Quote from: Valeriedances on September 07, 2011, 01:37:05 PM
The key component/cornerstone of MtF transsexuals is dysphoria over their genitals. If someone is not dysphoric over their genitals then how can they be considered transsexual? And if not transsexual undergoing a sex change operation why would that person qualify for a change of their sex marker?

If someone does not get SRS how can they be considered female (the standard for sex change for over 50 years)? They still have a penis. There has been no change, they are not in transition. Furthermore, if someone decides not to get SRS, how does FFS qualify for a change of sex? that has never been considered as a qualifying standard.

   

Valerie, you hit the mark IMO.  It draws perfectly the distinction between those that want to be under some umbrella (a different sub-forum then this one) versus those who are or were transsexual by identified medical condition and intervention.  And last I checked, this thread was appearing in the 'transsexual talk' forum...although I guess pointing that out makes me elitist or whatever the label du jour will be.   

Quote from: Nygeel on September 07, 2011, 10:09:24 AM
But I'm not asking for the opinion for medical professionals and this does not address the double standard that I see. Trans men might "need top surgery" but trans women always need something down there...I think this is a case of trans misogyny mixed in with a bit of cissexism, topped off with classism.

Darn web browser glitched.

i'm seeing less and less point in this thread, but i can agree with you. i don't even care that you are ftm, because what you say makes sense period. i don't believe trans women can speak for me regardless of what they did, so why should the standard be different for trans men? transsexual is transsexual, and it doesn't matter if you are ftm or mtf. it's the same game, different players.

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 07, 2011, 02:16:17 PM
I am sorry, my only reason for posting in your thread was to wish you well in spite of differences of opinions on some things.

i am glad you did. there's just no point in arguing.

Quotethere's just no point in arguing.

Well, you brought up such a controversial topic, there was bound to be some arguing, lol.

Quote from: JenJen2011 on September 07, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
Well, you brought up such a controversial topic, there was bound to be some arguing, lol.

yeah, probably. it would've served me best to just read the parts where people were being helpful, and then just stop there.

Kia Ora,

Sadly it looks like for some so called "transsexual"[pre/post op] and  "transgender" people,  heart felt "contentment" 'free from the need to judge others because of how they choose to present themselves', is still lacking...That is they continually criticizing each other because some either chooses to keep the genitals of their birth sex intact whilst others don't...

Locker room issues=If a non op[passable/social blender so to speak] M2F trans-person decides to go and get changed in a female locker room, one would think out of concern for the feelings of others and oneself, they would make a point of not disclosing their original "birth sex" parts-[on a personal level prior to genital surgery, in situations like this, I had no wish to stand out by disclosing the fact there was a penis hanging between my legs, so I took care not to]...

It's OK to be proud of being "transgender" but in this day and age[where society's still coming to terms with the whole transsexual/transgender issue], for one to flaunt their "stuff' in public so to speak[locker room situation], I believe this would be like identifying oneself as a "third gender" and from what I gather for most [if not all] M2F trans-people a "third gender" status is not what they signed up for when starting their transition journey...However if one desire is to be part of a third gender, [one "needs" to stand out- extrovertism], I truly do hope the rest of society will eventually come to the party...   

As it stands I had reached a level of contentment prior to having surgery, that is even if I hadn't had surgery I was happy with my social status of female, and now the same level of contentment persists post surgery...I have only one wish and this is for others[regardless of their genital circumstances] to find the same level of contentment...

Remember folks "Different strokes for different folks !" that's how life is....

Metta Zenda

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 07, 2011, 02:44:28 PM
Hi Zenda,

Everyone deserves the pursuit of happiness and contentment. I do not care what someone does with their life, it is their business.  It is only when law changes are proposed that affect everyone, especially future transsexual people, that concerns me. I dont want to see doors closed to future transitioners who follow the standards of care. That would be a travesty.

Kia Ora Val,

This law change you speak of, would it really be a burden on those who choose to have genital surgery in a state that legally recognises their new identity...Remember I'm not familiar with the workings of the US when it comes to legal recognition of gender...

I have to sign off now I've work[it's also 8am]

Metta Zenda
   

I don't think a law change (ability to change gender marker without surgery) would affect those who chose to have surgery.  If you want surgery you will have it.  If not, you won't.  The law is unnecessary because not everyone wants or needs surgery.  Discomfort with your genitals does not equate to feeling the need to get surgical changes.

Quote from: Andy8715 on September 07, 2011, 03:10:56 PM
I don't think a law change (ability to change gender marker without surgery) would affect those who chose to have surgery. 

It can VERY EASILY impact the manner in which those changes are considered in significant legal matters.  As long as people have an ability to change markers without having undergone significant and irreversible surgical intervention, then the Court retains the ability to argue that the change does not accurately reflect one's legal status.  In effect, there exists the potential to create a significant number of cases with the net effect we have seen in the Araguz matter. 

The last thing those who undergo surgery to correct a transsexual medical condition want is to have their duly corrected paperwork cast aside despite the fact that they have genitalia that matches the letter on the paperwork. 

Quote from: Ann Onymous on September 07, 2011, 03:52:07 PM
It can VERY EASILY impact the manner in which those changes are considered in significant legal matters.  As long as people have an ability to change markers without having undergone significant and irreversible surgical intervention, then the Court retains the ability to argue that the change does not accurately reflect one's legal status. 

Has this ever happened in ANY state or country that has relaxed the standards for gender marker change? Sounds like chicken little to me unless you can show example court cases?

Hi Steph

This is the essence of the matter being discussed:

Quote from: Steph on September 07, 2011, 09:54:08 AM
If I may...

There is no doubt that how a person feels is strictly and personal issue that generally would not be changed by debate.  And yes if a person feels that simply taking hormones is all that is needed then so be it, it's their life.  Where folks can run into trouble is when the condition is know and once know, how society, the general public perceives/treats that person.  I could imagine that a person could easily hide the fact that they still had male genitalia, and that's good too, who am I to judge.

With regard to HRT...  There does come a point when the effects become irreversible but many medical professionals do not consider HRT alone as a standard that constitutes a sex/gender change.  There's enough negative debate/concern in society on wether CD/TV should be allowed/considered to be women and I'm afraid that those simply taking HRT may run up against this same wall.

Just my thoughts.

I would just correct one part of a sentence being "wether CD/TV should be allowed/considered to be women", to "whether CD/TV/TG should be allowed / considered to be a women or a man".

However, Ann Onymous is also correct in saying that, "We live in a binary society" and currently there are laws that allows one to correct their gender markers.  In the US and Australia the laws are basically the same, you must have some form of SRS to have that marker changed.  In the UK you can have your marker changed if you suffer from GID, which basically means you can have your marker changed without having surgery.  Those who wish not to have surgery is their choice and no one can tell them otherwise.  Those who decide that they do not want surgery must realize and accept the current state of the laws where they reside or resided. The only way things are going to change is if the laws get changed and that in itself, I would say is for another thread.

Warmest regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 07, 2011, 01:48:24 PM
If someone is not transitioning physically, they have no need for sex marker change. It is their choice not to have surgery, not to transition physically.

You stated that it was very uncomfortable during RLE to have to show your ID with the wrong marker on it in the post you removed.

I'm really just trying to grasp how the mental anguish non-ops (non-op can be by choice or not..) suffer with is -trivial/nonexistent- ("they have no need for sex marker change") but people should still be sympathetic to a true TS's mental pain on the same subject. You felt this pain yourself. Why do you think this is any less unpleasant for someone to deal with a -lifetime of this- just because they don't have your exact same end needs for SRS. All this does is force some people to have unneeded surgery to relieve -this- anguish.

I guess I just don't feel anyone has a right to tell other people what they need and what they don't to be happy, especially in a free country.

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 07, 2011, 01:48:24 PM

There is no Standard of Care for lifetime non-op people. Why would they need any care?

There's a Standard of Care for all trans people, thus there is a SoC for non-op people. I still disagree rather strongly with HBS SoC.

Quote
If someone is not transitioning physically, they have no need for sex marker change. It is their choice not to have surgery, not to transition physically.

I believe taking hormones to be transitioning physically. My hairline has changed, my fat has redistributed, I've been gaining muscle without working out...all physical changes. For many people it's not a choice to not have surgery. There are (for example) older trans people who are recommended not to get surgery do to potential complications in surgery. There are some trans people with medical conditions where surgery is not an option. There are low income trans people who would rather not starve than get surgery which when it comes down to it isn't a choice. There are...lesse...there are trans people who don't get surgery because of an intense fear of having surgery performed which out weighs the need for surgery.


I don't know if it was you or somebody else that pointed out the idea that a person that isn't uncomfortable with their genitals can't be transsexual because that's what a transsexual is.

Well, whoever said that I have a counter point. There's more to sex than simply what is between a person's hips/legs. What is between the hips/legs is considered "primary sex characteristic." There are "secondary sex characteristics" that aren't related to "the bits." Take for example, being a hairy beast of a human being. Massive amounts of thick body hair is seen as a secondary sex characteristic usually held by men. Body fat distribution, etc...all secondary sex characteristics. I am certain, without any sort of doubt that you have/have had discomfort with your secondary sex characteristics, and I'm fairly certain that these are the number one things that bother transsexuals.

Hi FullMoon19

You mentioned at the start of this thread:

Quote from: FullMoon19 on September 06, 2011, 06:59:47 PMi have alot of trouble wrapping my head around many mtf here who put so much emphasis on having a vulva instead of a penis. even though i have a penis, i barely think about it, and i'm not the type who breaks down crying when i have to look at it in the shower. i just feel nothing about it. i don't like it, and i don't hate it. hrt was really the most important thing to me. as far as having a vagina for aesthetic reasons or feeling like more of a woman, well, i don't. exclusively, i feel like it's just the ideal for sex reasons, and that's it. the emphasis of having a vulva just makes me more mad because it keeps furthuring the idea that "you aren't really a woman until the penis comes off." that's just how i see it.

Before I had my surgery, I never placed any emphasis whatsoever on what my genitals were or for that matter of fact what they were going to become.  Like you I never thought about them, never cried about it, did not hate them, never damaged them, because I knew they would be used when I had surgery.  I was just indifferent towards them.  I just lived my life, working and socialising with not a worry in the world.  When I finally got my surgery letters, I just set a date for my surgery.  So in a sense I'm just like you.

Yet what I have said flies in the face of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which has five criteria that must be met before a diagnosis of gender identity disorder (302.85) can be given, namely and I quote, with my personal comments in bold on each:

Quote

• There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification. (Never was for me, I just lived my live as a female and people just saw me as a female)
• This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.(I did not do it for cultural advantages)
• There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. (Never had any discomfort, whatsoever)
• The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia). (I do not have these conditions as far as I know)
• There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. (No distress, no impairment to my social life and I worked full time.)

I finally had my surgery and the only reason, why I ever had corrective surgery was, so that I could function as a female."  I was born a female, have always been a female and always will be.  Regardless of what my biological sex is, regardless of what the DSM or  IDC10 says, regardless of what the SOC or WPATH said I had to do,  because these documents are not perfect, although over time they will get better.  I have never ever regretted my decision and I will always be internally grateful to my surgeon.

What ever anybody decides to do, if that makes you happy then do so with all your heart.  Life is too short too worry about what other people think.  That is not say you do not consider what advice or opinions they give, only you can judge whether they are relevant or not.

Take care and all the best for the future, whatever you decide to do.

Warmest regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Stephe on September 07, 2011, 05:58:31 PM
Has this ever happened in ANY state or country that has relaxed the standards for gender marker change? Sounds like chicken little to me unless you can show example court cases?

I guess you missed the whole Araguz decision...why am I not surprised.  Oh and Littleton 12 years earlier...

Quote from: Ann Onymous on September 07, 2011, 08:40:40 PM
I guess you missed the whole Araguz decision...why am I not surprised.

Of course I have and Araguz is a perfect example of why the laws need to be changed, not why it shouldn't be. She basically lied to the state to get married pre-op because of the current law YOU support. If the law didn't require surgery, she would have been legally married and able to defend herself or maybe never been taken to court. Except for the below..

In the littleton case,  the court held that a person's legal sex is genetically fixed at birth and that Ms. Littleton should be deemed to be legally male, despite her female anatomy and appearance, and despite the fact that she had lived as a woman for most of her adult life.

This person was post op but they still said she legally is male. Lowering the standard for gender marker change would not make this any better or worse. If Nikki had been post-op she would still have to fight the above.

What you would need to show for your side of this debate is SOMEPLACE that has dropped the requirement for surgery. Then after this happened, a post op lost their previously allowed rights.That's what you are claiming might happen.

Your examples have nothing to do with your position that surgery should be required for gender marker change. If anything it shows you are defending rights that don't exist and according to the Littleton case (NOT ME!) the F on -your- ID doesn't allow you any rights at all already.

Kia Ora,
The UK's Gender Recognition Panel's info, for those who  feel they would like to see how legal recognition works for post op, pre op and non op trans-people in the UK...

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

Metta Zenda

Quote from: Stephe on September 07, 2011, 10:48:38 PM

Your examples have nothing to do with your position that surgery should be required for gender marker change. If anything it shows you are defending rights that don't exist and according to the Littleton case (NOT ME!) the F on -your- ID doesn't allow you any rights at all already.

actually in both cases, the marriages took place prior to surgery but where some documents had been changed pre-operatively.  And THAT is where the Courts in both estate matters had problems.

Quote from: Valeriedances on September 07, 2011, 01:37:05 PM
The key component/cornerstone of MtF transsexuals is dysphoria over their genitals.

Wrong.

Most gender therapists, WPATH, DSM, ICD do not view genital dysphoria as the key component.
Read the manual.

We're not saying SRS isn't necessary at all. It even says right there in what you quoted. "Usually" is there, and transvestisism says "temporary." The first bit is even titled saying SRS is needed in severe cases as opposed to all cases.