Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Kia Ora,

::)  As many of you here already know, the UK passed the Gender Recognition Bill back in 2004/5...One of the benefits of this bill was non-ops could apply for a gender recognition certificate and a new birth certificate, that is, if you're pre/non-op and for whatever reason [medical/ finances/ scalpel-phobia ] can't have surgery, as long as you fitted the criteria in place=been diagnosed-been on HRT and living as your psycho-sexual identity full time for a minimum period of two years and was prepared to sigh an affidavit  that you will never revert back to your birth-sex, then one could apply for a gender recognition certificate and later a new revised birth certificate...

::) Now one would think "all' sufferers and those who had suffered from "extreme" gender dysphoria[I personally believe one size doesn't fit all when it comes gender dysphoric levels] would be over the moon with the UK government's decision, however there are some "trans" folk [it would seem those who have already had surgery or are in a position to pay for it themselves] who feel that the UK government's somewhat  "compassionate" approach is wrong, and that one should "only" be granted legal recognition when one has had genital surgery...This to me sounds a little elitist  = "us and them"...  ::) But then that's just my opinion...

But some of those who oppose legal recognition for non-ops do have some valid points to their argument, one point in particular is the locker/changing room issue, cisgender people having to be "exposed" to an unsightly penis hanging between the legs of a busty blond or brunette in the communal showers...

So being respectful of the fact opinions are opinions and we all should respect each others...what do you think ?

Should legal recognition be stopped-if ones private parts haven't been chopped?


Metta Zenda :)         

Hadn't realy thought about it, but it sounds fair enough seeing the applicants will have been living in role for 2 years or more.  It gets around discrimination against people who cannot have surgery for medical reasons, but are otherwise totally passable.

Legal recognition should be available for non-ops.

Locker rooms will be an issue with or without it due to the mixture of physical sex characteristics (penis + breasts/vagina on otherwise male physique.)  Someone is going to see something unusual unless they flat out ban pre or non-op transgender individuals, which isn't acceptable.

Quote from: Kori on May 28, 2011, 09:40:13 PM
Legal recognition should be available for non-ops.

Locker rooms will be an issue with or without it due to the mixture of physical sex characteristics (penis + breasts/vagina on otherwise male physique.)  Someone is going to see something unusual unless they flat out ban pre or non-op transgender individuals, which isn't acceptable.

I guess it must be another example of me being 'elitist' or otherwise separatist then but, I'm sorry...I do not want to see persons with male genetalia in my locker rooms.  If a pre- or non-op wants to be use the equipment in the public areas of the club, fine...but I don't want a pre- or non-op in the shower or changing room with me. 

Considering the level of heated rhetoric over similar topics recently I think that perhaps it would be best to retire this topic for a week or two.

just so as to give folks a chance to step back and cool off
;)

Kia Ora Cynthia,

::) I'm sure  members who happen to view this thread and wish to comment will "think" about how they will word their response, so as not to openly offend others  :eusa_naughty: ...

  ::) It's important for all members to express what's on their minds when it comes to such issues-without having to resort to any personal "attacks"  :icon_blahblah:  ...But Finger's Crossed...XX XX

Metta Zenda :)

Should this even remotely begin to get heated, I will close it.  No more flame wars, people.

Quote from: cynthialee on May 28, 2011, 10:18:39 PM
Considering the level of heated rhetoric over similar topics recently I think that perhaps it would be best to retire this topic for a week or two.

just so as to give folks a chance to step back and cool off
;)

Kia Ora Cynthia & Janet,

I don't recall reading any similar topics recently-I must have missed them... I was just hoping people would come up with what they feel is valid/persuasive  arguments either way [when I say arguments I don't mean personal "attacks"]...It's interesting to see how opinions differ greatly even amongst trans-people...

Metta Zenda :)

Well, I live in the U.S., but I haven't had bottom surgery, and I don't know whether I ever will. Judging by the way some women reacted a year ago when I accidentally walked into their restroom, I will never be allowed in the women's locker room.

Nor would I ever want to be there.

Since there's no such thing as real legal recognition for post-op people, this discussion is a chimera.

Hi Zenda,
.
Honestly, this is a hornet's nest of a question to ask due to the following:
.
#1:  Recognition of gender, and recognition of sex are two completely different things that
people even within the transgender community tend to conflate and confuse.
.
#2: Generally, in real world legal terms and legal application when people talk about sex "recognition," they're talking about physical sex.  (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc...)  Many within the transgender community like to ignore this fact, and what it means for and to those who are not transgender.
.
#3: There are major side-issues that complicate using surgery as a benchmark for "recognition"
Money and/or excessive rationing (for countries that do have coverage) make finances more
a part of the equation than sex/gender issues are.  Without correcting that to make it equally accessible to all, the question of legal recognition has too heavy of an overtone of the "haves" and "have nots."  It becomes an issue about poverty/privilege rather than sex/gender issues.
.
#4: Quality of surgery.  It's widely known that FTM bottom surgery is lacking in a realistic and functional end result.  The quality of such surgery needs to be accounted for when making it a benchmark provision of "recognition."
.
#5: The transgender community is generally about inclusiveness for all who are variant in any way.  To be completely inclusive of all variance is the legal equivalent of "anything goes"...because it cannot be rigidly defined else it lose it's inclusiveness.  "Anything goes" is the antithesis of law.  Many in the transgender community like to ignore the practical issues of law and speak about such things in theoretical/pie-in-the-sky terms only. (which...legally...gets all of us nowhere)
.
#6. The really gray areas of this center around reproductive and sexual freedom, along with the equal application of standards to all groups.  If FTMs can opt not to have surgery, why not MTFs? If an FTM can still bear children, is he a man?  Or is he not a man until he gives up that physical/reproductive ability?  If they're still considered a man, then can an MTF be considered a woman if they retain their male sexual function?  When you move outside of the rather rigid traditional idea of male and female bodies, it's a murky decision indeed on where to draw that line...especially when you start to give exemptions to one group over another...even if it be for practical considerations.
.
Those individuals (ie. Transexed) that see themselves as correcting/changing-sides on the sexual markers (and to whom financially and surgically those options are feasable) will often support more rigid requirements because they still see themselves as part of the current system.  Those that see themselves as something else than 100% male or 100% female will support less rigid requirements so that they can benefit from such recognition, without the need to go 'all the way.'  Still others would prefer to throw the system out altogether (and can often undermine productive discussion, since any practical change that can be made will not suit them).
.
#7: Usually, the complaints about "recognition" are about 'what I want,' and 'how it effects me,' whether or not such recognition makes sense.  It's about the rights and privilege that such recognition conveys...which legally may sometimes be possible (and make more sense) to fulfill through different means.  Regardless, people get very offended when you oppose their method, even if you support their access to those rights and privileges through other means.
.
Stepping contrary to any of the above generally is seen as a personal afront, and an attack on their rights....which means stepping on someone's toes and offending them...and more often than not sends threads like this into a quick downward spiral ending with a LOCKED! status.
.
.
Well...it's not an exhaustive list of the reasons this is a hornet's nest, but it's a start. 
Personally, due to the complications involved in the real world, I think the UK law is a step in the right direction, and provides a solution to those that are not financially/medically able to proceed any further.  As long as it doesn't leave trans individuals in limbo as neither legally male or female, I'm all for it.

Ok, I'm not going to answer the poll because none of the options corresponds to my view, which is complex, as you might expect. Indeed Zenda I have to say that if, as you claim, you did not intend to stir things up then the use of inflammatory language like "I don't give a toss," rather than the less potentially offensive "Other – please explain" was, in my view somewhat unwise.

If people read this post I would ask you please read ALL of it IN DETAIL and don't just skim it or you will not understand my view properly and may end up getting needlessly upset because you think I am saying something that I am not. I repeat, my view is complex and subtle and has been developing over a long period of time.

Firstly let me clearly state that I believe that everyone deserves legal recognition and protection appropriate to their full needs, BUT that does not mean that this recognition has to be identical for two slightly differing sets of needs. Indeed to try to apply the exact same rules when there are hard physical differences may actually risk making the legislation ineffective and therefore serving the needs of neither group particularly well.

To give you an analogy apples and strawberries are both fruit. They both require cold storage but there are still subtle differences in the exact nature of the storage that they require. Any supplier who ignored this inconvenient truth would soon have a lot of spoiled fruit.

Anyone reading the briefing notes submitted to the drafting team for the UK gender recognition act will find a submission from Jenny D. & Alison B. in which we argued that the act should indeed be at least partly predicated on genital surgery. By this we did not mean to imply that non ops should be completely unrecognised or protected, but that perhaps there should be separate categories of recognition created appropriate to the exact situation of the person applying.

To save you googling it you can read the full text of our submission here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/188/188we27.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/188/188we27.htm) however I would ask you to bear in mind that our views have altered slightly in the eight years that have passed since that submission was drafted.

Our basis for saying what we did at that time was that we felt that the wider population might not accept an act founded on a different basis, and therefore the law might become unworkable. Happily those concerns have proved incorrect, and insofar as that is the case I am happy to say that my view has changed somewhat.

That said, as I feared, there have been some difficulties caused by the act's inclusiveness, for example in the provision of certain services, where, thanks to the doubt about the genital status of a gender recognized person, the law against discrimination has been amended to remove certain protections the absence of which are particularly important to postop people. Likewise the criteria used to support the inclusive nature of the act themselves ironically sometimes discriminate against intersex people who now cannot get their documents amended because they do not fit the diagnostic selection criteria laid down.

So my view now is that that all three categories deserve separate tailor-made protections and recognition. None is more deserving than the others, but as they present different legal issues and indeed are likely to face slightly different social challenges the law would actually serve ALL groups better by a more profiled approach. That is in an ideal world.

HOWEVER – the bottom line is that we don't live in an ideal world, and if the choice is between the flawed but inclusive act that we have, and leaving non op community out in the cold entirely then the inclusive approach is clearly the more compassionate course to take.

Finally I hereby give notice that there are those of us who find the hurt, hatred, and anger, that surrounds this whole debate, to be profoundly unsettling and upsetting. I have been giving serious thought to whether my presence in this community serves any useful purpose other than to needlessly upset me when I read some of the mistrust and vitriol that surrounds topics like this.

I am not yet at a point where I am about to announce my departure, but I would appeal to you ALL to debate this with mutual respect please. I hold certain views. That does not mean that I do not value and respect others who hold differing views. My views may be wrong, so may theirs, but each of us can only speak from our own experience. By all means disagree with me but PLEASE – no hate – because it will achieve nothing but further destruction and weakening of all of us.

I'm sorry to say, but the Gender Recognition Act 2004, is not superior.   Yes it seems superior in the sense it allows all those who cannot have surgery and those who have had surgery provided that they satisfy the following condition.

But subsection (1) is not complied with unless a report required by that subsection and made by—
  (a) a registered medical practitioner, or
  (b) a chartered psychologist,
practising in the field of gender dysphoria includes details of the diagnosis of the applicant's gender dysphoria.

The problem I have with this legislation is the part where it says "includes details of the diagnosis of the applicant's gender dysphoria".  I have never ever suffered from gender dysphoria and I do not suffer from it now.  I have been asked to apply under the UK track for my gender recognition certificate and I find it absolutely repugnant that I have to submit myself to a 'psychologist' in England and be diagnosed with 'gender dysphoria', or that I was mentally ill.  There are a lot of individuals who will refute the diagnosis is invalid.

The act should allow those who have had appropriate surgery to match their gender, to be granted their recognition certificate so that they can get their birth certificate amended.

Legal recognition should be available to all non-ops and post ops, provided that the "diagnosis of gender disorder" is not a prerequisite and minimal requirements are satisfied.

Yes, I also find the 'Locker Room' a problem.  However, I will leave this part of the discussion for a more appropriate thread and let us just deal with the legal recognition of our gender only in this thread.

My kindest regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Sarah B on May 29, 2011, 03:58:53 AM
The act should allow those who have had appropriate surgery to match their gender, to be granted their recognition certificate so that they can get their birth certificate amended.

A point which, if you read my submission, was indeed made loud and clear at the time, and was sadly ignored.

I live in Iceland.
A name change equals getting your gender changed.
I've gotten my name changed so there's no reason what so ever for anyone to force me into the women's locker room or restrooms to the discomfort of everyone in there, myself included, even if I have a vagina.

It seems unreasonable to set up a system in which a person has to procure her own SRS at an unrealistic cost and/or has very limited choices towards SRS and none of them good and yet a person has no recognition of any kind as their gender until "after" SRS.
If SRS was covered and the options were good then it would be easy enough to say "okay, then you'll complete this process and get all your legal documents fixed at the same time", but that's just not how it is.

By refusing to change the legal documents until after SRS it implies that a trans man isn't a man until after surgery and a trans woman isn't a woman until after surgery while putting them in a system that makes surgery difficult, sometimes impossible, to obtain. It puts a lot of people in a state of limbo from which there is no escape.

It isn't about locker rooms or bathrooms, it's about being able to sign your name and tick "male" or "female" as is appropriate without having to have a surgery which you may not be able to get at all.
It's about being recognized as "yourself" rather than being stuck in limbo.
Limbo can kill one's spirits.

It isn't about locker rooms or bathrooms, but even if it was, it doesn't just handle the question of the "penis" in the women's locker room.
But it also handles whether or not a trans man should be "forced" to use the women's locker room. It would mean that Buck Angel would have to be in the women's locker room. 

Which is worse? Really?

I have a mtf friend who's almost a full foot shorter than me. Passes without a shadow of a doubt. Has a sweet, soft voice, without needing to do any vocal training. Has been on HRT only a few months but she's already grown a lot in the chest area. But she hasn't had srs yet, but she will, in time.
Me, I'm 6'2, my voice is as deep as my dad's, I'm flat chested and even freshly shaved my face has a bit of a shadow to it. I couldn't pass for female if I tried. But I haven't had srs and likely never will because the options available to me are not... good enough.

She would feel self conscious going through the locker room and try to avoid letting that part of her be seen, but me, I'd feel like I was in completely the wrong locker room.
She could wrap a towel around her midsection and choose where she dresses and undresses to minimize the discomfort she'd possibly be able to cause others and thus herself, but no amount of wrapping up in towels will minimize the fact that should I walk into the women's locker room I'd be a MAN in the WOMEN'S locker room, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of anyone who were to glance my way.

Quote from: Helena on May 29, 2011, 02:19:42 AM
This may sound elitist but the uk is definitely superior to the rest of the world in a lot of ways.

Don't get too elitist. It was E. U. Human Rights Court that forced the U. K. to be like it is.

Only in the size, shape and colour of the cucumber...

Kia Ora,
::) All interesting points of view so far and thanks for keeping it civil...

However, if one feels a person should not have "legal" recognition of their psycho-sexual identity after meeting all the requirements as specified in the first post- does this mean they should be allocated "third" gender status ? Or on legal documents still be seen as a "man in a dress" Or "woman in pants" ? [OK I know the "woman in pants" part does not have the same clout to it, but I'm sure you get what I mean]...

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

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

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

Again I suppose this could be seen as another "US & THEM" issue...

::) BTW some members "really don't give a toss either way"-hence why I added this to the options list

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on May 29, 2011, 04:00:02 PM
Slightly off topic but something to ponder too......

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

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

cannot speak to other countries, but practitioners in the States DO have to be concerned not only about professional ethics but legal liability if they were to sign off on a procedure that essentially trades one problem for another arguably more serious problem...

There is a valid argument that signing off on surgery for those who don't have a chance in hell of "passing" or otherwise blending into society is not truly in the patient's best interest...and to sign off on a procedure in that case places the particular practioner (or practitioners) in the same category as those that continue to cater to the plastic surgery junkies...

Just because a check will clear the bank does NOT mean you have to accept a particular case...it is just as true for medical practioners as it is in my area of expertise (criminal law).

Unfortunately Val, thats just too simplistic. The world is not that black and white for that to work. I'm not taking a shot, it's just too unrealistic a viewpoint for me. There are far too many situations that would require exceptions or workarounds for it to be feasable. That being said, I would honestly like your point of view on the following, which are some of the reasons I have for disagreeing.

Firstly, if you require surgery for legal recognition, then intent for surgery is not enough. Where does that leave people in the process of transition? You believe it should be legally permissable for a hospital, for example,to place an MtF years into the process, that is unrecognisable as a male unless facing you naked into an all male ward, since they're still legally male? If not, then we are into making exceptons, and where do they start and stop? Can be recognised officially as you present in school, or school except for bathroom and locker room..... Work, except for tax purposes... on government ID or not.... where does it end? It's no different to the mess now.

Then what if it's not possible, or more dangerous than usual to get surgery? For example if you have HIV.... or if you are diabetic... or if you have a congenital defect somewhere critical? All surgery carries risk.. it's one thing to go under when there is a couple of percent chance of not waking up, but what if you have a congenital heart defect that rases the chance of death or stroke to over 80 or 90%?
Even if they could find a surgeon willing to risk it, is it fair to give someone that ultimatum if they want to be legally recognised as who they are, especially if they can come to an accomodation within themselves that they'd rather be alive and one step short than take that huge risk of death or brain damage or paralysis? Or are we back to exceptions, and even then who determines them? How much of an extra risk level is 'too much'?
In fact, if surgery is required for legal recognition, should it even be legal to prescribe hormones and give therapy to someone unlikely to be able to have surgery... I'd say yes, but what about the people actually making the decision to take on a patient or allocate the money?

Also, where does this place FtM's? The bottom surgery options for the men are pretty abysmal compared to the MtF surgery, and many guys choose not to undergo it due to the state of medical science currently. (Apologies to any guys reading who have and are happy with their bottoms :p I'm just parroting the majority opinion of FtM's I know.. and the ones I know that had it done that I've talked with about it all said it was a factor in their decision, so.....) Should people be refused legal recognition as men because their 'full monty' operation isn't as advanced as the options for MtF's?

And being objective, having 'appropriate' surgery as anything less than everything available just won't fly. If 'only' a mastectomy qualifies a FtM for legal rights, then there is no legal argument that would ever work that would prevent a MtF who 'only' had a breast augmentation from claiming the same. A hysto/oophrectomy is matched by a vasectomy/orchiectomy in terms of medical outcomes.
Unless you enshrined discrimination in recognition legislation in terms of what needs to be done to 'make' someone a legally acceptable man vs legally acceptable woman it's all or nothing, unless you want the same situation as now, just with more red tape.

Stopping here, 'cos I'm spending waay more time then I intended to on this.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 29, 2011, 05:32:38 PM
Our energy should be focused on obtaining insurance and government coverage for surgery in those countries where it is not currently an option, in my opinion.

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

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

Quote from: Zenda on May 29, 2011, 04:00:02 PM
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kia Ora Millie,

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

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

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

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

Metta Zenda :)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Kia Ora all,

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

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

Metta Zenda :)

I would also agree with this:

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 29, 2011, 05:32:38 PM
If insurance or government coverage became available to transsexual people for compassionate reasons and cost were no longer a factor, then the majority of transsexual people would be able to complete their transitions.

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

Kind regards
Sarah B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: MillieB on May 29, 2011, 11:00:36 PM
This attitude was popular with the Charring Cross doctors in the 1960's and 70's and there is a documentary that I haven't seen but I have heard about (if anyone knows the name of it I would be grateful) that follows a transsexual woman who was not 'womanly' enough for the docs so was refused treatment, she ended up homeless, alcoholic and died young. Very compassionate! >:(

Millie

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

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

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

Hi Jenny,

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

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

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

Quote from: Mikah on May 31, 2011, 01:14:30 AM
I want to preface my comment with the following: this thread is a poll about personal opinion regarding this matter. Many people have strong opinions, myself included. This is intended in no way, shape or form to flame or as personal attacks. This is my own opinion, and one I feel strongly enough about to voice, as others have. Without civil dialogs and diversity in ideas, polls like this are pointless.

reasonable enough...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Sarah B on May 30, 2011, 02:52:06 AM
Unfortunately society is tied to the two sexes.  What is the most common question asked, when a baby is born?  Yep, you guessed it in one, "Is it a girl or a boy?"  This is the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

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

Quote from: MillieB on May 31, 2011, 06:48:36 AM
Hi Jenny,

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

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

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

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

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

As you can see - Randall is dead - and I won! ;D I didn't comply, I just found uncle Russell (Reid) - who was a deal more helpful, and indeed remains so to this day... He is a very good friend and he came to stay with us in our new home last weekend. This pic was at Paignton as we were waiting to board the stem train to Dartmouth.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2603%2F5780627459_72f0a28de4.jpg&hash=d247ffd031d95c62a97742fe18ca87923bc6305e)

Nice to see that Dr Reid is okay  :)

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

Thanks for the info.  :)

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Helena on May 29, 2011, 01:26:29 PM
I was talking about afternoon tea and cucumber sandwiches...surely the EU didn't have a hand in that.

LOL! Very true!

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

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

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

Quote from: Tippe on May 31, 2011, 08:18:57 AM
Body modifications should be provided for those who have issues with their bodies. Separate legal and medical issues from each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: cynthialee on May 31, 2011, 08:46:12 AM
I can pretty much promiss you that if we went to a one payer system in the states there would be zero SRS on the state dime.
The right wing is very efficiant at freaking out when ever someone does something with federal funds that they do not aprove of.

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

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

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

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 11:14:51 AM
I do not see how I or my view oppresses anyone. I advocate medical help for all transsexual people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kia Ora,

I must admit this as been quite an eye opener, with some on both sides refusing to back down nor compromise...

On the one hand there are those who wish to "conform to the norm"  in a "au naturel" bare naked way...And others who wish to in a more conventional way-where the general public have no idea what lies between ones legs and under ones clothes.... 

The key thing here as some have already mentioned is "empathy"[something many religious groups lack when it comes to the plight of trans-people]...How would one feel to be "denied" legal recognition if put in a position where surgery was out of the question?


One might feel quite strongly about some things, but it's not the other person's opinions that actually make you angry, anger comes from within ! And sadly it can and quite often does block "rational" thoughts... 

I hope the readers of this topic will "think" about the bold print, before voicing their opinions-"How would you feel ?"...

Thanks again for your participation...

Metta Zenda :)

I have only added one paragraph to this thread.
Also I have avoided posting on the main topic, opting in favor to just watch most of this play out.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 10:25:01 AM
If you identify as the gender that does not match your body, lets fix the body.

Dear Valerie,

even biology is way more diverse than the gender binary implies. I met an intersex activist about a month ago who told me that there are believed to be about 6.400 different intersex variations most of which are not recognized unless a microarray is ran on the DNA.

Biological sex is not just about primary characteristics although society stresses them highly. It is widely understood to include secondary sex characteristics, hormonal characteristics and genetic characteristics as well.
In my own case my body height is for instance 17 cm shorter than that of my brother. Body height is well accepted to correlate with sex so what does that mean about my biologic sex? And there are other oddities too. The world is not black and white.

Research has shown that MTF's are likely to be dysphoric about genitals, body hair, broad shoulders and/or big hands. Not everyone is dysphoric about all aspects. In my case for instance I'm highly dysphoric about body and facial hair to the point of cutting myself to blood many a morning and I am dysphoric about inferior breast growth. Those characteristics are troublesome socially, whereas what is below the waist is much easier to hide. I live and study as a woman and I am completely passable, yet I am from time to time confronted with gender markers which embarass me and my surroundings. Not allowing me to have legal recognition which matches my social recognition makes my life more difficult for the reason of... WHAT???

Standards of Care recognizes that people are different. Requiring everyone to go through SRS is oppressive to those who don't need it.
It is also sexist, because as Sean said SRS is different in men and women.
Requiring both to have external genital surgery would force men into inadequate surgeries, whereas requiring only women to have external genital surgery as is the case in Denmark right now would be equally unfair. I should add, that due to this situation it is currently SIX times more likely that an FTM receives a surgery permit in Denmark than it is that an MTF does so! Sexism again.

Let there be legal solutions for legal problems and medical solutions for medical necessities.

Kia Ora,

WhatAboutMe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb72Pi-u7Ao#)

Happy Mindfulness people...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 02:57:20 PM
I have said repeatedly that FtM's change of sex is determined by their own standards of care. Why does everyone keep bringing up FtM's surgery to me? Dont they have an existing path of transition as MtF's do?

No, FTMs DON'T have our own standards of care, nor do we have different legal standards in many places either.

We have the exact same Standards of Care, despite the fact that they were crafted to work with/for the MTF population. And in many countries, we have the same LEGAL standards, despite the fact that they were crafted to work with/for the MTF.

When people advocate that transsexuals be treated a certain way, even if they only "mean" for it to affect MTFs, it ALSO affects FTMs.  That is how policies work. That is why it is frustrating when women ignore the plight of others who are encompassed by the exact same policies, the same standards of care, the same legal recognition hurdles, when the physical reality of transition is very different.

I keep bringing up FTM stuff, because the position you are advocating (Change of sex should be dependent on SRS for the purpose of legal rights) is treated the SAME for FTMs as it is for MTFs, and that means you've created a path for one way transition: male bodied can transition and be recognized as women but female bodied can not transition and be recognized as men.

You could reframe your position as only applying to WOMEN and not MEN, but that's not how legal policies are made, that's not how the standards of care are written, and quite frankly, it would probably be invalid in many countries as sex discrimination to try and create different rules for MTFs and FTMs.

Valerie, I understand that you do not want to be othered and that there is a slippery slope if SRS is NOT the standard for recognition of transition. However, for MEN of transsexual experience, we have no choice but to be on that slope. The fact that you're not aware that we even have the same standards being applied to us suggests that you really should learn more about this before being so entrenched in your viewpoint.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 02:51:25 PM
What is not acceptable is removing a path of normalcy that we now have for transsexual people and replacing that with a legal recognition of 3rd gender/other status. I fail to see how that is progress?

Why do you keep speaking about 3rd gender? If biologically intersexed people are accepted within the binary why shouldn't psychosexually intersexed people be the same?
For all social reasons I'm completely accepted as a woman and I never had a patient question that. I fail to see how the people who accept me socially should take offense accepting me legally. On the contrary I do get questions as to why I still haven't changed my SSN... welll...
The politicians who are against legal recognition I guess have never had a personal relationship with a transsexual.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 02:57:20 PM
I have said repeatedly that FtM's change of sex is determined by their own standards of care. Why does everyone keep bringing up FtM's surgery to me? Dont they have an existing path of transition as MtF's do?

Because those special criteria are for one thing the reason why it is SIX times more difficult to have a surgery permit for a Danish woman than it is for a Danish man and because it highlights that the surgical requirements are NOT solely about relieving the body dysphoria of the transsexual, but just as much about relieving the social unease about natural diversity.

"We are literally molded to fit societal values."
[The missing vagina monologue. URL: http://www.mrkh.org/files/MVM-perform2004Column.pdf (http://www.mrkh.org/files/MVM-perform2004Column.pdf) ]

The junction between sex and gender meant that I was prohibitted from socialising and being accepted as a member of the gender with whom I identify for the main part of my life. No doubt it affected my body image, because my body was used as an explanation for not accepting me. I don't say that it is wrong to be binary in any aspect, but I do think it would benefit us all to loosen the sex / gender joined stereotypes. I believe upholding it reproduces exactly those conditions which marginalized and stigmatized us first place.

So long as our society comes from a place of mysogyny we will never have complete rights.

We will be othered, reviled and considered less than by the majority of this culture until the society as a whole shakes off the shakles of mysogyny.

Quote from: cynthialee on May 31, 2011, 04:25:10 PM
So long as our society comes from a place of mysogyny we will never have complete rights.

We will be othered, reviled and considered less than by the majority of this culture until the society as a whole shakes off the shakles of mysogyny.

oh puhleez.  Misogyny has NOTHING to do with wanting to maintain a binary system for legal purposes. 

It's not as much about legal reasons as it is a question about norms, I think.

For instance Sweden has sex neutral marriage and I believe very few, if any, laws treating the sexes differently. Yet some forces are eager to maintain a dichotomous system.

People who transgress gender boundaries confront the majority population with the question: Do I live my life according to the gender norms which resonates with my personality. That is a tough question to people, whether they have worked on gender issues or not and the natural response from the majority is to deny the possibility of transgressing gender boundaries. If they succeed denying the existence of alternative gender expressions then they save themselves from considering their own position in the gender system!

Or as a man in my dormitory said once: "Tippe you make MY balls shrink"

which means that my breaking the sex / gender junction caused him to question HIS masculinity!

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 10:25:01 AM
Expecting to change a legal identification system that is in place around the world and works for billions of people for the sake of a very tiny few people that wouldnt have surgery (transsexual non-opers. a few hundred/ few thousand) is completely unrealistic and an arrogant view, however popular it may be here. I am not name calling, just reflecting on what I just stated. Changing billions for a few.

You really expect to change a system of billions of people?

If you identify as the gender that does not match your body, lets fix the body.

This is erasure of a minority, which I find strange within out own community. The trans community is estimated to be, what, 1% of the population? Isn't that one of the justifications for our oppression, that we are such a small percentage and that we therefore don't matter? Removing sex from legal documents isn't unrealistic: it is just, would only alleviate oppression, and wouldn't cause anyone problems. There are only minimal, one-time administrative costs with removing sex from legal documents, and even that could be eliminated by just not recording that information for future citizens. Initiating and perpetuating  single-payer health care system has huge star-up costs, staggering and forever increasing upkeep costs (both direct and as a result of removing capital from the private sphere), huge political barriers, and a slew of other problems, social and economic.

What is unrealistic is to believe that universal health insurance will be instituted everywhere, that SRS and hormones will be covered and accessible, and that bureaucratic guidelines will be fair, consistent and respondant to individual human needs. What is arrogant is to say that non-binary identified people, transsexuals with disabilities, transmen, and those who do not wish to undergo SRS must do so in order to be legally recognized and not harassed by the state.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 11:14:51 AM
I do not see how I or my view oppresses anyone. I advocate medical help for all transsexual people.

Are we talking of gender recognition or not? How does the human race identify a gender other than physically since the beginning of time?

I'm still asking, do you expect to change a system that works for billions of people?

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

It works for most people because most people are cisgendered and never have to question the system or be oppressed by it.

Cisgendered society has, historically and largely to this day, determined gender by sex: this is called gender essentialism, and is actually a huge barrier to the entire trans community, as well as cisgendered women. My gender is not determined by my lack of a penis, and I won't "become" a man when/if I can have a functioning penis. I AM a man.

Non-binary and binary identities already coexist: the issue is whether to oppress non-binary people with the state while privileging binary identities. This has nothing to do with the validity of your identity, one which we all affirm and that all should. If sex was removed from legal documents, then the state just wouldn't police bodies or identities, including your own. It sounds as if you fear society not recognizing your identity if non-binary identities are not invalidated, but your plan of action is to effectively "ban" those identities with an institution of violence in order to affirm your own. Nobody should "other" your identity, neither the state nor society, but to oppress genderqueer identities with the state is just as wrong, and doesn't help yourself or anyone else.

QuoteWhat is not acceptable is removing a path of normalcy that we now have for transsexual people and replacing that with a legal recognition of 3rd gender/other status. I fail to see how that is progress?

I advocate removing sex from legal documents. This helps everyone and hurts no one, and therefore is progress. Identities can be formed in by individuals and socially, not legally battled for if anyone dares to not be cisgendered.

QuoteI do not see conservatives and most cis people budging on gender identification. What  I do see as possible is their assigning us our own unique status which cannot be a good thing.

But you do see conservatives passing universal health care, paying for it into perpetuity, including SRS and hormones in coverage, creating and maintaining trans-friendly guidelines for SRS qualiifcation, and allowing for fair and balanced rules to change legal sex identification? I don't want the institution of violence known as the state policing bodies and identities in ANY way, that is the only way the state won't abuse power and oppress people the trans community.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 05:01:01 PM
Because I believe there will be a public backlash against what the public will view as gender deconstruction, anarchy and chaos. I believe the public would rather other us than allow us to change our gender merely upon our word.

First of all, recognizing the factual coexistence of non-binary bodies and identities along side binary identities and bodies does not constitute the end of gender, and such a shift in perception would only be a good thing. Secondly, "anarchy" is a social philosophy that advocates a stateless society, of which there are many nuanced types (including anarcho-socialism, anarcho-feminism, anarcho-synidcalism, anarcho-capitalism, and queer anarchy, to name a few), and is in no way synonymous with "chaos." And thirdly, removing state policing of bodies and identities would not lead to chaos, but would remove the bureaucratic sprawl of overlapping jurisdictions and agencies that currently dictates legal recognition. And lastly, a fear of societal bigotry is no reason to use violent force to oppress a part of our own community due to our own ableism, classism, sexism, and (ironically) transphobia.

Quoteanarcho-socialism

I am going to have to look up how this is supposed to work as I don't think that I've ever heard such an Oxymoronic or ludicrous phrase in my life!

I don't think that anyone is advocating the oppression of others in this thread, but I'll admit that being accused of it simply because I disagree with someone's opinion just drives me further away from caring about the whole subject. Much further! I do think that removing sex from legal documentation would be a positive thing as I would hope it would allow people to marry who they love and have equal rights within that marriage. But it would also open up a whole can of worms as it would eliminate gender specific areas, bathrooms, jobs etc.. (It would have to otherwise it would be discriminatory) and I can't see that going down too well with Joe Public.

I think that more thought needs to go into it rather than just removing everything, there has to be a way to sensibly remove the problems and give people equality and respect without obliterating many of the gender specific legislation that exists to sensibly protect people (particularly women)

I have started thinking during this thread that everything we have been discussing about trans identity has been so recent as surgery has only been available for 60 something years and widely available for a lot less than that, whereas there is evidence that trans people have been around for as long as there have been people. They didn't get surgery but many did live life as themselves. Were they not Troo Transsexuals? Do they not deserve to be thought of as such. What about the billions of people on this planet who's income goes on trying to stay fed and warm? Are the trans men and women living in this situation not real either because surgery will never be within their grasp?

There are many reasons why a transsexual person might end up non op. All I know is that although I do feel that I need surgery to feel complete within myself, it will not make me a woman because I already am one, I have always been one. I would like the law to reflect that, even if I couldn't have surgery.

If you can not see the inherant mysogyny that is behind the transphobia that keeps us from getting our rights then you are not looking deep enough.

Quote from: cynthialee on May 31, 2011, 09:07:57 PM
If you can not see the inherant mysogyny that is behind the transphobia that keeps us from getting our rights then you are not looking deep enough.

Not all of us go looking for the boogeyman behind every nook and cranny...it is no different than my day job- sure I could manufacture some contrived due process violation giving rise to a 1983 action if I really tried, but just because I could advance some bull->-bleeped-<- claim does not mean it really existed.  And yes, I have sold (and helped to sell) some serious bull->-bleeped-<- to the courts and State agencies in my career...some of which was even bought to the tune of finding State officials personally responsible for civil rights violations.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 09:12:58 PM
I simply stated that a system that works for billions of people around the world is not going to be changed for a few people. Yet you are angry at me for saying it.

My opinion for legal recognition is just my opinion. It is one of the options in the poll. If that offends you, I dont know what to say.

now now Val...you know as well as I do that we fall in the minority...and this thread has become yet another perfect example of what the Collective whines about on a regular basis- the minority being oppressed by the majority.  Sadly, they don't GET that by seeking to stamp out our voices, they do the exact damned thing they accuse the cis-majority of doing. 

Apparently you and I and others who were post-op did not get the addendum that stated we agreed to be 'othered.' 

Oh wait...some have been trying to 'other' me for the past 20 years ever since that whole 'non-op transgender' nonsense started getting crammed down peoples throats...it pissed me off then and it pisses me off now (albeit for a very different reason now than it did then). 

Quote from: MillieB on May 31, 2011, 09:06:18 PM
I am going to have to look up how this is supposed to work as I don't think that I've ever heard such an Oxymoronic or ludicrous phrase in my life!

I don't think that anyone is advocating the oppression of others in this thread, but I'll admit that being accused of it simply because I disagree with someone's opinion just drives me further away from caring about the whole subject. Much further! I do think that removing sex from legal documentation would be a positive thing as I would hope it would allow people to marry who they love and have equal rights within that marriage. But it would also open up a whole can of worms as it would eliminate gender specific areas, bathrooms, jobs etc.. (It would have to otherwise it would be discriminatory) and I can't see that going down too well with Joe Public.

I think that more thought needs to go into it rather than just removing everything, there has to be a way to sensibly remove the problems and give people equality and respect without obliterating many of the gender specific legislation that exists to sensibly protect people (particularly women)

I'm not an anarcho-socialist, and I don't know all the nuances yet unfortunately, but it differs greatly from statist socialism, and isn't oxymoronic as it may seem in name. It advocates for a stateless society with worker-ownership of the means of production, community-run services such as education, and the abolishment of capitalism as a whole. I think it's interesting as a philosophy, but I'm not sure how production would actually work and I'm skeptical on the description of community education. I'd recommend looking into anarchy systems, however, even if just to have a more full understanding of alternatives to mainstream political philosophies and oppressions.

I realize I have a strong opinion on this, and that most voters would not agree as it stands. But I genuinely believe that using an institution maintained only through violence and theft to police bodies and identities is oppressive. I don't have anything against people disagreeing with me, but as a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist with queer anarchy influences mixed in with a little mutualism coming from an Austro-praexological perspective (mouthful, sorry lol), I whole heartedly believe that the state using violence or threat of violence to police bodies and identities is not justifiable.

As for gender-specific areas, private businesses/facilities can have their own rules. I personally like the idea of male identified restrooms, female identified restrooms, and gender-neutral single stall facilities, but won't enforce it through any kind of state. I can get more into my ideas on how these things could work, but that might derail the thread. However, we don't have to live in a stateless society to remove sex from legal documents.

Quote from: Valeriedances on May 31, 2011, 09:12:58 PM
You have so much anger.

I simply stated that a system that works for billions of people around the world is not going to be changed for a few people. Yet you are angry at me for saying it.

My opinion for legal recognition is just my opinion. It is one of the options in the poll. If that offends you, I dont know what to say.

I, myself, am included in the inability to complete legal recognition. I live in one of the states that will not change a birth certificate. I accept the things I cannot change. It isnt a perfect world, and there is not much I can do about it. So, according to some views, I'm erased too.

But, I've had my body corrected and I am happy. What I wish for is that those who are unable to can as well. That is why I advocate adding insurance coverage for surgery.

I am not angry with anyone. I wrote a point-by-point, uncompromising argument because I am passionate about this issue. You never offended me, you are entitled to your opinion uncensored by anyone, just as I am entitled to mine. This does not need to be a debate, and you are not obligated to respond to my points. But to only say I am angry doesn't address any of the points I made. I feel like we've come to an impasse of constructive dialog.

Good luck on getting the public at large and the legal system to agree on something we can't even agree upon ourselves. 

Quote from: FairyGirl on May 31, 2011, 10:35:56 PMDoes that make me guilty of saying "I've got mine; I don't care about yours" as I was accused of in the elitist thread where I had the lack of foresight to actually voice the opinion that in light of living in the real world, calling each other names was petty and trite?

Holding this opinion does not justify anyone committing ad hominem attacks. And in no way does being post-op require that you sign on for a life of activism. But I do think it is unfortunate to support state regulation of identities and bodies (in our own community) that are not as well served by the current system as you. But I fully respect your right to this opinion.

QuoteI actually even reported this thread to the mods when there were only 2 replies because I saw it as just another way to cause polarization and divisiveness, and it seems my assessment wasn't far off the mark.  Is it any wonder that, as Millie said, all these ridiculous accusations of misogyny, transphobia, being "ableist" (seriously?), and all the rest being tossed around make us just want to stay far, far away from anything to do with these inflammatory subjects?

Is a dialog that is controversial better to silence than to discuss in a civil manner? Some of the ideas that have been presented are sexist, ableist and transphobic. Nobody was called a bigot. There is a difference.

I am not sure why you find the concept of ableism ridiculous. It is a greatly disseminated term to describe the oppressions of people with disabilities. To deny legal recognition to transsexuals with disabilities but grant it to transsexuals who are able bodied is very blatantly ableist.

Many trans-friendly feminist theorists, writers and thinkers agree that transphobia has very real and traceable roots in misogyny. This claim is neither ridiculous nor unsupported in literature.

To deny the validity of large portions of the transgender community is transphobic, and this is what denying non-binary identities and bodies does.

None of these statements are inflammatory, but are pointing out oppressive implications of opinions. Name calling, belittling, and silencing voices is inflammatory, not disagreement itself. A controversial topic should not be avoided out of fear that some people may resort to attacks rather than discourse, but rather people should just be mature and civil. The fact is that this is a topic with the potential for many nuanced opinions, and it's not black and white or polarized.  At the end of the day, some of us may not change our minds. But at least the topic has been breeched, and people are thinking. Who knows, maybe someone's understandings of the issue have been nuanced?

Kia Ora,

::) Perhaps those of us who are post op,[and legally recognised] should step aside and let those who this "really" does concern, have their say...After all we are already there...wherever that might be...

Be nice to one another people...This topic is designed to make people think...I tend to agree[find valid points] with much of what's been said on both sides...But then that's just me...

::) It amazes me when people who are "above" all this [well so they say/believe] still have to have their say...But I guess it's a woman's prerogative to change their minds...So welcome ! 

Metta Zenda :)

Kia Ora,

  ::) The heated "healthy" debate, no doubt will have some still fuming long after this topic is closed...Might I suggest those who are somewhat frustrated because their views were challenged, not to take whats been said to heart. Bearing in mind you still have your views in tacked, no physical harm done-just perhaps a little denting of ones pride that's all...

::) Come to think of it, some might even have been having a sly dig at myself with some of the comments I've read "Ouch"...But I guess that comes with the Territory...

However if the mods feel the topic is getting out of hand , that is members are not able to police themselves, then please closed...

Metta Zenda :)

*hugs everyone* (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosgan.de%2Fimages%2Fmidi%2Ftiere%2Fg040.gif&hash=1627b39a662b8b0347f358e44f51ea70d4e856ed)

However unrealistic, when the system really does not work for a certain group of people, however small, in a way that is easy to consider "unfair" if not oppressive, then yeah, I feel we should strive to change the system.
I do not think that's arrogant.
That's how minorities have gotten what they need in the past.
That's how minorities have gotten basic human rights in the past even.

I don't agree with reducing a person to their genitals and whether or not they've had them surgically altered.
I'm as much a man today as I was a year ago, before I had any surgery at all.
I'm as much a man today as I was two years ago, before I even started Testosterone.

I understand that this is something that most people have a hard time with because when they look a pre-everything trans person they "see" the gender assigned at birth, and so no, I'm not suggesting I should have been able to have everything changed without any transition steps what so ever, but I am suggesting that surgery doesn't "make" me a man, I've been a man all along.

I must say I am plesently surprissed by the results of this poll. I expected it to be the other way around. Makes my heart warm.

Quote from: Miniar on June 01, 2011, 05:59:28 AM
I don't agree with reducing a person to their genitals and whether or not they've had them surgically altered.
I'm as much a man today as I was a year ago, before I had any surgery at all.
I'm as much a man today as I was two years ago, before I even started Testosterone.

I believe you're right.

We have a quite simple system here. Once two psychiatrists diagnose transsexualism and they think the patient is ready to live as his/her chosen gender they write the approval for name and sex change. There is an examination by the urologist(MTF) or gynecologist(FTM). With these papers one can start HRT and can apply for name and sex change. Once that's granted the new documents(birth certificate, ID, drivers license, etc...) are made and the person is legally male or female. No need for surgery or HRT to be legally recognized as your chosen gender the government trusts the psychiatrists in this matter(or just doesn't really care). SRS is an another matter though and it is decided by the doctors who do the surgery but generally they are more strict than the government.

Quote from: Anne Caitlyn on June 01, 2011, 10:02:42 AM
We have a quite simple system here. Once two psychiatrists diagnose transsexualism and they think the patient is ready to live as his/her chosen gender they write the approval for name and sex change. There is an examination by the urologist(MTF) or gynecologist(FTM). With these papers one can start HRT and can apply for name and sex change. Once that's granted the new documents(birth certificate, ID, drivers license, etc...) are made and the person is legally male or female. No need for surgery or HRT to be legally recognized as your chosen gender the government trusts the psychiatrists in this matter(or just doesn't really care). SRS is an another matter though and it is decided by the doctors who do the surgery but generally they are more strict than the government.

This sounds like a functional system.
I could get behind these standards. It does however have some complications inherant. Mainly it favors those who can afford psychiatric counsiling. Most insurance will not cover GID related psych expenses here in the states.

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 01, 2011, 06:16:55 AM

Gender identification is the core component in identifying a person along with fingerprints and race.

The thing is, on most forms of identification it's utterly extraneous nowadays. Gender markers on things like passports or drivers licences were useful and necessary back before photographs. Now with photo and biometric ID, it's a pointless category on pretty much anything other than a birth cert. Need a gender marker on your social security file? Nope. Need it on drivers license? Nope. Need it on a passport? Nope. It's unnecessary.

Beyond that, people are going to judge you on how you look. But there is no necessity to carrying around a piece of paper with an M or F on it.

Quote from: pixiegirl on June 01, 2011, 10:53:02 AM
The thing is, on most forms of identification it's utterly extraneous nowadays. Gender markers on things like passports or drivers licences were useful and necessary back before photographs. Now with photo and biometric ID, it's a pointless category on pretty much anything other than a birth cert. Need a gender marker on your social security file? Nope. Need it on drivers license? Nope. Need it on a passport? Nope. It's unnecessary.

Beyond that, people are going to judge you on how you look. But there is no necessity to carrying around a piece of paper with an M or F on it.

Not sure about you, but I PREFER that the F on the documentation ensures I should not be groped by a male when I travel.  I dare say MOST women in the world do not want to be groped by a male when THEY travel by air.  And yes, at least in the States, the actions of the TSA *DO* qualify as a groping that borders on a sexual assault.  I do not get anywhere NEAR that level of a search when I enter jails and prisons to meet with clients. 

There are other uses for the continuation of the current system, but it seems that too many want their utopian world to change for the whims of a few.   

Then why should the F on your ID "not" ensure your gender identity and wishes are respected?

Quote from: cynthialee on June 01, 2011, 10:40:50 AM
This sounds like a functional system.
I could get behind these standards. It does however have some complications inherant. Mainly it favors those who can afford psychiatric counsiling. Most insurance will not cover GID related psych expenses here in the states.

The psychiatric care is free here, you have to go to the hospital and make an appointment with a local psychiatrist. If you are lucky you find one who understands this issue. That is usually not the case but it isn't impossible to find someone who can help. Transsexualism is still not a widely known and understood thing here, even among psychiatrists. Some of them can be quite harsh and they sometimes just tell you that you are just a gay transvestite or something like that without even listening to you. Of course, if you have money it is easier to find a psychiatrist who knows what to do, but they are mainly located in the capital city, which is not ideal for a lot of people.

I think the idea of our system is quite good and fair, and because of that I voted for the first option. Most of the medical staff in our country is seriously lacking the knowledge to help transsexuals, but  it's slowly getting better.

If I walk into a shop en femme I can't even pay with my credit card because they just don't believe that the card is mine until I prove them, thus outing myself to a few people in the area. This is just one of many quite awkward situations which could be avoided and totally unnecessary in my opinion. Luckily if I choose to transition that problem is solved for me.
What is there to gain by not letting people change their names and sex on their ID's before the surgery?

Anyone else now reading this thread as 'Legal recognition for No-hopers' ?

Just me then!  ::)

Quote from: pixiegirl on June 01, 2011, 10:53:02 AM
The thing is, on most forms of identification it's utterly extraneous nowadays. Gender markers on things like passports or drivers licences were useful and necessary back before photographs. Now with photo and biometric ID, it's a pointless category on pretty much anything other than a birth cert. Need a gender marker on your social security file? Nope. Need it on drivers license? Nope. Need it on a passport? Nope. It's unnecessary.

Beyond that, people are going to judge you on how you look. But there is no necessity to carrying around a piece of paper with an M or F on it.

Exactly. Legal gender markers are never used for identification of cisgendered people, but are only used to harass non-cisgendered people. Appearance and presentation are applicable for physical and social identification, but having SRS does not outwardly change this (most people aren't checking your pants). While it is relatively accessible to change a US passport (with the major barriers of the binary-biased DSM, inhibitory costs of gender therapy, regionally variable availability of therapists, and medical contraindications with HRT), having conflicting documents brings harassment. Changing birth certificates, driver's licenses, and other legal documents are all governed by different bureaucratic agency policies, which vary state to state, sometimes with overlapping and ambiguous jurisdiction. For instance, in Ohio, no matter what I do, I can never change by birth certificate, but if I jump through the right hoops I can change my driver's licence. But I was born on a US military base, and so the rules are governed by the state of Ohio as well as the federal government. It's never simple in the US. There are no clear-cut "laws" governing these issues, but there are policies of agencies, of cities, of townships, of counties, of states, of federal agencies, and ever-changing case law.

In terms of gender-designated space, suspect activity should be grounds for removal, not an inability to urinate standing up, for example. If someone is being creepy, disruptive, or harassing people in a bathroom, kick them out, and the private owner of the restroom or patrons who were harassed (or both) can press charges if they choose to, or take non-legal action (banned from the facility etc). But forcing a non-op transman to use the women's restroom because they have not had either the privilege or the desire to have bottom surgery doesn't make sense. Some policies guiding gender recognition for transmen include having a metoidioplasty with urethral extensions (a surgery with higher costs and more complications). Basically, transmen are denied recognition in some jurisdictions because they cannot urinate standing up without artificial assistance. Why bathroom habits are basis for gender recognition, I will never understand, but it does not surprise me as long as the state polices bodies and identities.

Quote from: Miniar on June 01, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Then why should the F on your ID "not" ensure your gender identity and wishes are respected?

By deconstructing gender as some around here seem so want to have take place, there would not be any M or F on a license/ID...and in theory, that gives agencies the potential authority to simply grope without regard to the current provisions of law. 

Those of us who DO subscribe to a binary construct do NOT want the legal gender chaos that some seem to want reigning supreme. 

   

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 01, 2011, 03:44:59 PM
By deconstructing gender as some around here seem so want to have take place, there would not be any M or F on a license/ID...and in theory, that gives agencies the potential authority to simply grope without regard to the current provisions of law. 

Those of us who DO subscribe to a binary construct do NOT want the legal gender chaos that some seem to want reigning supreme.

It is my opinion that the TSA should be abolished and replaced with private security that caters to the security needs as well as privacy considerations of patrons, not just instituting invasive and ineffective procedures that anyone can look up and avoid. But I'll avoid that tangent. The fact is, however, that not everyone is heterosexual, and assigning female TSA agents to violate female travelers and vice versa solves nothing. It really is just a failed attempt to try to make it easier for the public to swallow. If this is an issue, people should be able to make their preference known. If you'd rather be violated by a female officer than a male officer, your preference probably won't change with SRS.

Also, you can subscribe to an exclusively binary construct of gender without enforcing it with violence or threats of violence on those whose real-life identities, experiences and bodies don't fit in the male/female dichotomy. The state is an institution distinguished from private associations of individuals by (1) a monopoly of force and (2) institutionalized theft. You can believe what you want to believe, try to convince as many people as you want, invalidate as many identities as you want, but to advocate an institution of violence and theft to enforce your own opinions is a very different thing.

Removing sex from legal documents wouldn't bring chaos. It would really be rather minor in the change of day to day life for MOST people. For those for whom it would change, it would only mean the end of that aspect of their oppression.

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 01, 2011, 09:15:00 AM
So what criteria should be used, that would work within the systems available today?

The systems available today are flawed, that is the point of offering any solution. Current systems are unaware of the needs, desires and realities of trans-identified and non-cisgendered people, and greatly privilege the cisgendered majority. Any alternative systems, such as the one you presented, are all attempts to address this.

The only criteria for gender is individual identity.

I guess I am done with the thread...probably should have just left after having become one of the five.  Why people want a poll if the majority of respondents are only going to excoriate people for offering up their response is beyond me...

I don't think society as a whole is ready for a third gender.

And I don't really want to do away with F or M markers on driver licenses or anything else.

I also don't think it should be "too" easy to change it, changing your gender marker is a serious thing and needs to be treated as such.  I also don't think we should be made to jump through "too" many hoops to have it done.

I might not be popular for thinking we need to have good and sufficient reasons to change our gender markers, but, I don't want it done on a whim or for people to go back and forth.  I do think it should be more consistent from state to state and there should be one clearing house that would take care of all your different forms of identification all at once.

Ok, go ahead, start shooting at me :)

Quote from: Sarah Louise on June 01, 2011, 04:56:37 PM
I don't think society as a whole is ready for a third gender.

And I don't really want to do away with F or M markers on driver licenses or anything else.

I also don't think it should be "too" easy to change it, changing your gender marker is a serious thing and needs to be treated as such.  I also don't think we should be made to jump through "too" many hoops to have it done.

I might not be popular for thinking we need to have good and sufficient reasons to change our gender markers, but, I don't want it done on a whim or for people to go back and forth.  I do think it should be more consistent from state to state and there should be one clearing house that would take care of all your different forms of identification all at once.

Ok, go ahead, start shooting at me :)

I actually agree with you, for the most part.

I don't think society will become "ready" for a third gender before it's made available. I think that the only way that's ever "really" going to happen is to first let non binary people state that, and then the world'll get used to it rather quickly.

Kia Ora,

::) I realise at times it can be quite frustrating  :icon_userfriendly: for "some" members to have their well thought out opinions "challenged" [especially when they are not use to being challenged  :eusa_naughty: ]...But hey we are all adults here [well mostly what can be considered adults anyway]...And they are only words on the computer screen,  :icon_userfriendly: we can either to become frustrated with what we read  :icon_punch: or just accept they are just other people's opinions, which like our own they have every right to express them...  :icon_bunch: :icon_flower:

  ::) Now where was I ???  ::) Oh yea, when it comes to having a system in place for legal recognition which covers the non opers[or no-hopers as Millie likes to call them  ;) ;D ]...The UK's "Gender Recognition"  may not be "perfect" but why reinvent the wheel that's already turning reasonably smoothly ? Here's how it works...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/contents (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/contents)

Thank you all for policing yourselves and thinking things through before voicing your "well thought out" opinions...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Kay on June 01, 2011, 11:56:02 PM
.
While I dislike many actions that the government takes, that's a pretty extreme metaphor to use to describe law and taxes.  If any Joe/Jane cis-gendered individual were to peek in on this thread, I would not be at all surprised if they thought you were advocating anarchy and/or pulling down the current government.  (I'm not saying you are...but I am saying that if you're looking to maintain/start a constructive dialogue advocating for a certain change...as in gender markers...these sorts of extreme polarizing words aren't going to help your cause.)

I'm not using it as a metaphor, it's very literal. And I am a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist with queer anarchy influences, with my basis in my ideology in the non-aggression axiom, the property corollary, the right to free-association, free contract, and self-determination in action and identity as long as it does not infringe upon the other principles. But that's not the point of this thread...

I took what you said to heart, and I don't want to be that guy over-posting and monopolizing the thread. It really was never my intent. I am the kind of person that gets sucked into discussions like these. I really love discussion, debate and writing: it's what I do, and it's not always appropriate, especially since the focus of this forum is support not debate. I don't want to cross that line here. My first reaction was to start writing a reply in rebuttal to the examples you cited, because I do have an opinion, but I want to make sure it's appropriate, and also give others a chance to respond. Perhaps I'll wait until tomorrow? Does that sound fair?

Kia Ora,

::) For those here who are unfamiliar with the UK's Gender Recognition Act...This link is better than the previous one I just posted, it's  a "in plain English" leaflet guide...

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/gender-recognition-panel/overseas-application-process/explanatory-leaflet-guide-for-users.pdf (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/gender-recognition-panel/overseas-application-process/explanatory-leaflet-guide-for-users.pdf)

It pays to know how the UK's Gender Recognition Panel screens potential applicants...

It doesn't cover "genderqueers" or those who choose a "genderless" lifestyle...
It's specifically for "Transsexual" people who wish to be legally "recognised" as their "psycho-sexual" gender identity and have taken the necessary steps to acquire this... "counselling" "HRT" or "Surgery"

Metta Zenda :)

Human society has one fundamental function, that no matter what is said and done.  Humanity has to procreate, basically no ifs and no butts.  If they do not procreate then we as a society will become extinct.  So no matter what, we will have "two sexes".

The system that allows 'transgendered' people to change their gender, is not perfect.  However, the current system is much better than it was 30, 40 or even 50 years ago and only over time will it get better.

I also offer myself as a target, because I also agree with what Sarah Louise says:

Quote from: Sarah Louise on June 01, 2011, 04:56:37 PM
I don't think society as a whole is ready for a third gender.

And I don't really want to do away with F or M markers on driver licenses or anything else.

I also don't think it should be "too" easy to change it, changing your gender marker is a serious thing and needs to be treated as such.  I also don't think we should be made to jump through "too" many hoops to have it done.

I might not be popular for thinking we need to have good and sufficient reasons to change our gender markers, but, I don't want it done on a whim or for people to go back and forth.  I do think it should be more consistent from state to state and there should be one clearing house that would take care of all your different forms of identification all at once.

Ok, go ahead, start shooting at me :)

For the simple reason as I mentioned above, having "two sexes" is fundamental to our society and also as Kay elaborated:

Quote from: Kay on June 01, 2011, 11:56:02 PM

Quote from: Mikah"The state is an institution distinguished from private associations of individuals by (1) a monopoly of force and (2) institutionalized theft"

While I dislike many actions that the government takes, that's a pretty extreme metaphor to use to describe law and taxes.  If any Joe/Jane cis-gendered individual were to peek in on this thread, I would not be at all surprised if they thought you were advocating anarchy and/or pulling down the current government.  (I'm not saying you are...but I am saying that if you're looking to maintain/start a constructive dialogue advocating for a certain change...as in gender markers...these sorts of extreme polarizing words aren't going to help your cause.)
..

Quote from: MikahRemoving sex from legal documents wouldn't bring chaos. It would really be rather minor in the change of day to day life for MOST people. For those for whom it would change, it would only mean the end of that aspect of their oppression.

Removing my name and every shred of personal information from my all of my personal documents wouldn't change much in my day to day life.  However their use in "day to day"  functions isn't the point of having such legal documents.
.
Let's take a step back and try to see this issue from a different perspective:
.
Social Security Card: M or F?
-Except for broad areas of human services planning,  the only reason I can think of for this one is to have a ready database should the necessity of a draft arise due to war/conflict.
.
Birth Certificate:  M or F?
- Reporting:  Just as the 10 year census can help the government with planning, so do such reports on the birth of children aid communities.   Not only in numbers, but in planning for the types of services (some sex specific) that will be needed for their community. 
.
-Children eventually will get sick, have an accident, or have to see the doctor for some reason or other.  Many medical procedures/treatments are either sex specific, or individuals may need to be treated differently based upon ones anatomy, so it's necessary to know "M or F?" for medical reasons.
.
While most institutions don't need to look at this form of identification more than once (generally at registration), the sex marker is used by many organizations. 
1.) to comply with federal law (anti-discrimination statues among others)
2.) to ensure that there are sex specfic resources available when needed
3.) to avoid legal complications (by leveraging either changes to their building or staffing choices) due to the appearance of impropriety/indecency...especially concerning children that are growing into their sexual maturity.
-Just because you can usually see something with your eyes, doesn't mean that the administration directing the organization can tell that "Chris Smith" is F or M.   Sometimes documentation isn't meant for you...or for those that know you.  Often it's meant for those that don't know you...and may never see you. 
.
Up until age 16 (at least here in the US) The above are the main forms of ID used.
.
Then we get:
(any age) Passport:  M or F?
This is your identification abroad.  I've never used one abroad, so I can't speak to how the "M or F" might be used in foreign jurisdictions.  I would assume it is likely similar to the below:

Driver's License or State ID Card:  M or F?
Who uses it? 
- Some organizations when their services are sex (generallly "F") specific.  Even moreso if they get any sort of goverment grants or assistance...in order to justify funding.
.
Some business use it as a checkmark for identification...especially for financial matters.  I've been carded many times while using my credit card, when a cashier looks at my name and asks "Are you sure that's you?"
.
Who uses it most often?...the police. 
-If someone is very androgynous, it gives them a legal document of reference which may effect:
- what sex the officer is that will deal with you  (especially during a domestic violence/abuse or similar complaint)
- who will frisk you
- what cell you're confined to and the company you will keep while incarcerated (again, the admin don't decide these things based on your looks...they do it based on your records...sometimes without ever laying eyes on you)
- in describing a suspect they are searching for...especially if they don't have a picture.
- what sort of questions they will ask you (especially regarding sexual matters of abuse, rape, etc...)
- There are sex specific laws regarding decency and access to certain facilities that the "F or M" will effect...that the police are charged with maintaining.
.
There are more I'm sure, but that's enough for now.
= = = = =
.
Personally, a lot of the time I don't think strangers know where to place me...especially when I relax when in male mode as I go home from work.  I get ma'amed...I get sirred...I get some really confused looks...all depending on how I act.  Since the police have to consider sensitive subjects that do involve differences in sex...should I expect them to grope my crotch if they can't tell whether I'm M or F?   Personally, I'd prefer they look at my license. :P  Often this form of ID is not completely for my benefit...it's for theirs...or someone else's too.
.
And yes...I understand that with most people, their sex is immediately discernable.  It isn't that way with everyone though.  I have a friend who is intersex.  She has a higher than normal level of testosterone in her system...always has...which has left her with very masculine features and prominent facial hair that she has to shave (leaving a shadow)...even though she was born "F" and still considers herself "F".   Public bathrooms are a nightmare for her.  Why should she have to give up her readily available legal proof of her sex?   (without it, the issues with police after bathroom confrontations would last a lot longer than they already do)
.
Another story:   I have a friend who is a pre-op MTF that has an "F" on her license.    Because the doctors assumed a female body, she was mis-diagnosed 3 times and missed a considerable amount of work before finally getting the treatment she needed for an infection in her prostate.  She told the doctors that she was a 'trans-woman,' but they didn't understand the terminology.  They looked at her, saw she looked female, had an "F" on her documents, so that's how they treated her.   
.
There are dangers in trying to use a physical sex marker as a "gender marker."  Both socially and medically.  Sex and gender are two different things.  When you conflate and confuse the two topics, all sorts of misunderstandings can happen.  And while I do realize that socially there is some overlap in the usage of the two terms, I think that there should be significant effort to change physically before conveying recognition of a change in sex upon someone.   (While, of course, compassionately considering the complexities of the topic as in my first post on this thread) To do otherwise is to remove and/or dilute any meaning in the sex designation. 
.
Honestly, instead of just seeing who can yell the loudest and longest for their views, or monopolize posting on a particular thread until no one else wants to bother with it, we need to be mindful of how the changes we propose effect others.  It's easy to say "me me me."  Let's remember "How about you?" as well.  Whether they be transexed, intersexed, transgendered, or cis-gendered.  Just because something doesn't effect our daily lives much...doesn't mean it wouldn't greatly effect someone else.  If we fail to look outside of our own viewpoint and consider others, we will fail to convince the majority (which is what is necessary for such a change) that such change is needed and appropriate...no matter how incremental that change may be.  (and removing sex markers...in a society very much immersed in their sexual/gender differences is not at all an incremental suggestion)
.
While some may think that removing all sex markers will improve things, and would have little impact, I disagree.  Physical sex differentiation is a big issue in our society.  It is a big issue medically.  Attempting to erase legal sex from documents does not erase the effect that it has in the real world.  (and it would complicate matters for goverment/police workers especially) To even somewhat erase it (at least in the social realm), you would have to first change the hearts and minds of those around you.  That isn't something we can do with extreme polarized words and proposals that ignore their point of view.  Constructive thoughtful respecful...and mutual...dialogue is a necessity.

Which bring us back to the original post made by Zenda and the first item on the poll was, "Yes they should be eligible providing they meet the set out criteria", something similar to the UK gender recognition act 2004, but also those who have had appropriate surgery, should also be allowed to change the gender on their birth certificate.  This satisfies both 'camps' and again as Sarah Louise said "Changing your gender' should not be easy, because changing your gender is a serious thing to do".

My kindest regards to one and all
Sarah B

Please do not quote large bodies of text just to add a simple paragraph at the end. It really sucks up unnessesary screen space.

As for the need for two sex's on paper....yeah no.

People will breed and multiply regardless of what is printed on birth certifictes.

All I said was people would breed regardless of what is printed on a paper.

I took no actual position.

I think this is just going around in circles now. I'll keep the thread open for a bit longer but I really hope it doesn't degrade into attacks on each other. Please try to keep it civil and constructive.

Thank you.

My sister is a SFC in the US Army. She has served in Iraq and Afganistan. She has seen hell on earth and she is a woman I am proud to call my sister.

I see no issue with conscripting women. The idea that women get to stay on the homefront while the men go to war is an old outdated sexist system.

I served 2 years in the US Army. Don't tell me what I don't know.

Now you are just getting mean. I am sorry I do not agree with your position. I think it is not constructive for you to tell me I subscribe to violence for women.

Conscription for any other reason than defending your own homeland from invasion is abhorrent, for anyone, male or female.

And that's my final comment on this or any thread on Susans. When your dominance war is over, you may just find that there isn't anyone else left to argue. So I hope that you enjoy each others company.

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 02, 2011, 09:59:43 AM
If any of you can honestly say that women should be exposed and made instruments of war and violence, made to use weapons to harm others, that is a terrible, terrible thing. Again, those holding that view should be ashamed of themselves.

No one should, regardless of gender.

But that's a totally different subject and drifting away from the purpose of this thread. Please keep it on the topic the thread was made for, and once again, I ask that everyone debate the subject of the thread rather than attacking people for views they may or may not hold.

I won't ask again.

Thank you.

Fine.....
Personaly I think any woman who would use her gender as an excuse to avoid civic duty is no woman I would want in my family.

Women are just as capable and often just as willing to join the military as men. Many women, including the women of my family are happy to stand with the men in uniform and fight for the freedoms we all enjoy.

Your position is untenable.

edit: I wrote this as others were posting....

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 02, 2011, 09:30:23 AM
However popular it may be here and however pleased you all feel about your poll, the need for sex designation is real.

If any of you can say that the women in your lives should serve in the military, you are no community of mine. You should be ashamed of yourselves if you do.

This is really heading down a tangent, because I don't think you need sex designations on certain identification documents as a way of keeping track of data anyway.

But I am very curious about your attitude about military roles and sex. It obviously comes from a particular cultural perspective. I am as opposed to mandatory conscription of men as I am for women, and if there IS going to be mandatory conscription, I see no reason to exempt women. I have significant family that lives in a country that has mandatory conscription for both MEN and WOMEN, and both men and women serve with honor and distinction.

If you are against a draft or mandatory military force, that should not be dependent on sex. And if you believe that at some point a mandatory conscription is necessary, I don't understand why you think women shouldn't have to serve.

Do you believe that women in a voluntary military belong there and are able to serve, as we have now?
Do you believe that women are capable of providing law enforcement domestically?
If so, what's the difference? If it is about choice, then why shouldn't men have the same choice?

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 02, 2011, 02:16:05 PM
In an effort to repair the hard feelings I have caused some people by my opinions, I have deleted my posts in this thread. My view is unpopular in any event and does not serve your agenda.

I apologize for causing anyone distress.

peace,

Valerie

Kia Ora Valerie,

It's sad that you have done this, you have every right to voice your opinions...It just saddens me that some people take what's been said to heart and see it as a personal attack...I could see from your posts that you were not attacking others, just stating how you felt about things...

I'm "responsible" for starting this thread, but am "not" responsible for how others choose to behave...The topic itself was not "controversial"...

I wish you all well and that you all have time to contemplate what each other have said...Perhaps some good will come out of this after all... "Empathy"

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Mikah on June 02, 2011, 12:33:26 AM
I'm not using it as a metaphor, it's very literal. And I am a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist with queer anarchy influences, with my basis in my ideology in the non-aggression axiom, the property corollary, the right to free-association, free contract, and self-determination in action and identity as long as it does not infringe upon the other principles. But that's not the point of this thread...

I took what you said to heart, and I don't want to be that guy over-posting and monopolizing the thread. It really was never my intent. I am the kind of person that gets sucked into discussions like these. I really love discussion, debate and writing: it's what I do, and it's not always appropriate, especially since the focus of this forum is support not debate. I don't want to cross that line here. My first reaction was to start writing a reply in rebuttal to the examples you cited, because I do have an opinion, but I want to make sure it's appropriate, and also give others a chance to respond. Perhaps I'll wait until tomorrow? Does that sound fair?

Hi Mikah,
.
Speak as and when you wish, I'm not trying to infringe upon that. I'm just trying to nudge people to thinking about being more courteous to others. I just think a lot of these sort of discussions tend to get overrun by strong personalities.  My apologies if it sounded like I was directing that at you solely and specifically, I wasn't.  While I may consider you a strong/vocal personality, I also think that you handle it better than most in keeping it intellectual and away from attack-mode.   Personally, I left my reply at "preview" for a couple of hours, simply because I wasn't really sure I wanted to get involved in the rather caustic downward spiral that these threads often become.  I'm still not sure if I should have.
.
You certainly have a very interesting philosophical foundation.  I don't think most people could describe their foundational philosophy so specifically and succinctly.  Hell...I know I couldn't.  ;)  I do think though, that the wide difference in philosophy that you have with others will have a large effect on debate/discussion for/with you.  In discussion/debate there are often unspoken assumptions of concensus.   When two people with completely different assumptions/philosophies get together, the discussion can often turn out being more about the foundational assumption/philosphy than the topic at hand.  ie. The question of legal recognition can turn into a question about the need for any recognition/markers at all, or about the failings of society/government in general...when an unspoken assumption of the question asked is often "in the current environment."   
.
(original question)

Quote from: Zenda on May 26, 2011, 12:17:08 AM
Should legal recognition be stopped-if ones private parts haven't been chopped?   

.
I suppose I should chide myself for getting caught up in that too.  My apologies.  I've deleted my post due to its largely tangential off-topic nature.  I think a discussion on those topics could prove very interesting...especially with someone as articulate as you...but this is probably not an appropriate thread for it. 
.
Shutting up now...
.
Kaitlyn (Kay)
.
PS:  Zenda, thanks for the links to the gender recognition act.  :)

Kia Ora,

Happy Mindfulness people!

After all..."Happiness is just a state of mind"

Metta Zenda :)

::) PS You're welcome Kay.... :)