Quote from: Natasha on January 17, 2010, 06:51:24 AM
qft or in my own words:

"Identification of those who have fully transitioned as "trans-anything" is at best demeaning and at worst deceptive."

I suggest you be careful, though. There are plenty of trans people who think the term "fully transitioned" is offensive. It can imply those who have been on hormones for x number of years, who have had top surgery, bottom surgery, etc., are somehow more man or woman than those who haven't. And at what point would someone be considered "fully transitioned"?

I think it's the kind of term you should only use to refer to yourself, or possibly to someone who you know considers himself or herself such.

There are plenty of trans people who think the term ________ is offensive.

The list is so endless that most of us have given up caring about offending people long ago and far away.

I'm not an easily offended person, nor am I willing to walk on eggshells. But when it's so easy to see why a term could be offensive or could put some trans people on a higher pedestal than others, I think it makes sense to avoid that particular term.

I have put myself into a position where I refuse to live under any kind of "label", the only time I've even come close to using one is when I asked my GP to refer me to a therapist who dealt in "gender" issues. As best my memory serves. When I write also I hate having labels put on my style, I'm just not a label kind of person

Evie

I've never ID'ed as "transsexual" either.  Pre-surgery, I saw myself as a woman with a birth defect.  To the medical communtiy that birth defect was known as transsexuality (body & mind mistmatch) but that's all it was.  To me transition or trans is a temporary process, something that ends & not something that's everlasting.  In my case it's already ended so nowadays I'm only a woman but you're more than welcome to call me Jeannette too.

Either way, or with butter and powdered sugar, or fresh strawberrys with a strawberry reduction sauce.

I used to have a good recipe for almond butter that worked real well too.

But, back to the topic, when everyone gets to define the words - like Humpty Dumpty did in Alice in Wonderland:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
    "They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"[

Then the words mean nothing, and no further understanding can come about.  If you can't name it, how are others to understand it?  On one hand we seek understanding, on the other hand it seems that the most basic tools needed to bring it about are being tossed out.

Quote from: Brynn on January 17, 2010, 02:47:35 PM
And at what point would someone be considered "fully transitioned"?

is that a rethorical question or are you looking for my opinion?

to me [fully transitioned] in women equals post-vaginoplasty (not an orchi).  in men, it equals post-phalloplasty or post-metoidioplasty.

Quote from: Brynn on January 17, 2010, 02:47:35 PMAnd at what point would someone be considered "fully transitioned"?

IMO, when they've finished doing what they feel they need to be who they are.

It's not mine, nor anyone else's, place to tell someone else they have to do things my, or anyone else's, way to be "fully transitioned".
My transition is my transition, your transition is yours and so on. If you don't want my nose in yours (or the nose of other people) then you keep yours out of mine.
Lest you become a hypocrite.
Plain and simple.

Are they fully transitioned then as long as they think they've done all they feel they need to do, and it turns out, that's pretty much nothing?

In other words, are you there just because you say you are, no if, ands, or buts about it.

I would propose the (maybe unpopular) idea that "fully transitioned" is when you move through daily life as the sex that you are without attracting attention or second-glances. It is not until that point that you can truly and completely live as your desired sex.

Pretty much actually Tekla.
Mind you, I want to say no, and point out that you can't be "done" if you don't actually "do" anything, but it's not mine to say what another person needs to do to be done doing what they need to do.

I'll be "fully transitioned" the day I'm content with what I've done and no longer feel need to alter anything further.
So will everyone else.
Even if their version of what's been done differs from mine.

Interesting!

My first reaction is to shout a resounding "Yes! They have transitioned because they said they did!".

But then again...

The whole meaning behind the word "transition" (generally speaking) is to go from one thing to another thing.

One could argue then, that transition is purely an act of the (somewhat) physical, social and legal. All external things. Our "core identity" doesn't change. We know who we are before we undertake such an important monumental task.... if we've thought things through, anyway .

So - if someone did not change those outward things - did they "transition"? Would one classify accepting, acting on, or discovering something that is already pre-existing as "transition"?

Hmm... it's a sticky one!

We all have different paths, and no path is "better than" another path. There's only the best path for an individual, and it's up to them to create it (etc, etc).

Personally, I do think they've made some kind of journey. I'm more inclined to think of it as a journey of self discovery, at the end of which they've found a way to express themselves and be comfortable in who they are without resorting to an external "transition".

And if someone only changes a "few" things? Well, they've gone through a smaller transition with different start and end points.

There's nothing inheranty wrong with either of those things.

The mistake I think people are making is comparing different transitions side-by-side and trying to create some sort of classification or order out of the chaos. We start doing that, then we're going to start putting people in boxes. We do that, then we're going to start stacking boxes on top of each other, and someone is going to get crushed on the bottom.

As for me, I will consider myself "fully transitioned" when I no longer feel like making, or am not planning (even unrealistic plans are plans) any more sex related changes. I have no idea when that could be or what it entails. I'm just going to keep doing things until I don't want to do - at which point I'll stop.

People have transitioned throughout history without accecss to any medical services whatsoever. So ... yeah. If you're living comfortably in your society in the gender role that corresponds to your internal identity (brain sex or whatever you want to call it), then I don't really care what's in your pants as long as you don't. If what's in your pants prevents you from considering yourself as fully transitioned, then I can't argue, but that's your problem.

Tekla, sorry, but your slippery-slope argument about linguistic chaos won't fly. Words don't have distinct meanings; they're all hazy, and the boundaries of meaning are always uncertain. When you as a listener construe meanings too narrowly, you are being just as bad as Humpty Dumpty stretching menaings too far as speaker.

Given that all the words we're talking about here "transition," "transsexual," "transgender," and so on are basically neologisms (and politically charged ones to boot), of course they are disputed. It doesn't mean that our language and culture are crumbling before us. It just means we haven't fully mapped the semantic space we are exploring.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on January 21, 2010, 11:08:55 PM
Tekla, sorry, but your slippery-slope argument about linguistic chaos won't fly.

I'm not Tekla.


Transition without medical is still a social and legal transition. I never said it had to include medical, I just said there had to be some sort of change "from one thing to another". A change in external perception, social functioning, legal status.... something.

I agree with you that discussions on politically charged words don't mean the "culture" is going to collapse.

I still think directly comparing transitions is not something we want to get into the habit of doing, though.


Yes, what's in my pants does prevent me from considering myself as fully transitioned when I have plans to change said pants-contents. I see no point in calling myself "fully-transitioned" while I'm still making plans and undergoing changes. There's nothing wrong with still being "in transition" if you're not done yet.

But I'm in no way saying that other people aren't done because they don't fit my criteria. It's up to them where their end point is.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on Today at 12:08:55 am

    Tekla, sorry, but your slippery-slope argument about linguistic chaos won't fly.

I'm not Tekla.

I'd sue if I were you.  Defamation of character. 

But, I do think she was referring to what I wrote - or more likely she was arguing with Lewis Carrol, an argument everyone loses.

But, if that's so, why not just change the laws so that everyone can be what they want to be, what they think they are and not require anything.  Nothing.  Ever.  And if they want to change back.  Groovy.  They can change all the legal markers as many times as they have the cash to pay the fees.  After all, those markers are going to be a big steaming pile once our DNA is encoded on the documents - as it will be.

Quote from: tekla on January 21, 2010, 11:29:20 PM
I'd sue if I were you.  Defamation of character. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended... I just thought it was worth pointing out 

Quote from: tekla on January 21, 2010, 11:29:20 PM
But, I do think she was referring to what I wrote - or more likely she was arguing with Lewis Carrol, an argument everyone loses.

Then my apologies.

I thought my argument fit the criteria of "slippery-slope linguistic chaos"  😉

Calling Lewis Carrol "slippery-slope linguistic chaos" is kind of like pointing out that Alice in Wonderland is fiction.

I was arguing with neither Teknoir nor Lewis Carrol, but only Tekla. You can't argue with Lewis Carrol, because he argues grounds for argument, and then the grounds for the grounds, and so on. I just think that you're erring equally in the other direction.

And you're doing it again. Legalities are all about bright line distinctions; that's just the nature of the beast. But that doesn't mean that those bright lines really exist in the world. Words simply have different meanings in different contexts, and fuzzy meanings in most contexts. For example, when I say "large," I could be talking about an area of 10^-28 meters -- a very large cross section, indeed, when you're talking about cross sections for nuclear interactions, as "big as a barn," as the story goes -- or I could be talking about the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Or, you know, your mom. 😛 Jokes aside, nobody complains that certain words like "large" have meanings that depend on context and are fuzzy even in those contexts; that's taken for granted. I'm just saying that all words are like that to some extent, with some more like that than others. Sorry, the world is fuzzy and uncertain.

But then you say things like, "But, if that's so, why not ..." See, that's usually a sign warning: "slippery-slope argument ahead." It fails because the slope isn't slippery, or even all that steep. But, to tell you the truth, in the situation you described, if we just got rid of gender markers (which would require a massive cultural revolution before it could happen), I'd be pretty much thrilled. That would make my life a whole lot better. As it stands, I can deal with the bright lines defined by my state. Just don't tell me that those laws have some deep, fundamental real-world meaning. If they did, then my gender and sex would be a function of position -- talk about a radical position!

Quote from: Alyssa M. on January 22, 2010, 12:21:45 AM
I was arguing with neither Teknoir nor Lewis Carrol, but only Tekla.

Then please accept my apologies for being momentarily full of myself . I will now sit back with popcorn.