Hey, there! Log in / Register
Transgender political group: The media suck
By adamg on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 5:55pm
One guess what has the Mass. Transgender Political Coalition all riled up - especially about the particularly sucky ABC News.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Not Clear
It's not clear to me what, in particular, the MTPC is condemning. I didn't see this ABC report, and the group didn't link to it or quote it at all, so this press release is just a bunch of arm waving.
With the exception of Howie Carr, I thought the Boston newspapers handled the transgender thing the right way. Quinn's transgender status and former name were pertinent to the story because they allowed reporters to discover that he has a pretty bad driving record--something that you'd think the T would take into account before giving him a trolley to drive.
Am I wrong?
Well ...
When the news first broke about Quinn's gender, it wasn't presented as a pathway to discovering he had a poor driving record. At least on Channel 5, it was presented (by Chet Ubetcha, a.k.a. Ed Harding) as a "Can you believe, snicker, what we just found out? That trolley driver used to, snort, be a woman!" At least in the teasers he did on the 5:30 news for the 6:00 news.
Universal Hub commentary
"Feds: Trolley driver was a Masshole" thread starting with comment 84168
"Wait a minute...T driver was born a woman?"
"Update: Wait a minute...the T driver was born a woman?"
Fair enough. I didn't see that report. That's pretty heinous.
Fair enough. I didn't see that report. That's pretty heinous.
Just tossing this out here...
...and am probably going to get crucified for it, but: Is it totally, completely, absolutely wrong to maybe, just maybe, feel that undergoing gender-reassignment surgery is a bad decision?
To save everyone some time here, I am not homophobic, a Nazi, or even a Republican. I am also not a "hate the sinner" type of Christian, who believes that homosexuality is a disease of which people can and should be cured, whether they want to be cured or not. I have friends and relatives who are gay (and some who are black, Jewish, Republican, etc.) and I don't consider them-- nor they, me-- "different." Maybe this is just reflective of the kinds of gay people who choose to be "out" to me, but it really doesn't come up-- there's other stuff to talk about.
Anyway, while I don't believe Quinn's having had this surgery has anything to do with his apparent decision to focus on texting rather than driving that train, I think the mentioning of it _is_ pertinent to the story-- in ways beyond disclosure of his driving record-- in that, to me, undergoing this kind of surgery _unless_ there was a _medical_ need seems like a poor decision. By "medical need," I'm referring to those who are born with some kind of issue with their _physical_ parts-- malformed, misplaced, or possessing of both male and female sets of genitalia. This, apparently, is a lot more common than people realize, and if it was something like this which led Quinn to undergo the surgery, then fine. And, just to cover a bit more ground here, I don't believe that those who are born this way _should_ necessarily be operated on or otherwise treated against their will; certainly there are people in this group who should not have change imposed on them, and reject the notion that they are "afflicted" in some way.
However, if a person is born physically "normal", and they have all the parts-- and only those parts-- of only one gender, and they're all where they're supposed to be, but that person's brain decides that they have the wrong set of parts and want to undergoing traumatic physical treatment to swap them out for different parts, well then it's a brain problem, not a plumbing problem.
And YES, I know and have heard the arguments that gender identity is about a lot more than man parts and lady parts. And YES, I know that by even making the above argument that I risk getting lumped in with a bunch of racist homophobic Nazi Republican Herald-commenters, but so be it-- if Quinn was born physically normal, or "average," and decided to undergo traumatic phyiscal treatment at some point, that was a poor decision. Do I believe that-- if the surgery was _not_ performed to address a physical issue-- that his decision to have it was directly related to what appears to be his role in that crash? No, I don't. Do I believe that, if this was the case, that it was a poor decision and indicative of what might be a larger pattern of poor decisions? Yes, I do.
You're so lucky
I was just about to throw this extra cross out. Here, I think you're right...you're gonna need it more than me.
But seriously, do you condemn anyone who has ever gotten a boob job? Face lift? Liposuction? Used Makeup? Gotten piercings? Went on a diet?
Just curious as to how far down the "don't modify yourself from 'normal'" is too far for it to suddenly plant you in the "poor decision maker" category you've just created?
OK, I'll bite
Let's say someone was born with a normal female body (disregarding any brain differences, for the sake of argument), and later decided that they identified as male and wanted to live life regarded as a male.
In that case, in what way would reassignment surgery be a poor decision?
Two questions, both polite?
What has UH come to?
I think I can answer both questions at once: First of all, I'm not "condemning" anyone here, rather I'm defending the right of people to make decisions about the decisions other people make. What you do are is what you are, and maybe I'm a lesser person for thinking that swapping out your genitals is a fucked-up thing to do, but oh well.
In terms of "how far is too far," I think the bar can be set at "The removal of healthy, functional, body parts and their replacement with artificially-constructed ones."
A friend of mine made a related argument back in the 90's regarding breast implants-- "boob jobs," as you so elegantly put it Kaz; jeez, guy-- around the time that there was a class-action lawsuit regarding their alleged negative effects on health. This friend said that a distinction needed to be made between those who just want big(ger) tits, and those who want to replace what was taken away by mastectomy surgery.
Now, these are both technically "cosmetic" surgeries, and I'm certainly not equating boob jobs to gender-reassignment surgery, or breast cancer survivors to people who were born with non-standard-issue parts. However, I do think my friend's point helps illustrate this one, and, in case you're still wondering where I stand, I think that breast implants for cancer survivors falls under the "treatment" umbrella, which I support; but having surgery simply because you want bigger hooters is just gross and sad.
Liposuctions and face lifts? Somewhat less gross, similarly sad.
Makeup? Daddy said it made me look like a whore. No, seriously, some people can wear too much and it looks bad, but I find it neither gross nor sad. It's also not surgery.
As to going on a diet, please-- you might include "eating fruits and vegetables" and "breathing air" on the spectrum if you think dieting-- any kind of dieting-- is comparable to having body parts chopped off/out. Going on a diet and being reasonably smart about it can be a good decision, and one that, looking at the statistics and my own waistline, something more people should consider.
Re: neilv's hypothetical question, it would be a bad decision because it would be putting the body at risk, it would involve the spending of a considerable amount of money (I'm going to sidestep the question who-- the person, or their medical insurance-- pays for it) that could be better spent on other needs, and it strains the medical care system. Maybe in a small way, but it does.
But I still need to go back to my "brain problem" argument here: Overall, the decision is not a rational one; it is, in my opinion, about as _ir_rational a decision as one could make. It would, in my opinion, be rather pathetic and sad, and horribly self-centered. Yes, the medical establishment can perform this safely, and yes, there are people who may in fact be happier and lead better lives after undergoing it, but I think that overwhelmingly this is a brain problem and should be regarded and treated as such.
Brain problem
So you think that wanting reassignment surgery is a "brain problem," and that it should be treated in the brain?
What is the nature of the brain problem, what causes it, and how should it be treated?
Dammit Neil, I'm a doctor, not a psychologist
Actually, I'm neither, but I'll take a crack at your questions.
Yes, generally speaking it is a brain problem. Wanting to be put under sedation and have extensive surgery done on real, presumably healthy body parts and having them replaced by artificially-constructed ones is a deeply irrational thought.
How did that thought get there? Who knows? Presumably the desire to change one's gender is something that came to people long before there were surgical and chemical processes to address it, so let's start from the assumption that it's not so much that people want surgery per se, but rather they want to change that aspect of who they are.
The medical establishment, and a culture generally, that has largely wiped out the line between "treatment" and "enhancement" is a factor in giving a shape to and a process for that desire; I should also give a shout-out here to those people in the GLBT community who support desires like this, no matter what, as a sort of cultural imperative. I of course exclude those non-straight, non-traditionally-gendered people-- and no, eeka, they are not all in agreement with you, or each other-- who believe that gender-reassignment surgery is, at the very least, overprescribed.
But that doesn't address your questions about the nature, cause, and treatment, to which the answers are:
Nature of the problem: The belief that one should change their born gender with surgery. Note here that I am not talking about the belief that one's self-perceived gender differs from that of their body parts is a mental disorder; nor am I suggesting that the desire to change one's gender is a mental disorder, either.
Sorry, I hate to make this difficult for everyone who is now commenting/viewing and hoping to show me the light, or the mirror, or hand me a cross-- good one, Neil-- but to repeat: I categorically do NOT characterize wanting to change one's gender, nor feeling that one's inner and outer gender don't match, as a sign of sickness or the "poor decisions" the original poster talked about. Oh, wait, that was me... anyway, all I'm saying, and all I _ever_ said, was that underoing gender-reassignment surgery if you don't need it is generally a bad idea. I didn't and don't condemn the T driver. I do concede the point made earlier that it's not clear if this driver did in fact have surgery; I didn't mean to make that leap.
Causes: Who knows? Whatever makes a person "feel" male or female doesn't seem to be clear even to those who study it; much less what makes them feel that they don't match. Repressed homosexuality may play some role in that, but I'm sure this'll just open up the floodgates of those who are more than willing to point out the differences between sexuality and gender identity, so I'll just take a pass on this one.
Treatment: For treatment of this disorder-- the desire to have surgery, _not_ the desire to change-- maybe talk therapy, maybe medication, maybe some combination of both. The love and support of friends and family, maybe. I don't know. It just seems that this-- not the desire to change, not homosexuality itself, but the desire to have surgery ONLY-- is something that people should be talked out of.
Do you come across people
very often who want to have SRS, but not to make their physique more closely match their gender? I've not come across people who want SRS but aren't trans, and this hasn't ever been presented on at any trans conferences or mentioned in any of the literature.
What's the talk therapy protocol you're advocating? Are you thinking in terms of talking people out of SRS but remaining trans? Or talking them into re-aligning with their assigned gender? There aren't any sort of psychotherapy methods for doing either of these, and both are discouraged by the credentialing organizations as well as the organizations that specialize in gender.
I'm also wondering how you account for the large portion of transfolk who, in their preferred gender, partner with people of the same gender. This is usually transwomen who transition from straight male to lesbian female, but there are also of course gay transmen.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
It's OK that you think that...
...and I respect your reasoning behind why you've chosen not to have sex reassignment surgery.
But in terms of other people, please, get some boundaries. The experts on transgender healthcare disagree with you, for what it's worth, and there just isn't any reason why it's your place to comment on someone else's life choices that don't affect you.
I'm curious though; have you talked to a lot of people who've transitioned and wished that they hadn't, and had instead done whatever brain treatment it is you're suggesting? I'm actually curious to hear what your "brain treatment" is, since it sounds like you're suggesting conversion therapies where people are taught to deny that they're transgender. These types of therapies have been deemed to be ineffective and harmful by the mainstream healthcare organizations.
Of all the transpeople I talk with on a regular basis, everyone has said that transitioning was a positive experience. Despite all the hassles from society feeling it's their place to judge, even. Most even say things like that transitioning saved their life, or was the beginning of their life, or freed them from a really horrible and mixed-up existence. Again, a lot (or probably even a majority) of transpeople don't have surgeries. They choose to present in a way that's congruent with how they feel. I've not yet encountered anyone who wished they didn't transition, or that they wanted to transition back. Most people wish they would have have done it earlier.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Also curious
...why you're posting anonymously?
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
That should be obvious
S/he correctly realized that s/he would be vilified.
This is one of the rare instances in which anonymous posting on UH is actually appropriate.
Wait, really?
That makes no sense to me. No, I don't think anyone should be vilifying the poster, but the person should own up to his/her (controversial, and very much in the minority) opinions. Clearly this person, doctor or not, knows how inappropriate it is to make blanket statements about a group of people and to stick to outdated opinions that were disproved decades ago. Which is why this person is posting anonymously.
I post plenty of stuff here that I know some people will disagree with, but I post with my own account so it's easy to find out who I am and where I practice with a few clicks. I have nothing to hide because I'm not saying anything unethical.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Disagreed
Before I could get key points of the OP's rationale (i.e., before people had enough information to formulate persuasive arguments), the crowd beatdown commenced, and people started calling the OP unethical and such and trying to get the OP's identity.
I'd say that the OP appears to be one anonymity barrier away from blackballings from professional and civic opportunities, being set up for possibly-unfounded but winnable employment discrimination lawsuits, etc.
Go back to the start. The OP seemed to be making an unusual sincere and thoughtful attempt at dialogue on a very sensitive topic. We could've all learned from that.
For once, hooray for anonymous posting.
You know what though?
Sometimes the mind becomes so open that the brain falls out.
I'm all about hearing varying viewpoints on things in general, but I draw the line at learning why exactly a seemingly intelligent and rational person feels that transgender people are inferior to him- or herself. It doesn't matter how polite and well-spoken and logical the person is being; the point of the posts is that this person wishes to ignore professional research and guidelines, as well as first-person accounts of what it's actually like to be transgender, and come up with a rationalization for why transgender people are all flawed in a way that said poster is not flawed.
I'm sure we can all come up with reasons why it sucks to be female or Jewish or Black or gay or short, too. Should we then infer that being any of these things shows poor judgment?
I draw the line at learning
If you draw the line at learning, should it surprise you that really, really anon also draws the line at learning?
For me, the learning about the transfolk came after college. A fellow I went to college with isn't anymore. And she's much happier now. I'd heard rumors, but the first time I saw her, I thought "well, that makes sense, then." The fact of the matter is that she makes a better woman than she ever did a man. We're better friends now than we were in college, and I've talked to her about it a lot and learned about how she felt before and how she feels now. The key difference is: happier and more complete.
It seems to me that the important thing to understand is that it's not a choice, or at least not the choice some people think it is. Just like being gay is not a choice. Who would choose to be gay if they had their druthers? Who would choose to be trans? And that's the choice that's not being made. It's not like someone just wakes up one day and chooses to be trans or chooses to be the other gender. It's more like someone is born trans, is trans their whole life, and eventually figures that out. And then the choice, the real choice, is more what they do about that than whether they can stop being that. They could choose not to change gender, but they can't choose to stop being trans. And the change might be something that gives them a much happier life. Who could be against that?
Really, really anon has an idea we don't agree with. I think it's entirely possible rra will change his or her mind at some point. Probably it's going to take knowing someone who's gone through this. But berating rra probably isn't going to do it. I agree with neilv that maybe a little more patience and explanation is in order.
RRA does have a kind of a point. There are people out there who end up cutting off their legs out of some kind of compulsion. We (at least I) feel pretty safe saying there's something wrong with that and those people probably would do better getting some kind of psychological help rather than mutilating themselves. But if we think that, then we have to be able to explain what the difference is between that and being trans. Which I think might actually be beyond me. All I can come up with is that if a man and a woman are both whole, a trans person never stops being whole, no matter which side they're on at the time, but that kind of falls apart because what does 'whole' really mean? Do you want to give that a try, Eeka?
Ignorance is not an opinion
Exceptional ignorance of things that can be looked up (you know - actual research, scientific facts) is not an opinion. It is called willful stupidity in some circles, bigotry/intolerance in others.
I don't think hiding that sort of willful ignorance and "just so" story telling bereft of fact behind the anonymous label is appropriate, nor should it protect one from being challenged on one's bullshit.
What
We don't know that he's had gender reassignment surgery, first of all.
And yes, it does make you transphobic if you think it's a bad idea for someone who feels male to identify and present as male. No one's going around telling you how to identify, and there's no need for you to do this to anyone else.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Hold on
I want to hear and understand the original poster's reasoning for why s/he thinks reassignment surgery was a poor decision.
I think that labeling people "-phobes" can preempt that dialogue and alienate people.
Yeah, it was shorthand...I apologize
I do believe there's a difference between "being a transphobe" and "promoting transphobia." Just like how we all have racism, but most of us aren't "racists."
If someone is making assumptions that someone has had sex reassignment surgery, and then is making judgments about whether someone should do that or not, that's perpetuating transphobia. At all the numerous trainings I've gone to about providing trans-sensitive healthcare, the underlying message has been that it isn't anyone's business what sex someone was assigned at birth or what genitalia they have or what surgery or hormones they have or haven't had. (Unless you need to know because you're an endocrinologist or something, and they've come to you with specific concerns).
Otherwise, if you walk in my door and your name is Neil and you have dress and grooming that suggests "male" to me, then you're a male, and it isn't appropriate for me to ask any more questions. It isn't my business or my place to police your gender and determine if you're "really" a male or if that's "really" your name, or anything else. It isn't some poster on UH's place to say whether someone should or shouldn't identify as a male. Not to mention that this person is assuming that this guy had SRS, which we don't know to be true. Not that it's anyone's business other than his, his surgeon's if there was/is one, and anyone he chooses to tell.
Nearly everyone in the trans community prefers that people respect their gender identity and don't comment on it or question it. Actually, I'd venture to say that nearly all people on this planet prefer to have their gender identity respected and not questioned or judged. I've never had anyone question what chromosomes or genitalia I have, so why does anyone think it's their place to speculate about these things when the person is trans or suspected to be trans? It just isn't something any of us have any business knowing or having an opinion about.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Yes, but
I think we're mostly in agreement. See all my comments on the other UH posts on this topic.
However, I was trying to get at the OP's reasoning. S/he might think that someone's sex/gender is none of his/her business, yet still think that it might reflect on other aspects of the person. I think that the trans thing should be off-limits in the T accident discussion (as I said earlier), but now that it's been raised, it seemed like a good time to dig into the rationale. My own ideas might be influenced, I might influence someone else's ideas, and/or I might learn a better way to present my ideas.
(Also, my original post said that I didn't know whether anything had been said as to whether or not there was SRS, then I looked it up and found that it had been reported in context of license change, so I removed that sentence, to be more concise.)
SRS isn't required to change gender with the RMV
Just a form signed by a licensed clinician stating that the person's gender identity seems stable. I'm generally happy to sign these.
(Besides, it's really rare that people are even looking to do this if they aren't healthy, stable transpeople. The people who have more going on than being trans usually tend NOT to do things like change their gender on their ID, because these are the folks who have a need to be in a victim role, feel misunderstood, etc. Nearly all the folks who legally change their gender are stable transfolks who just want to live their lives hassle-free.)
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Actually, I wasn't telling anyone how to identify
I was just voicing my opinion that it's OK for people to feel that getting that kind of surgery (for those who don't have a physical issue etc. etc.) is messed up. There's a difference, eeka, there really is. Read the whole post, and try-- for a minute-- to respect the opinions of people who may not think _exactly_ the way you do, because if you don't, you're just as closed-minded as the typical Herald pollster that people on UH bitch about so much.
To repeat: I was not critical of his or anyone's decision to "present" as male or female; I defy you to find anything in my posts-- did you even read them, or did you just jump to the easy conclusion that I'm a Nazi homophobe?-- that says that or suggests that.
If by voicing my opinion that gender reassignment surgery is disturbing and gross, and addresses issues that might better be addressed in the brain, was somehow conflated by you into my having a problem with gays, bisexuals, transsvestites, etc., then you're a simpleton, and that's your problem, not mine. (Though I do envy you your worldview if you can come to that kind of conclusion so quickly about me-- it must save a _lot_ of time.)
Also, I don't recall asking you if I was "transphobic," nor, by your own definition, _am_ I transphobic-- I do not, in fact, have an "issue" with someone presenting as a gender that they are not. I don't. I don't get it, but I don't judge people for it, and don't have an issue with it either. I simply don't care, and don't find it interesting or shocking. All I was doing was voicing an opinion that the surgery, and only the surgery-- well, maybe the hormone therapy too, that's pretty weird-- is off-putting.
Let me ask you this, since you seem so knowledgeable: Does every non-straight or non-traditionally-gendered person you know, every single one of them, support the notion that anyone who wants gender reassignment should get it? I doubt it. If all of them do feel that way, then obviously you travel among an extremely enlightened bunch than I, but some gay people _do_, in fact, find the whole surgery business disturbing. Some even believe-- like I, a straight person, believe-- that addressing the identity or "presenting" issue with a scalpel misses the point.
But where does it become your business?
You're insisting on labeling people's gender for them. You said yourself that trans people are "presenting as a gender that they are not." Where did anyone ask you to decide what gender someone is? It's not your place. People generally have a sense of what gender they are -- I'm assuming you've had a sense of your gender all your life -- and it isn't up to anyone else to decide that they aren't that gender.
You can say that you're not transphobic all you want, but if you feel that it's your place at all to debate whether someone else's existence is valid, then you are in fact contributing to the marginalization of transpeople. Transphobia isn't made up entirely of people who go around using slurs and vandalizing people's houses (and you don't seem to be that sort of person whatsoever), but mostly of well-meaning people who for whatever reason lack boundaries in this area and think it's their place to even discuss whether someone is trans or should be trans or whatever. If you want to support full equality for transpeople, the place to start is by respecting the gender with which someone presents, and not discussing anything else about anyone's gender or anatomy that they haven't specifically brought up with you. If I met you at a social function, or even in my clinical practice, I wouldn't ask you what genitalia you had, what chromosomes you had, what gender is on your ID, or what your name was growing up. Because this just isn't relevant to who you are right now unless you choose to share it with me. I'd expect that you'd extend the same courtesy to everyone else.
It isn't your place to presume that someone has had SRS, and if you find out that someone has, it isn't your place to judge whether they should have had it. The person is the only one who knows what was or is right for that person.
If the idea of a SRS operation disturbs you, don't have one.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Obviously my attempts at spelling everything out
every single time fell short in your book-- whatever, I don't have a Masters degree or the kind of time to put everything in a politically-perfect tone every time I say it, because I assumed that people would read the posts and understand them; I apologize for my overestimation. When I said "presenting as a gender that they are not" that was shorthand, after having spelled it out 5-6 I' times largely for your benefit, for "presenting as a gender other than society forces them and expecdts them to present as, which is a set of norms based on their physical/external gender characteristics." Happy now? Boy, that was tedious...
Not sure where you're getting the notion that debating "whether someone else's existence is valid." First of all, I wasn't debating anyone; I was merely making a statement and answering Neilv's questions, with a side order of correcting you on your rhetorical and logical shortcomings. You're welcome.
Second of all, I didn't say that anyone's existence was valid or not. Again, nice try, and I remain envious of the speed at which you reach predetermined conclusions, but I was not playing God nor weighing in on anyone's worth. I was merely saying that certain beliefs are insane, not saying that insane people are to be scorned, condemned, or considered worthless. Or pitied, for that matter. Insanity is an illness; I've known a few people who are clinically insane, and they're ill, that's all, and as much of a pain in the ass as some of them can be when they're in a bad way, it's an illness, not a moral failing or an evil of some kind.
As to your final point, which I'm guessing is by no means your "final" point: "The person is the only one who knows what was or is right for that person." Really? You practice at a clinic of some kind, and you really believe that the _only_ person who knows what is/was right for that person, is that person? Wow. Are you saying that, for those who decide to have SRS, it's _always_ the right decision? That's a hell of a logical leap, and not one that I think a lot of other doctors would agree with-- I would bet that, on a regular basis, there are all kinds of people who want all kinds of surgeries, but doctors won't do them for one reason or another; patients aren't, and should not be, the one and final decisionmaker in medical decisions. That's asinine, and you should know that.
Another logical leap: That of all the people who have had it, not one has ever regretted it? Please. There's got to be at least one person who looked back on it with mixed feelings.
Mixed feelings
Do you know what kinds of hoops someone has to jump through to have SRS? I have kind of mixed feelings about whether this should be necessary, but really what I keep coming back to is that one can seek all kinds of surgeries without so much as a single psych eval, even if one might have to go to a couple surgeons first. Do I personally see any redeeming value to someone going and getting huger and huger breast implants until she can barely fit through a doorway? It doesn't matter if I do; if someone is an adult of sound-enough mind to consent to surgery, our laws in this country allow said person to acquire giant breasts. People can get nose jobs and lip jobs and eyelid jobs until they can't move their face normally, provided they can pay for it and are of legal age. I'm guessing a lot of these folks don't have reasoning behind these decisions that you or I might resonate with as being a really meaningful life choice, but it's not up to us. We're all allowed to make bad decisions, and transpeople have that freedom as well. If someone is truly not in a place to make decisions for oneself, then we do have legal safeguards in place to step in and make decisions. But when someone is generally believed to have the capacity to make decisions, we let them make them, even if a lot of people don't agree that it's the right decision. One of the most important things I learned when I worked as an administrator in a DMH program is that it's a person's human right to learn through failure, just like you and I have been allowed to. A patient should be the final (though not only) decisionmaker in medical decisions, except in cases where someone clearly lacks judgment, in which case a person is then appointed a guardian. But a person who has intact judgment and wouldn't be deemed to need a guardian has the right to make decisions, including bad ones.
I didn't say that there's never been anyone who regretted transitioning. Surely there have been. But remember that one generally needs to have fully transitioned in every aspect of life, usually for at least a year, before pursuing any sort of medical intervention. Whether this should be required is another issue, but it's not common that someone fully transitions genders, then several years later decides it was a bad idea. As I said, it's not common enough to be covered in any of the extensive literature about working with transpeople, and I've never encountered someone who wishes they hadn't transitioned. People who are playing with gender roles as part of an unstable identity (and of those, there are plenty) don't change their gender to a stable place on the other side of the binary for several years, don't transition in every aspect of their lives, don't deal with all the legal and social and emotional crap. These folks don't transition fully, stay transitioned for years, and then seek SRS.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
And what happens next?
So, someone born a man feels that they identify as a woman instead. So they dress, talk, act, and let's say, even take hormones to present socially as a woman. They want to date a man because they are by all estimations, with the exception of their penis, a woman. They want to have sex with a man as a next step. Don't you see a problem here? Your "I'm not critical of their decision to present as a woman" (except they're mentally disturbed to want to exchange their penis with a vagina) is doing *exactly* what you protest you weren't doing. You've labelled how they want to fully present themselves as a woman. They are by every detail a woman, but one...and that is somehow a boundary for you? It will be for the man, who may be okay with everything they've learned about that woman...but they won't be having sex. They could if they had the surgery you claim is a mental issue.
So, you may *want* to be open to them as much as you think you do, but as long as you continue to hold the notion that they need psychotherapy to get over wanting to exchange sex organs, you're still just as wrong as someone who would have locked them away just for wearing a dress.
And the winner is-- Kaz!
I was wondering when somebody here would essentially accuse me of being a Nazi. Took you guys long enough.
"Just as wrong"? Oh please. Wanting to lock someone up for wearing a dress is _not_ "just as wrong" as wanting to talk someone out of elective surgery, kiddo. Not. The same. Thing. Read through the posts-- I never called for locking anyone up. Really, I didn't. People accused me of wanting to do bad things, and I understand how that can get confusing if you don't bother to read the full posts, but really, I didn't call for anyone to be locked up or otherwise oppressed. Go ahead, read back.
(waiting, waiting)
See? My being falsely accused of wanting to oppress someone is not the same as my calling for someone to be oppressed.
Oh yah
that reply says kaz is a real winner alright (rolls eyes).
Got news Kaz: that situation is between the transperson and his or her lover - it ain't up to you, nor is it your business. There are plenty of folk out there who like it like that, and it doesn't hurt you one bit.
(l-o-l-a lola ...)
I see you found your cross
"essentially accuse me of being a Nazi"....Not. The same. Thing. as what I said at all, but I'm impressed by how easily you were able to nail both hands AND feet to that cross all by yourself. Feat of flexibility to be sure.
You're making up arguments as you go along, so I guess I don't have any relevance to this discussion since you want to handle both sides for yourself. Sometimes people are born with the wrong body. Their brain is just fine and has determined that the body doesn't fit their brain correctly. The surgery fixes that problem for them. That's not a poor decision making process. Getting their body to match their gender identity usurps any risk that's inherent in *any* surgery. It's not about the risk, even if that's what you want to hide behind instead of your inherent issue with these people wanting to assign their body to the correct gender.
Exactly
> It's not about the risk, even if that's what you want to hide
> behind instead of your inherent issue with these people
> wanting to assign their body to the correct gender.
Precisely. I mean, dude, transitioning sucks. I've yet to hear from someone who said it was simply wonderful to deal with people's crap at work, the legal system, friends and family, complete strangers feeling they're allowed to ask personal questions, etc. Yet people do it. So I think we can conclude that going through the hell of transitioning is a lot better than going through life being a gender that just doesn't work. If transpeople actually could do some kind of therapy that made everything OK without transitioning, I'm thinking that most of them would do it rather than going through transitioning.
Roundup
Wow... I'd given up on trying to make folks see the light of day around the time the servants brought me dinner last night, but clearly the organic lamp oil was burning long into the night in (insert bridge-and-tunnel neighborhood here), so I'd be remiss in not addressing some of the more flagrantly racist and ignorant statements directed at me or attributed to me in my absence.
All I've tried to do is point out that there seems to be a population of people who are being victimized by a professional class who, in the guise of "helping" them, convinces and enables them to undergo dangerous elective surgery. That's all. And while I don't have time to address every eye-rolling stumble of non-logic-- I have people to oppress, and my black helicopter needs polishing, and the servants have been _such_ a bother lately-- I will answer some of the highlights out of context, because that seems to be the norm in this discussion.
From eeka: "I'm sure we can all come up with reasons why it sucks to be female or Jewish or Black or gay or short, too."
Actually, no, no I can't. Can you? Seems like rather a sexist/racist/discriminatory statement on several levels; please don't lump me in with the kinds of people who think that way.
From eeka, part 2: "Should we then infer that being any of these things shows poor judgment?"
No, we shouldn't, but the question is logically unsound: Gender, height, and skin color are not a matter of choice-- gender and skin tone are determined at birth, or conception or whenever, as is one's potential adult height. "Being Jewish," meanwhile, is generally thought of as being about a lot more than what's on the roof of the house of worship you happen to frequent-- it's thought of and spoken, quite widely, as having an ethnic dimension to it that is not anywhere near as frequently applied to (just for comparison here) Christians. (Oh, wait, were you
referring to converts, Judaism as a religion, or "Jewishness" as a culture? Either way, your mind amazes me-- anyone who is both anti-Semitic and believes that one's height is a choice is truly thinking on a whole different plane.
And isn't it very widely accepted-- even by many of those who dislike homosexuals-- that gayness is something you're born being, not something you choose? For the record, this seems like the case to me; which makes it _not_ a choice.
From eeka again: "I'm also wondering how you account for the large portion of transfolk who, in their preferred gender, partner with people of the same gender."
Ummm, I don't "account" for anyone's sexual behavior; I really don't care. God, you make my brain hurt. Do I have to explain to you the difference between gender and sexual preference AGAIN?
And: "If the idea of a SRS operation disturbs you, don't have one."
Oh, snap, you got me! Must have been a tough choice between recycling the "If abortion bothers you, don't have one" line, or some variation on "Fish without a bicycle."
Let's pause for a moment to give some props to Neilv, who, despite disagreeing with me on some points, does respect my right to have and express an opinion that is contrary to his. Thank you, Neil, and a pox on those who hassled him for attempting to keep the dicussion at the "forum" level rather than a bookstore/coffeehouse at which we all agree to agree. Moving on...
From swirly: "I don't think hiding that sort of willful ignorance and "just so" story telling bereft of fact behind the anonymous label is appropriate, nor should it protect one from being challenged on one's bullshit."
Actually, I _have_ been challenged on my bullshit, and the fact that I've stayed in this dicussion and responded to questions both polite and logical but also those which I find rude and asinine should be enough to show that I'm up to the challenge, and respect the discussants enough to respond to what they have to say, even if I've found it hard to refrain from being rude myself at times. If my anonymity is somehow bothersome, that's fine-- go and cry in your herbal tea, but while you do, try to understand that I'm not impressed with anyone who proudly points out their non-anonymity. I don't care to know who you are or what you do, and I'm not particularly interested in having you know, thus very likekly have to suffer your opinions about, who I am and what I do. No upside for me there, quite frankly, and more to the point, I'm limiting my comments to what's being said in response to my original post, not trying to bully or impress people with my academic and professional credentials, which I can assure you are superior to yours, or with a link to a blog which I don't have.
Are you the kind of person who believes that "outing" gay people against their will-- essentially, ripping away from them their privacy and anonymity-- is a good thing? And when you do this, do you tell yourself it's for their own good because you "know better"? And if you knew who I was, would you come after me? If you would, well then, you've proven my point about why I choose to remain anonymous-- a point which neil (further props to neil) correctly deduced. Next time you out someone, make sure you congratulate and feel good about yourself, but it sounds like you're doing just fine with that already.
Also on the anonymity topic, from eeka: "I have nothing to hide because I'm not saying anything unethical."
Oh really? What about this:
"The person is the only one who knows what was or is right for that person."
I find that to be a shockingly unethical statement from someone who seems to claim to be in the medicine business. If I decided it was right for me to be prescribed Ritalin, and I figured out what I had to say to a psychiatrist to get it even though there may be sound medical and/or ethical reasons for me to _not_ be prescribed it, was I right? Did the system work? I can't recall any medical professional _ever_ saying anything remotely along the lines of "The patient is always right," which is what you said, at least before you backed off and qualified that statement after being confronted with the overwhelming elegance of my logic. Still, this strikes me as a deeply unethical, naive, and enabling statement, but now that I've decided not to have the surgery-- and I was _this_ close-- I doubt I'll be coming to you for anything healthcare-related.
Finally, a word about breast implants-- and I should point out that I was not the one who brought up the topic, but boy, no one seems to be letting it go. Anyway, from eeka:
"Do I personally see any redeeming value to someone going and getting huger and huger breast implants until she can barely fit through a doorway? It doesn't matter if I do."
Actually, it _does_ matter if you do. Well, maybe not if _you_ do-- your opinions and reasoning are suspect-- but it does matter if _I_ do. Why? Because what they're doing affects me.
Yes, yes it does: They're undergoing elective surgery, from which a certain number of complications inevitably result-- either from the surgery, poisoning from the chemicals used, orthopaedic problems later in life, etc. etc.-- which raises healthcare costs for everyone, fake-huge-boobed or not. This is the reasoning behind why this state require auto passengers to wear seat belts, and motorcycle riders to wear helmets-- those who fail to do so suffer a disproportionate number and severity of injuries, and thus use a disproportionate amount of resources that could be better spent on tax breaks for me.
Now, again, I want to make the distinction between a. preventing people from taking risks for their own good or because of some moral judgement, and b. playing a role in encouraging or enabling those risks by allowing access to the same levels of treatment and support available to those who don't take similar risks. They still have that access; they just have to pay for it in proportion to the burden that they're likely to put on that system.
(I'll pause for a moment to give some of you a chance to forward this last bit to various listservs and blogs as evidence that I'm advocating the cutting-off of healthcare to any group or groups. I am not, but go ahead and think that if it makes the tofu go down easier)
My point here is that people _should_ have the freedom to change their gender, get huge boobs, and ride without a helmet at the same time if they so choose to. Fine with me. No, really, it's fine with me. I just think that I have the right, if I'm paying into this system, to weigh in on how that system distributes its resources. And if some part of that care-delivery system thinks that it's somehow unfair that people have to "jump through all sorts of hoops" to get surgery that I believe may well be over-performed, then I have a right to the opinion that this person is wrong. I also have the right to express the opinion that I'd prefer that whatever resources that are currently directed towards that person be directed elsewhere-- perhaps to home care for my assistant Steve, who is recovering from a minor injury to his breast implants, incurred while he was riding his motorcycle to church on Passover. Let's all pray for Steve's recovery, as it's such a bother to have to pour my own cognac.