at three years into your transition, despite your best efforts otherwise? Hopefully, you'd fight for the right to be treated like a human being; that's what I'm doing now.
I'm sorry if I seemed confrontational before; I suppose I'm just used to expecting the whole "you aren't trans enough!" thing around here.
Quote from: ImagineKate on January 03, 2015, 11:50:12 PM
I don't doubt that, but I doubt that non binary is a majority. The majority of trans people do want to conform. I'll grant though, that non binary is not an insignificant stat. But it is not dominant. That said, they still do deserve respect.
I don't know about that. My personal belief is that non-binary identities are the majority. There's an interesting academic paper by psychologist Anne Vitale called The Gender Variant Phenomenon--A Developmental Review, in which she observes that clinically, trans* populations can be broken down as follows:
QuoteGroup One (G1) is best described as those natal males who have a high degree of cross-sexed gender identity. In these individuals, we can hypothesize that the prenatal androgenization process--if there was any at all--was minimal, leaving the default female identity intact. Furthermore, the expression of female identity of those individuals appears impossible or very difficult for them to conceal.
Group Two (G2) is composed of natal females who almost universally report a life- long history of rejecting female dress conventions along with, girls' toys and activities, and have a strong distaste for their female secondary sex characteristics. These individuals typically take full advantage of the social permissiveness allowed women in many societies to wear their hair short and dress in loose, gender-neutral clothing. These individuals rarely marry, preferring instead to partner with women who may or may not identify as lesbian. Group Two is the mirror image of Group One.
Group Three (G3) is composed of natal males who identify as female but who act and appear normally male. We can hypothesize that prenatal androgenization was sufficient to allow these individuals to appear and act normally as males but insufficient to establish a firm male gender identity. For these female-identified males, the result is a more complicated and insidious sex/gender discontinuity. Typically, from earliest childhood these individuals suffer increasingly painful and chronic gender dysphoria. They tend to live secretive lives, often making increasingly stronger attempts to convince themselves and others that they are male.
This paper was published in 2003, so terminology has changed since then. Non-binary wasn't on the radar the way it is now. But the G3 group sounds a lot like a sort of non-binary on the mtf spectrum. .
And although we cannot know what happens in the heart or the head of another person, we can see the expression of it. There seem to be an awful lot of trans women who express a lot of very masculine traits and seem quite happy about it. And vice versa. That's not a binary gender expression. Seeing that might make a person wonder whether the person is truly binary or just not stating a non-binary identity because they don't feel comfortable with the concept of non-binary. And vice versa on the ftm spectrum.
But there is nothing that tries to measure this. No stats exist that I know of.
Quote
This revolves around the question of stealth. I really don't think we'll get an exact figure because it is impossible to count the number of stealth. For starters we don't even know how many there are. But I have a feeling that it's pretty big, based on trends even in our small community here such as the high turnover rate.
This depends largely on what one means by stealth, no? Stealth is not an all or nothing thing.
In any case, the point of a survey is not to find and interview everyone. The point is to gather a statistical sample from which conclusions can be drawn about the whole. It's the same way political polling works.
Group 3 doesn't sound like NB. They sound like MtFs who don't pass nor do they care to. I was under the impression that NB meant identifying neither as male nor female.
As for polls, in this case the sample might not include a representative sample of stealth due to the nature of being stealth.
The gay community has done nothing for transexuals,I've been told my sort aren't wanted on their scene.
I think some think we hurt the lgbt movement. I used to work at a gay club as a dancer (not a stripper lol) and needless to say when I wasn't dancing a lot of guys would try to hit on me, and because of my masculine demeanor at the time the first thing I was ask is if I were gay straight or bi since it was very common for straight men to work there. I would tell them I considered my self straight, but I mainly dated trans women (this was years ago before I would admit I was transgender myself ). A lot of gay men have a lot of really horrible things to say about trans women. Just last night I was talking to a bisexual girl who said some pretty nasty stuff I'd rather not repeat about a trans friend of mine. I hadn't seen her in a while and she didn't know until after she said that I was starting to transition as well. When I told her she was nothing but apologies, but it showed me what she really thought. I know the people I have herd these things from do not speak for everyone, still I've heard bigotry from them towards the trans community much like what they get from the christian right wing. I have even got a lot of hatefulness from trans women I know personally when I told them about me. I'm not sure what it is about being trans but it would def be easier to just be gay.
On the other hand the straight people I have came out to, which isn't many people, but all people I thought would never in a million years accept it first wanted to know it I were gay. I replied, that's not really how it works but no I still like women. Once I told them that it was like well I don't care what you want to look like and they were fine with it. Before I started all this and I was just a masculine guy that dated trans women (which I was very open about) no one seemed to care. I would hear a joke here and there that could be interpenetrated as hate, but it would just be a friend messing with me with no malice intended.
I also live in a small small town in GA that you would expect people to shun me like they did Ron in the Dallas Buyers Club. People will even open up to me and tell me they would date certain trans girls I've brought around.
So I guess my point is from my experience is that the LGB part of th LGBT community seems to have a problem with transgender girls I am not sure about trans guys, but a whole lot of the straight community just sees a girl and it makes it easier for them I think. I am not naive enough to believe this to be the norm, but I don't think it would hurt the LGBT movement. In fact, if you are trying to appeal to straight America it might help in some ways. I know it would help our portion of the community.
I remember when Kristen Beck the Navy S.E.A.L. and pentagon adviser came out, she said her reception was about 50/50. I can't help but to think she helped tons of people that felt different including gay men that were in the military or really just gay men that were expected to be a certain way because of their role in society. It helped me in some ways in realizing I could be who I lt I was suppose to. So I think it is wrong to make the assumption we hurt it. If anything we are helping it.
These are my own experiences with people and they my simply be unique to my surroundings. I really doubt it though.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 10:21:37 PM
Um...no, and this is really, really offensive.
You might find people easier to deal with if you took less offence at what they say and that includes this comment. When you fire back at people you make them defensive. Why not return with a question like
"Why do you say that? My experience differs" and let them
explain themselves rather than
defend themselves.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 10:21:37 PMA VAST majority of the trans women I know, young trans woman, who had no prior marriages before their transition identify as either gay or bi.
Nonetheless, the scenario that Kate outlined does happen. Many of us are changing our outward presentation and our place in society to match our inner selves. Our inner core, what makes us "us" is difficult to change - usually impossible - which is why the process of transition focuses on what can be changed, the physical.
Our natal development is all screwed up which is why we are in this whole mess in the first place, so it is not surprising that our presentation, gender and sexuality are all over the place instead of being neatly aligned like the vast majority of the population.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 10:21:37 PMEven after the bulk of my transition is finished-I'm still a trans women. I still face a significant stigma unless I can manage to pull off a flawless stealth (which very few can),
You do not need to pull off flawless stealth to fit in to society. I have come across transwomen who knew they did not pass, made some casual remark about their trans-history and where then horrified to find that they had outed themselves. They
were passing but because their standards for "passing" where much higher than the cis-population's standards they thought that they were not and they were not overly happy. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow and take things at face value and if it looks like you are passing then assume that you are. It is not an easy habit to learn, but it can be done.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 03, 2015, 10:21:37 PMNever forget that fact hon-it's who you are, and I dream of a world in which we can take pride in that.
Why? It is something that happened to me, I had no choice in it like having brown hair. I am not proud of having brown hair or grey eyes. It just is.
I do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality. It's who I am, and what I like-and I don't appreciate it when people insinuate it's because of some external circumstance or because I'm somehow defective. I feel strongly about this issue, and while it's true that we do have a wider range of sexual orientations than most people, It makes me feel uncomfortable when you say that this is just some birth defect.
And I'm sorry for being so aggressive here. I really am-this has been a hard time for me, and this whole trans thing is starting to really frustrate me. I just want this phase of my life to be over to be honest-I'm going to continue to advocate for our rights, that's never going to change. But, I'm sick of every single soul I've ever met knowing about my medical history. Frankly, I wish I had the option to pull off flawless stealth; I know we all do. It's not that I'd use that opportunity, but being able to control which people know does sound like something we all strive for. So, I'm sorry if I sound so angry. I'm feeling a bit stuck at the moment, and I apologize for how I'm coming off.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 05:10:46 PM
I do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality. It's who I am, and what I like-and I don't appreciate it when people insinuate it's because of some external circumstance or because I'm somehow defective. I feel strongly about this issue, and while it's true that we do have a wider range of sexual orientations than most people, It makes me feel uncomfortable when you say that this is just some birth defect.
I personally believe people spend way to much time trying to put everyone in categories for how they leave their lives. I think certain categories are useful medically and in society, but anyone who isn't what everyone else perceives as "normal" get lumped into a category that put a negative condentation on what is and has been very normal going back to even ancient societies.
People are who they are and like what they like and it effects no one directly but them. I know it is not at all realistic to expect society to change this, but things would be much better if people were just able to live their lives.
Kinda off topic but still......
I favor a differential ontology, or that everyone (everything) is different, and it is their difference and uniqueness that even qualifies them as distinct entities. I view categories as heuristics -- something we certainly can't go without, and are useful beyond measure, but still just cognitive short-cuts to deal with the overwhelming diversity of the world.
That said, I was talking with my sister yesterday about this topic. I guess I'm group three, there, as much as I don't like it. When I hear those claiming to have been aware of their gender incongruity since three, I have a hard time believing that they aren't lying, and if I wasn't aware of so many documented cases, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, but because I am, I have to. Makes me feel less transgender than them... not like it is a competition... but it kind of is... having not realized it myself until puberty, and not having super stereotypically female interests, and being masculine in appearance...
I still count though, and I don't need to meet a gold standard, even if I stand out, and make the gold standards look bad -- I'm still doing it.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 05:10:46 PM
I do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality. It's who I am, and what I like-and I don't appreciate it when people insinuate it's because of some external circumstance or because I'm somehow defective. I feel strongly about this issue, and while it's true that we do have a wider range of sexual orientations than most people, It makes me feel uncomfortable when you say that this is just some birth defect.
And I'm sorry for being so aggressive here. I really am-this has been a hard time for me, and this whole trans thing is starting to really frustrate me. I just want this phase of my life to be over to be honest-I'm going to continue to advocate for our rights, that's never going to change. But, I'm sick of every single soul I've ever met knowing about my medical history. Frankly, I wish I had the option to pull off flawless stealth; I know we all do. It's not that I'd use that opportunity, but being able to control which people know does sound like something we all strive for. So, I'm sorry if I sound so angry. I'm feeling a bit stuck at the moment, and I apologize for how I'm coming off.
I have to admit, it makes me quite uncomfortable to think of my sexuality in terms of being "screwed up", and I am of the opinion that perhaps it is the fact that being trans makes one confront so much social stigma that barriers to sexuality are more irrelevant to us that that is why our range tends to be much wider than the cisgender population.... I have to admit, I really did like the idea that hormones would make me straight or at least bisexual, since that would give me the option of seeming more "normal" but, I have long since made peace with the idea that I am a woman who likes women. There is nothing wrong with my sexuality or anyone elses really.
Also, I think you are being pretty reasonable Andogynouspainter26, I mean you are being tactful and respectful, giving opinions on things from your own experiences and points of view, I don't think you are coming off badly at all. I have to admit, I just want to be done with this whole trans thing, and I expect that at some point after I complete my physical transition, that is exactly what I will be for all intents and purposes.
Andogynouspainter26 is clearly impressively intelligent, but reasonable? I want to slap her in her gorgeous face!
I know she's an artist, and maybe it took her a week, and a team of fifteen to pull off that avatar, but based on that she looks beautiful, and super cool.
QuoteI do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality.
I said our development was screwed up and that results in a wider range of sexualities than is common in the cis population.
Our development leads 41% of us to attempt suicide and all of us to have a dysphoria that affects us to the point that we are prepared to take huge risks and treatments to quell it. Personally I think that means our development is screwed up. Cis people's natal development generally results in their identity, sexuality, gender and physical states all being aligned and they form the vast majority of the population thus defining "normal development" by simple weight of numbers
As far as having everyone know your medical history, I feel much the same myself so I only discuss it with doctors. If anyone else is crass enough to ask I just tell them that it is a personal issue and is not available for discussion.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 05:10:46 PM
I do feel hurt though when you say that my sexuality is just the result of "screwed up" natal development; there's nothing wrong or screwed up with my sexuality. It's who I am, and what I like-and I don't appreciate it when people insinuate it's because of some external circumstance or because I'm somehow defective. I feel strongly about this issue, and while it's true that we do have a wider range of sexual orientations than most people, It makes me feel uncomfortable when you say that this is just some birth defect.
If you feel that it is not screwed up and you embrace it, absolutely wonderful. However, bear in mind that not everyone shares your view. Otherwise it wouldn't be called gender dysphoria. Granted, some refer to it as gender variance, but the notion that we are how we are because "some anomaly happened somewhere along the way, which is how we got here" is not uncommon.
QuoteAnd I'm sorry for being so aggressive here. I really am-this has been a hard time for me, and this whole trans thing is starting to really frustrate me. I just want this phase of my life to be over to be honest-I'm going to continue to advocate for our rights, that's never going to change. But, I'm sick of every single soul I've ever met knowing about my medical history. Frankly, I wish I had the option to pull off flawless stealth; I know we all do. It's not that I'd use that opportunity, but being able to control which people know does sound like something we all strive for. So, I'm sorry if I sound so angry. I'm feeling a bit stuck at the moment, and I apologize for how I'm coming off.
No worries. I am just beginning and I don't know what is in store for me. But I am prepared to go all the way and do whatever it takes. I think that you too will find your place. It just takes time and effort, some of which you've expended already, I know.
Quote from: Hikari on January 04, 2015, 05:40:29 PM
I have to admit, it makes me quite uncomfortable to think of my sexuality in terms of being "screwed up", and I am of the opinion that perhaps it is the fact that being trans makes one confront so much social stigma that barriers to sexuality are more irrelevant to us that that is why our range tends to be much wider than the cisgender population.... I have to admit, I really did like the idea that hormones would make me straight or at least bisexual, since that would give me the option of seeming more "normal" but, I have long since made peace with the idea that I am a woman who likes women. There is nothing wrong with my sexuality or anyone elses really.
Spider-man is awesome. But he's the result of someone's screwing up... it doesn't have to necessarily be a bad thing. We all know a lot of people weren't planned either, but here they are, and their life is a wonderful thing. The process is what is screwed, not the result.
To speak of defects and such is just idealism... the divine/natural order not being conformed to -- which is arguably the sole cause of our plights. Something screwing up means that something else was intended, and this was prevented from coming to fruition for whatever reason.
Also, consider that if we're mutants, then perhaps there is a cure(!) that isn't what you'd prefer, but is based on the perceived natural/divine order? Maybe your female characteristics are the mistake, and need to be extirpated from your being, in order to make things wholly again!
Quote from: Leslie36369 on January 04, 2015, 01:02:19 AM
So I guess my point is from my experience is that the LGB part of th LGBT community seems to have a problem with transgender girls I am not sure about trans guys, but a whole lot of the straight community just sees a girl and it makes it easier for them I think. I am not naive enough to believe this to be the norm, but I don't think it would hurt the LGBT movement. In fact, if you are trying to appeal to straight America it might help in some ways. I know it would help our portion of the community.
It seems that a great many trans* guys still emerge from the lesbian community. Or at least I still know quite a few. And it's amazing how many of them I hear expressing regret over there transitions because of how they are now treated in society. That seems to be both because of how men are treated generally and because of distress over the way they are treated by the lesbian community. The L community does not sound very friendly to trans* people.
And this is before we even start talking about TERFs and how some of them feel about transmen.
Quote from: dbrhmu on January 04, 2015, 06:24:17 PM
I said our development was screwed up and that results in a wider range of sexualities than is common in the cis population.
Nothing's wrong with me. I'm just a habanero pepper. If the world is a bowl of soup, then I am the spice that makes it taste a lot more interesting.
Nature loves variety and trans* people are a part of that variety. There is a tendency to think that things that differ from the majority are somehow wrong. But I'm not so sure that really is wrong.
I recognize that some feel that being trans* is a defect. I'm not sure it is possible to definitively answer whether it is or not, but obviously I do not feel defective. :)
Quote from: dbrhmu on January 04, 2015, 06:24:17 PMOur development leads 41% of us to attempt suicide and all of us to have a dysphoria that affects us to the point that we are prepared to take huge risks and treatments to quell it.
Really? Our development does that? Don't you think the severe, pervasive, extreme levels of discrimination, violence, and stigma that we face might have something to do with the suicide rates and the degree of dysphoria? I don't know that much is inherently all that difficult about being trans*. It seems to me that alleviating the discrimination, violence, and stigma might do a great deal to both lower the suicide rate and the levels of distress associated with dysphoria.
In January 2014, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute released a study entitled Suicide Attempts Among Transgender And Gender Non-Conforming Adults. Among its findings was a determination that "mental health factors and experiences of harassment, discrimination, violence and rejection may interact to produce a marked vulnerability to suicidal behavior in transgender and gender non-conforming individuals." In other words, if trans* people weren't subject to such outrageous discrimination, there probably would not be a 41% suicide attempt rate.
Quote from: Elsa Delyth on January 04, 2015, 05:39:09 PM
That said, I was talking with my sister yesterday about this topic. I guess I'm group three, there, as much as I don't like it. When I hear those claiming to have been aware of their gender incongruity since three, I have a hard time believing that they aren't lying, and if I wasn't aware of so many documented cases, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, but because I am, I have to.
To me that article was kind of an "aha" moment. I have always felt a gulf of identity between myself and other trans* people, especially trans* women. So I always wondered why. After all, they and I both say we identify as women, so why does it seem like there is such a large gulf between us that makes it so hard to understand one another's identities? Why do we so seldom seem to be on the same page?
Well . . . If Anne Vitale is right, then it's because we identify differently. Her ddescription of G1:
QuoteGroup One (G1) is best described as those natal males who have a high degree of cross-sexed gender identity. In these individuals, we can hypothesize that the prenatal androgenization process--if there was any at all--was minimal, leaving the default female identity intact. Furthermore, the expression of female identity of those individuals appears impossible or very difficult for them to conceal.
I spent my entire pre-transition life with people telling me I didn't seem much like a guy, there was something "very female" about me, etc. I never entirely managed to pass as a guy. And when you put me in with a group of ciswomen, we fit one another like gloves. All the social stuff fits. In fact, from my very first meeting with my very first trans* person, before I transitioned, I've had people putting me under the microscope for how much of a %#+* girl I am. It sounds very much like "the default female identity" is intact and "the expression of female identity . . . [was] impossible or very difficult . . . to conceal."
Her discrimination of group one (G1) sounds a lot like me. And most of the trans* women I know sound more like group three (G3).
Quote from: Elsa Delyth on January 04, 2015, 05:39:09 PM
Makes me feel less transgender than them... not like it is a competition... but it kind of is... having not realized it myself until puberty, and not having super stereotypically female interests, and being masculine in appearance...
I still count though, and I don't need to meet a gold standard, even if I stand out, and make the gold standards look bad -- I'm still doing it.
You most definitely still count. And no, it is not a competition. It also really is not about how people look. With respect, I think that ImagineKate was reading something into the excerpt I posted that simply is not there. Neither the excerpt nor the entire article has anything to do with how people look or how they pass. The point of the article is that there are different degrees of identity. When we say we identify as female (or male) we don't entirely mean the same thing because some people have a very intact female identity and others have one that is largely female, but with a greater degree of male identity having formed. The very definition of non-binary. It just means the diversity of the trans* community is much greater than even we often realize. Because there are different kinds of MTF, FTM etc. I like variety, so I like that thought. :)
But it definitely does NOT make anyone better, worse, less, or more trans*.
And socializing with trans* people has been a rather painful experience for me at many times. This insight helps it hurt less because I feel like my experience is validated and explained.
Well, I would consider myself under group one too, under your interpretation. I figured like identified, and asked for dolls and dresses and insisted they were a girl since three, or something. Sure, I've never been able to pass as a normal guy, that is for sure. Everyone ALWAYS thinks I'm gay, even though I think I'm being super manly. My older brother said that the Katy Parry song "you're so gay" was about me when it came out.
I meant only by appearance, and self-awareness. I'm not psychologically divided at all. My identity isn't partial, I will however disagree with stereotypes being substantially indicative of one's gender.
Even my Dad told me awhile ago that I had women's hands. I have small slender hands for my size, and my digit ratio is in the female range for the 12th week hormone wash that they reference.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 09:26:02 PM
So, just to be clear...my sexuality is an abberation from the natural order, is that what you're saying? My sex at birth was an unfortunate accident of biology (group one, if you care-although that list is incredibly limiting, and also very inaccurate in my own opinion. Frankly, I think it's a bit silly even), but my sexuality is by no means a defect. It's of the same significance as hair color-Homosexuality and bisexuality frequently occur in nature, and even if they didn't, why do you think that the natural order is a good thing? If we kept conforming to the natural order, what would out state of being be? We'd die at thirty, we'd all be living in caves and kill each other for scraps. Murder, rape, canabalism, all of these things are our natural state of being. Frankly, I think you're being very heterosexist and I'd appreciate it if you could apologize.
You've misinterpreted me, I'm saying the opposite. That there is no natural/divine order, or ways that things ought to be, things just are. I'm opposed to idealism, and was saying that I see it as the major, if not the sole cause of our problems, in the sense that people wish to impose normativity on us, and authorize they're doing so through idealism, or the reifying of categories as metaphysically foundational to reality.
If however, it was my slap your face comment, that you may have found off putting, I meant nothing by it, and meant it to be a compliment -- but if it was in bad taste then I apologize.
I feel some adrenaline responding to your comment. I would like for you to like me.
Hahaha, ohhhhh!!!! See, this is why I never have philosophy discussions on forums. There's always a miscommunication like this at some point. No, you're absolutely right-but, as long as it doesn't cause anyone harm, I have a hard time seeing anything as a defect. Hence, my dysphoria is, but my fluid sexuality, not so.
I accept instrumental oughts, in the sense that if you don't want bad teeth then you ought to brush 'em.
So, I accept the modern definition of a mental illness problem only in this sense, and thus I would call dysphoria dysfunctional, or a defect in the sense that it interferes with normal functioning, and our senses of well-being, and is a problem only to this extent. Because we wish to function happily, and with a half-decent sense of well-being, dysphoria can be said to be a defect, or a malfunction with regards to these aims -- but like I said, I see an inadequate lexicon, and idealistic inclinations to be the major, if not sole cause of the dysphoria. Otherwise we could be who we are, and no one would think much of it.
Agreed!
Hmm...I'm not sure I understand one thing though. Are you saying there is no biological component to this at all? Because I don't think that's right either. Otherwise, why would we need to alter our bodies? I'm certain there is a real medical component to this; I don't feel the need to change my body because of my feminine inclinations, I feel feminine inclinations because of my need to change my body. You know, if you havn't read it yet, you really should check out Whipping Girl by Julia Serano; it's not completely in line with my own way of thinking, but it's an interesting look at how we exist as we do.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 09:58:31 PM
Agreed!
Hmm...I'm not sure I understand one thing though. Are you saying there is no biological component to this at all? Because I don't think that's right either. Otherwise, why would we need to alter our bodies? I'm certain there is a real medical component to this; I don't feel the need to change my body because of my feminine inclinations, I feel feminine inclinations because of my need to change my body. You know, if you havn't read it yet, you really should check out Whipping Girl by Julia Serano; it's not completely in line with my own way of thinking, but it's an interesting look at how we exist as we do.
I haven't read Whipping Girl yet, but I've heard plenty about it, and think I grasp its main thesis -- but still plan to check it out.
I'm not saying that there is no biological basis... I don't think that I'm allowed to give links to other forums, but surely just referencing it is fine! On the crossdream life forum I made a thread about the biological components, under the same name I use here in the "what is crossdreaming" section.
Thinking in terms of difference is difficult, (dare I say "unnatural"!), but we can have deviation and relatedness without a standard. We are all related, and similar, trancing back to a common ancestor, but not an original human, that had all of our original features, morphologies, concepts, and such. Our common ancestor, the source by which we trace our relatedness is quite removed from a modern human, and no historical source of similarity actually accounts for the similarity itself, the features themselves, only their possibility.
Now, neither nature nor nurture is solely responsible for any of our features, or traits, it takes both genetics and environments to produce biological traits and morphologies. All natal women wouldn't be dressing the same, doing similar exercises, attempting to conform to different standards if not for the environmental factors of culture, geology, and archetypes -- but they also have a biological, hormonal affinity which makes them wish to emulate, and conform to certain standards, and archetypes, which binds them together into the female category. This is my belief, and I attribute these visceral urges to hormonal balances, which generate archetypal affinities.
If any of that makes sense!
I understand.
Personally, I believe that gender is entirely the result of social conditioning. Sex, however, is not-there may not be any biological basis in my penchant for dresses, but I do know there is a biological reason for my desire to alter my body. At least, this is how I see it. My thought is that the brain makes for itself a map of the body during development; and, due to hormonal imbalances in-vitro, that map comes up wrong for transexuals. We are literally born expecting a body different from the one we have, if that makes any sense. So, gender and sex are seperate-one is cultural, the other is not. That's my two cents!
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 10:29:47 PM
I understand.
Personally, I believe that gender is entirely the result of social conditioning. Sex, however, is not-there may not be any biological basis in my penchant for dresses, but I do know there is a biological reason for my desire to alter my body. At least, this is how I see it. My thought is that the brain makes for itself a map of the body during development; and, due to hormonal imbalances in-vitro, that map comes up wrong for transexuals. We are literally born expecting a body different from the one we have, if that makes any sense. So, gender and sex are seperate-one is cultural, the other is not. That's my two cents!
Not to be critical, but I don't think that makes evolutionary sense, as if we had an a priori expectation for our morphologies, we couldn't adapt, and change them with our environments. We wouldn't need to exercise and lead certain lifestyles in order to control our morphologies to the extent that we do. Before the age of twelve, even bones are changeable. We lose adaptive potential as we age.
We can have visceral expectations for our bodies though, which, I think is due to hormonal affinities -- we don't have the forms we're supposed to, using the archetypes of those that we emulate, and take as life idols, or guides for functioning, and surviving in the world.
This becomes all the more traumatic when we're told that our visceral identifications are wrong, and we're not supposed to be like, and look to the people that know that we're supposed to.
Quote from: Elsa Delyth on January 04, 2015, 05:39:09 PM
I favor a differential ontology, or that everyone (everything) is different, and it is their difference and uniqueness that even qualifies them as distinct entities. I view categories as heuristics -- something we certainly can't go without, and are useful beyond measure, but still just cognitive short-cuts to deal with the overwhelming diversity of the world.
That said, I was talking with my sister yesterday about this topic. I guess I'm group three, there, as much as I don't like it. When I hear those claiming to have been aware of their gender incongruity since three, I have a hard time believing that they aren't lying, and if I wasn't aware of so many documented cases, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, but because I am, I have to. Makes me feel less transgender than them... not like it is a competition... but it kind of is... having not realized it myself until puberty, and not having super stereotypically female interests, and being masculine in appearance...
I still count though, and I don't need to meet a gold standard, even if I stand out, and make the gold standards look bad -- I'm still doing it.
well, just for the sake of argument, if there is a genetic bases to the development of dysphoria, as such biological in nature, it can be stated the genes can be activated at any time by whatever mechanism the prompts them to active, so theoretically a person greater then 100 could have the dysphoria activated the same as a 3 or4 year old.
Genes are tricksy business...
They are environmentally activated, but also have the effects that they do due to their relation to other genes, or their place in the system as a whole. Dogs use the same genes for scent discernment that we use for colour discernment. That's one level of complexity -- the theoretical level has to do with their survival/mating function. For their structure to be preserved down the generations, they have to at least be benign, but usually advantageous. If they are merely benign, then it is just a coincidence that there are so many of us, and we could easily be phased out without harming the gene pool...
For them to be advantageous we have to come up with some narrative that would suggest that these traits are advantageous to our own individual survival/reproduction. People tend to come up with kin selection narratives, which suggest a benefit to the group or community, but kin selection is considered a fairly defunct idea in biology since the selfish gene. Now, most biologists believe that every gene must be in itself advantageous to its own survival.
Genes are complex, and our research into them specifically is still in its infancy, and I'm not a huge fan of evolutionary just-so stories, which are nigh impossible to falsify, so I tend to steer clear of speaking about them specifically.
Nonsense, Asami! I welcome the discourse-you seem like one of the rare people in the world with a well-formed opinion on this, and it's good to discuss this with someone on an intelectual level.
I don't think it's an absolute priory expectation of our morphologies-just a vague guideline for what parts to expect where. We are innately predisposed to recognize faces, and even to find harmony in the proportions of the human boy (for example, hellenic architecture) Consider the phantom limb phenomenon...remove someone's leg, and they are going to be convinced that it is still there, because their brain, both through biology and adaptive learning expects a leg to be there. An even stranger thing happens when the opposite happens; I'm under the impression that for some ridiculous reason, discussing BIID, but you understand where I'm going. I think this must be the result of a brain that has been femimisned in vitro and therefore expects a female anatomy. Anything relating to feminine behavior from the person is just a symptom.
It doesn't fully make sense to me even now, but I simply cannot come up with any other explanation for why I hate my genetalia, and why I hated them before I had any idea what part was considered "normal" for boys and for girls. What is your theory on the matter?
What's your thought on this?
And Stephaniec, I must disagree---I don't believe dysphoria can suddenly become activated. It's simply something that some people are able to repress for longer than others.
We are not trans because of evolutionary reasons. Whether it is biological, hormonal, environmental or some combination of those is hard to say. It is safe to say it can differ for many of us as why we are the way we are, but we didn't evolve into be trans. Some may have realized earlier or later than others, but we didn't evolve to become trans. For what ever reason are mind and bodies are the way we are and respond to hormones the particular way we do.
Mariah
Quote from: Elsa Delyth on January 04, 2015, 10:43:47 PM
Not to be critical, but I don't think that makes evolutionary sense, as if we had an a priori expectation for our morphologies, we couldn't adapt, and change them with our environments. We wouldn't need to exercise and lead certain lifestyles in order to control our morphologies to the extent that we do. Before the age of twelve, even bones are changeable. We lose adaptive potential as we age.
We can have visceral expectations for our bodies though, which, I think is due to hormonal affinities -- we don't have the forms we're supposed to, using the archetypes of those that we emulate, and take as life idols, or guides for functioning, and surviving in the world.
This becomes all the more traumatic when we're told that our visceral identifications are wrong, and we're not supposed to be like, and look to the people that know that we're supposed to.
Quote from: Mariah2014 on January 04, 2015, 11:08:00 PM
We are not trans because of evolutionary reasons. Whether it is biological, hormonal, environmental or some combination of those is hard to say. It is safe to say it can differ for many of us as why we are the way we are, but we didn't evolve into be trans. Some may have realized earlier or later than others, but we didn't evolve to become trans. For what ever reason are mind and bodies are the way we are and respond hormones the particular way we do.
Mariah
I only think that this subject is interesting, but irrelevant to politics, or our validation, and right to self-determination and freedom.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 11:07:21 PM
Nonsense, Asami! I welcome the discourse-you seem like one of the rare people in the world with a well-formed opinion on this, and it's good to discuss this with someone on an intelectual level.
I don't think it's an absolute priory expectation of our morphologies-just a vague guideline for what parts to expect where. We are innately predisposed to recognize faces, and even to find harmony in the proportions of the human boy (for example, hellenic architecture) Consider the phantom limb phenomenon...remove someone's leg, and they are going to be convinced that it is still there, because their brain, both through biology and adaptive learning expects a leg to be there. An even stranger thing happens when the opposite happens; I'm under the impression that for some ridiculous reason, discussing BIID, but you understand where I'm going. I think this must be the result of a brain that has been femimisned in vitro and therefore expects a female anatomy. Anything relating to feminine behavior from the person is just a symptom.
It doesn't fully make sense to me even now, but I simply cannot come up with any other explanation for why I hate my genetalia, and why I hated them before I had any idea what part was considered "normal" for boys and for girls. What is your theory on the matter?
What's your thought on this?
And Stephaniec, I must disagree---I don't believe dysphoria can suddenly become activated. It's simply something that some people are able to repress for longer than others.
I'm not suggesting a blank slate, more of a vague slate. The plasticity of the brain is interesting, especially in relation to the body as a whole. If half of your brain just died right now, you wouldn't even notice. You'd lose the sight and hearing, and mobility of one side of your body, plus a layer of cross-lateral redundant processing, but wouldn't even notice. If however you lost an eye, or had organ failures, you'd notice, because the corresponding areas of the brain would be expecting to process information that it isn't receiving.
The plasticity of the brain explains phantom limbs, when you lose a limb, the area of your brain that controls the other limb will begin to recruit the perfectly functional area of brain for the other limb, which causes a morphing of the two, kind of like synesthesia. The disorder is also often accompanied by pain, because if I were to squeeze my hand until my nails started to cut me, then a feedback loop would prevent me from applying much more pressure -- but people with phantom limbs often have this sensation, but can't stop it. So they designed a little mirror box that flips the appearance of your chirality, so that unclasping that hand fools you into believing that the you have unclasped the missing hand, stopping the pain.
Lacan a psychotherapist identified the development of our body images with what he calls the "mirror" phase, in which we are constantly reinforced that the image we see in reflections is ourselves -- and self-awareness tests are seeing if animals can identify themselves in a mirror. If their body images were innate, they ought to be able to do that, and it not be an indication of a posteriori self-knowledge.
Fair enough; you leave me with more questions than answers though! What's your explanation for body dysphoria?
Also, androgynouspainter26, I'm not ignoring your other points, I just can't substantially account for them. Brain damage, would be my guess, but I dunno...
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 11:36:42 PM
Fair enough; you leave me with more questions than answers though! What's your explanation for body dysphoria?
Because who we want to be, and the images we identify as ourselves in reflections is different. We emulate, learn and construct a character, that we grow into, and eventually assume in order to function in the group, and survive in the world. They are a composite of a million different examples, and unique and original in their construction to us all.
Because most, or all our inspiration involves things we fear we cannot acquire, or will never be able to accomplish, we despair.
But if it's all the result of a charichter we've created, does that justify surgical alteration of the body? Does it even justify transitioning? I do sometimes think your theory must be right, but it simply fails to account for some of my experiences. Hmmm...still very interesting though.
Quote from: androgynouspainter26 on January 04, 2015, 11:46:54 PM
But if it's all the result of a charichter we've created, does that justify surgical alteration of the body? Does it even justify transitioning? I do sometimes think your theory must be right, but it simply fails to account for some of my experiences. Hmmm...still very interesting though.
Why not? Altering our body is what organisms do, they constantly change, and absorb the lifestyles, dispositions, and behaviors of their guardians and peers, and discard the vestiges of the past.
I'm not suggesting that the archetypes that we create, and eventually assume is psychological, or random -- it is deeply primal, the very core of learning. Also, as I tried to suggest, we do have biological affinities which make those we take from candidates for the development of our characters. We have to be enough like them, that we actually can do the things they do, or despair would be unavoidable.
But, I dunno. I'm just guessing like everyone else.
But then, how do we draw the line between self mutilation and medically necessary surgeries? So many questions! At any rate, it's getting too late for me to keep chatting and a reckon everyone is sick of getting notifications...but hey, feel free to PM me anytime. I'm really enjoying hte discussion.
They aren't mutually exclusive, and are often the same things, just different connotatively charged words. :D
Yeah, thanks for the discussion. You have a great night. :)
Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 04, 2015, 08:18:46 PM
I recognize that some feel that being trans* is a defect. I'm not sure it is possible to definitively answer whether it is or not, but obviously I do not feel defective. :)
Being trans is not a defect. Our
development process in the womb was defective in that it causes transness. We then have to live with the consequences of that. Is a coincidence that a lot of trans people had mothers who took endocrine disruptors like DES?
Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 04, 2015, 08:18:46 PMReally? Our development does that?
Indirectly - yes.
Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 04, 2015, 08:18:46 PMDon't you think the severe, pervasive, extreme levels of discrimination, violence, and stigma that we face might have something to do with the suicide rates
I am sure that they make the situation worse, but if we were not trans then we would not face these levels of discrimination any more than the rest of the general cis-population. Having said that, it can depend on the population that one is embedded in. I look at the bigotry of organised religion in the US and I simply do not see that over here on the other side of the Atlantic. If religious leaders over here starting telling people to kill gays for Xmas, they would go to jail. That helps make a better general atmosphere.