Having difficulty understanding transgendered people? I'll try to help.

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Honestly, pls tell why why tranny is offensive.

I already partially explained this in the original post. It's a derogatory term, along with being heavily used by the pornography industry. It has no positive connotations to trans people anymore.

Except statistically 72%-96% of gender dysphoria cases cease at young adulthood.

Where did you get that statistic? Because I highly doubt that number, especially since most transgender people don't come out as trans until adulthood, or late teens.

Also remember the famous quote from Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I understand your position, personally I believe that HRT's benefits outweigh the risks. There are lots of medical benefits for starting earlier, one is of course being on fewer anti-androgen, plus the added benefits it can have with mental health as well. Still it's something that requires therapy on the mental health side, doctors to sign off it, parental approval... In a perfect world it should be an option, but not before puberty, because starting too early can cause damage to a person's development.

Any surgical procedures have inherent risks, so they always need to be carefully and cautiously considered, you have to be absolutely certain the benefits out weigh the risks. Also it can be dangerous to make physical and cosmetic changes to a person while they're still developing, it's why I detest child beauty pageant participant getting cosmetic surgery. Their bodies are changing and rapidly, at the minimum they'll need more surgery to keep up with growth and surgical procedures are dangerous. There are potential moral issues for me on the whole subject. I still think it should be taken on a case by case basis.

On a final note, children and teens don't have the ability to consent to a contract before adulthood, there is an important reason for this. Children, adolescents, and teens are not responsible enough to make such life changing decisions. What they want, versus what is actually good for them can be worlds apart. Options should be present, but professionals and parents need to be involved to help identify what the best choice actually is.

If only we lived in a world where this was a general possibility, rather than in one where people, more often than not, completely loose their minds over transgenderism being inherently wrong.

You wouldn't start before puberty anyways. And you certainly wouldn't consider it after afew years of HRT to begin with.

There's a difference between orchiectomy to reduce the effects of anti-androgen regimen or improving the mental health of having a depression-inducing aspect of themselves removed, and cosmetic surgery. I'm not saying all surgeries, just some surgeries make sense. FFS stuff, etc ... pretty sure that can wait until they have a more or less developed body in terms of muscle and bone. Removing of testes after a year or two on HRT? Well, reduction of drugs needing to be purchased, and less taxing on the body in general and better mental health. Seems like a win-win to me.

The thing is, I don't agree parents should have 100% control of their kids. Innoculations? Hygiene standards, health standards and basic standards of liberty. No decent doctor, educator, or social worker is going to tell you 'Authoritarian policing of children is better than authoritative guidance." Keywords, authoritative and guidance. It is not a fit parent who lords over their children's self-construction.

In the same way that a child should not be pushed by parents about rushing into a surgical theatre, neither should children be kept imprisoned by their families. I can understand financial reasons, I can't understand 'religious' or 'beliefs' used to dictate to their children the nature of their self identity. Particularly when it gets to the point of causing injury and illness. Any parent that says they are going to traumatise their children to 'abuse the out of them' should be seen as automatically unfit to pursue their duty of care as a parent to begin with.

Parents are there to raise their children. Not own them. Any society that places ownership of one's children above a duty of care of one's children is paralyzing any means for social workers to help rescue children from grievous injury from scumbag parents who should never have been considered fit to raise a child to begin with. If you're not allowed to starve your children, or otherwise act in a manner that can cause detrimental side effects or death, then why exactly does; "Well, <insert religious/social hatreds here>" justify further cases of neglect or direct abuse?

In my eyes, if you're a parent who actively denies the available means to find help your child, if only to uhold your beliefs over their wellbeing? You should no longer be a parent. End of story.

Oh, and 16 should be the cut off when parents can dictate over their children's health. Anything beyond that is merely gate-keeping, and most surgeons require a year or two on hormones to be even eligible. Besides, at that age your parents no longer can access your private medical records anyways (If I remember correctly, in NSW) ....

Teens may make poor decisions, but if they have attended multiple counselling sessions, and approved by an endocrinologist, doctor and therapist, why exactly is it an issue anymore? If I can entrust a 16 year old with a driver's licence, HRT after all those hoops seems like a marginal concern. I also have far less faith in parents making this decision. Maybe mine were just especially bad (and they were), but I'll place my faith in the kid, therapist, endocrinologist, and doctor they (the patient) elect to see. Far too many 'doctors' still running around saying; "GID."

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

You wouldn't start before puberty anyways. And you certainly wouldn't consider it after afew years of HRT to begin with.

There's a difference between orchiectomy to reduce the effects of anti-androgen regimen or improving the mental health of having a depression-inducing aspect of themselves removed, and cosmetic surgery. I'm not saying all surgeries, just some surgeries make sense. FFS stuff, etc ... pretty sure that can wait until they have a more or less developed body in terms of muscle and bone. Removing of testes after a year or two on HRT? Well, reduction of drugs needing to be purchased, and less taxing on the body in general and better mental health. Seems like a win-win to me.

The thing is, I don't agree parents should have 100% control of their kids. Innoculations? Hygiene standards, health standards and basic standards of liberty. No decent doctor, educator, or social worker is going to tell you 'Authoritarian policing of children is better than authoritative guidance." Keywords, authoritative and guidance. It is not a fit parent who lords over their children's self-construction.

In the same way that a child should not be pushed by parents about rushing into a surgical theatre, neither should children be kept imprisoned by their families. I can understand financial reasons, I can't understand 'religious' or 'beliefs' used to dictate to their children the nature of their self identity. Particularly when it gets to the point of causing injury and illness. Any parent that says they are going to traumatise their children to 'abuse the out of them' should be seen as automatically unfit to pursue their duty of care as a parent to begin with.

Parents are there to raise their children. Not own them. Any society that places ownership of one's children above a duty of care of one's children is paralyzing any means for social workers to help rescue children from grievous injury from scumbag parents who should never have been considered fit to raise a child to begin with. If you're not allowed to starve your children, or otherwise act in a manner that can cause detrimental side effects or death, then why exactly does; "Well, <insert religious/social hatreds here>" justify further cases of neglect or direct abuse?

In my eyes, if you're a parent who actively denies the available means to find help your child, if only to uhold your beliefs over their wellbeing? You should no longer be a parent. End of story.

Oh, and 16 should be the cut off when parents can dictate over their children's health. Anything beyond that is merely gate-keeping, and most surgeons require a year or two on hormones to be even eligible. Besides, at that age your parents no longer can access your private medical records anyways (If I remember correctly, in NSW) ....

Teens may make poor decisions, but if they have attended multiple counselling sessions, and approved by an endocrinologist, doctor and therapist, why exactly is it an issue anymore? If I can entrust a 16 year old with a driver's licence, HRT after all those hoops seems like a marginal concern. I also have far less faith in parents making this decision. Maybe mine were just especially bad (and they were), but I'll place my faith in the kid, therapist, endocrinologist, and doctor they (the patient) elect to see. Far too many 'doctors' still running around saying; "GID."

We have vastly different experiences with parents, so I can in many ways sympathize with your own biases. I may not have put it well but the abusive and traumatic methods of attempting to "correct" gender dysphoria should of course be heavily punished, same as for any other abuse. That includes loss of parental rights in cases that justify such action such as extreme neglect and abuse both mental and physical. Remember though foster care isn't an ideal solution either, as people who volunteer as foster parents, at least in the States, tend to do it for either finical reasons, or for faith based reasons. But that's also somewhat beside the point.

Now if it comes to mental abuse for being trans and a child's therapist gets wind of it, they had better damn well report it to child protective services, same goes for physical abuse and neglect. But this isn't always the case. Also for treatment the parents deserve a say if they're not actively trying to abuse their child, due in no small part as a means of attempting to protect the child's welfare. Since bullies will relentlessly target trans students, at least in my experience. Another consideration is who's paying for any treatment for their child, if it's the parents, then they have a say on a purely financial basis. Since treatments for trans are often seen as elective, most insurance, as far as I recall, doesn't have to cover it, but the Affordable Care Act might have changed that. I don't remember off hand. Either way the parents still have a financial stand there too as they're the ones paying for the policy and deductible.

If you're living in your parent's home, then it's not unreasonable for them to expect you to live by their rules, unless it's active abuse. You could argue that denial of treatment for gender dysphoria is abuse, but on the other hand it could be argued otherwise, especially on a case by case basis. Some kids may be fine not transitioning yet, many though hide the condition actively just to fit in.

In the US teens can emancipate themselves from their parents somewhere around age 16 in most states, so if they're that age, they can totally cut themselves and their medical records off from their parents. Which sadly might be the only option for quite a few trans people. Though one thing I do remember is that in most states you have to be 18 years of age to get a fully unrestricted driver's license. Even so I don't trust anyone under 21 years old behind the wheel of a car, younger people(hate to make my self sound old) are maniacs behind the wheel, and usually lack experience. Also in the US you have to be 18 years old minimum to consent to contract, without parental consent also. Though emancipated teens may get a exemption on that rule.

Anyways, as much faith as I may have in kids and I know they're not stupid, it's still a bit of a reach to expect them to make important medical decisions. We are talking about an age group that's well known for inflicting injury on themselves by making really dumb decisions. But hey, that's part of growing up. I'll trust them more as they get more information and experience under their belts. Still how many will out right defy even their own parents, when the parents give them some very commonsense advice.

Parent's don't own their children, but until they're grown up enough they are responsible for their well being and upbringing. So parents need control over their kids, not just to command them, but to make sure they're safe, healthy, clothed, fed, and generally taken care if. That often trades off to the kids not having full freedom, which honestly is a good things, too many kids end up in danger, dead, or in jail when not looked after.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I hope you're into weird (and somewhat shameless) questions because I have a few:

I guess I'm game, sounds like fun.

Would it be gay for a straight CIS male to find a feminine transgendered person attractive? Or is it a different kind of straight?

That's entirely a personal question based on how the person who find trans people attractive feels them selves. I don't generally classify things in binary sexuality personally.

What's your opinion of futa (Hermaphrodite) porn?

I find it generally unattractive(see below), but if someone else is into it, I won't judge them for their stance.

Do you prefer CIS gendered individuals or other trans when comes to sex or pornography?

For sex it has to be someone I'm emotionally and romantically attracted, gender doesn't matter. For porn I find the female genitals unattractive to look at, but I don't have much use for porn anyways.

What do you think of traps in anime and Japanese games? Are you okay with them or do you find them offensive?

Well this is an interesting question. First they tend to pop up in really kinda morally grey subject matter, you know the kind I'm talking about. Second I think it's offensive as an idea and wrong for someone to deceive anyone else into sex on false pretences. In a fictional setting I'm a bit more liberal on the idea, still find the act of "trapping" someone to be both offensive and wrong. As for people fictional or real who like to cross dress, are convincing, and enjoy doing it for reasons other than deception and sex. More power to them.

Do you praise the sun?

Only casually, the sun hurts my eyes and I sunburn easily. Mostly I pray for overcast and rainy days, along with pleasantly bright nights.

This was very silly, nice way to break the tension this thread has picked up though.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Where did the term "Cis" come from? Trans/bi/gay/decpticon, all those I remember being around for a long time, but then Cis came along and no one has told me yet where it comes from. What happened to njust being g called straight? I was fine with that.

It's from Latin, the opposite of trans. By comparison, the Romans divided Gaul into Transalpine Gaul, Gaul on the other side of the Alps, and Cisalpine Gaul, Gaul on this side of the Alps. Swap gender for mountains and people for Gaul, and there you go.

As mentioned, straight refers to sexuality, not gender. So, we have terms like "cishet" meaning cisgender and heterosexual. Having said that, the T in LGBT is for trans, of course, which confuses things.

so, at the risk of being a dick, I still think that Cis is not the best way to put it. If it was trans- as in from trans-form or trans-port as in taking an action to move to the other side then it makes sense with how transgender is about going from MtF or FtM or some step in between, but we don't have cisform or cisport because... well, it's just being non-mobile. You'd want to use stativus or stabilis as the root Latin as they mean non-moving since transgender isn't about being on 'the other side' of gender, it's about transitioning between them from one you aren't comfortable with to one you are.

Plus, and this is actually quite important, it LITERALLY is saying that trans and cis people are on opposite sides and if your trans and meet someone else who is trans (of the same type, so FtM or something) then they'd be 'Cis' as they'd be on the same side. If it's just Statisexual or Statigender or something then it means you're staying where you are, you've reached the gender and sexuality you're comfortable with.

 

[Thaluikhain]

since transgender isn't about being on 'the other side' of gender, it's about transitioning between them from one you aren't comfortable with to one you are.

Not sure about that.

Plus, and this is actually quite important, it LITERALLY is saying that trans and cis people are on opposite sides and if your trans and meet someone else who is trans (of the same type, so FtM or something) then they'd be 'Cis' as they'd be on the same side.

Not seeing how that is important, TBH.

Anyway, Transalpine Gaul wasn't on the other side of the Alps from Transalpine Gaul.

If it's just Statisexual or Statigender or something then it means you're staying where you are, you've reached the gender and sexuality you're comfortable with.

If it was Statigender, you'd still have people arguing that the word is wrong and/or offensive for any number of reasons.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Some college survey I think, tried looking for it. Not in my history. Also couldn't give a shit less what twain had to say.

A College survey? Not a study, but a survey? That's hardly compelling evidence, especially with no source, essentially making the statement about the statistic totally irrelevant. To put it mildly, if someone presented most transgender people with a survey asking if they were trans, or gender dysphoric, I doubt you get an honest answer. That would be outing yourself for a trans person and as we've established; being outed can be extremely dangerous.

Where did the term "Cis" come from? Trans/bi/gay/decpticon, all those I remember being around for a long time, but then Cis came along and no one has told me yet where it comes from. What happened to njust being g called straight? I was fine with that.

It's from Latin, the opposite of trans. By comparison, the Romans divided Gaul into Transalpine Gaul, Gaul on the other side of the Alps, and Cisalpine Gaul, Gaul on this side of the Alps. Swap gender for mountains and people for Gaul, and there you go.

As mentioned, straight refers to sexuality, not gender. So, we have terms like "cishet" meaning cisgender and heterosexual. Having said that, the T in LGBT is for trans, of course, which confuses things.

so, at the risk of being a dick, I still think that Cis is not the best way to put it. If it was trans- as in from trans-form or trans-port as in taking an action to move to the other side then it makes sense with how transgender is about going from MtF or FtM or some step in between, but we don't have cisform or cisport because... well, it's just being non-mobile. You'd want to use stativus or stabilis as the root Latin as they mean non-moving since transgender isn't about being on 'the other side' of gender, it's about transitioning between them from one you aren't comfortable with to one you are.

Plus, and this is actually quite important, it LITERALLY is saying that trans and cis people are on opposite sides and if your trans and meet someone else who is trans (of the same type, so FtM or something) then they'd be 'Cis' as they'd be on the same side. If it's just Statisexual or Statigender or something then it means you're staying where you are, you've reached the gender and sexuality you're comfortable with.

Well if you're going to be totally literal about it. But at it's core being cisgender is having ones gender identity and physical sex match up, being transgender is actually the opposite of that. Beside cisgender is easy to say, easy to remember, and shouldn't hold any particular negative attachments. Then again transgender can be used as a negative term. But shouldn't allow reactionary idiots like people who use terms "cis het scum" and "transgender scum" dictate the English language, and it's use, because that's like allowing Luddites to dictate technological advancement.

 

[Poetic Nova]

If you are trans, and the options to change either mind or body were available, with no discernable drawbacks(essentially the way it is now) to either, would you take the choice to change your mind to match the body you have? Or change the body to fit the mind?

Following that, do you believe that GRS and other trans related surgeries should be covered under healthcare and not require you to invest your money yourself or that they shouldn't and continue being considered largely elective surgeries?

Huh, looks like I did skip over some of your questions yesterday.

For the first part, I'll edit this post later to answer on that.

As for healthcare, some do cover it, some don't. It really depends on the plan and which company (not sure if its the right word) you have healthcare from. I do think it should be standard though, for those who want GRS and gett the greenlight for GRS it gets really expensive (5000 to 10000$ if I'm not under/overestimating it) when healthcare doesn't cover it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

We have vastly different experiences with parents, so I can in many ways sympathize with your own biases. I may not have put it well but the abusive and traumatic methods of attempting to "correct" gender dysphoria should of course be heavily punished, same as for any other abuse. That includes loss of parental rights in cases that justify such action such as extreme neglect and abuse both mental and physical. Remember though foster care isn't an ideal solution either, as people who volunteer as foster parents, at least in the States, tend to do it for either finical reasons, or for faith based reasons. But that's also somewhat beside the point.

Now if it comes to mental abuse for being trans and a child's therapist gets wind of it, they had better damn well report it to child protective services, same goes for physical abuse and neglect. But this isn't always the case. Also for treatment the parents deserve a say if they're not actively trying to abuse their child, due in no small part as a means of attempting to protect the child's welfare. Since bullies will relentlessly target trans students, at least in my experience. Another consideration is who's paying for any treatment for their child, if it's the parents, then they have a say on a purely financial basis. Since treatments for trans are often seen as elective, most insurance, as far as I recall, doesn't have to cover it, but the Affordable Care Act might have changed that. I don't remember off hand. Either way the parents still have a financial stand there too as they're the ones paying for the policy and deductible.

If you're living in your parent's home, then it's not unreasonable for them to expect you to live by their rules, unless it's active abuse. You could argue that denial of treatment for gender dysphoria is abuse, but on the other hand it could be argued otherwise, especially on a case by case basis. Some kids may be fine not transitioning yet, many though hide the condition actively just to fit in.

In the US teens can emancipate themselves from their parents somewhere around age 16 in most states, so if they're that age, they can totally cut themselves and their medical records off from their parents. Which sadly might be the only option for quite a few trans people. Though one thing I do remember is that in most states you have to be 18 years of age to get a fully unrestricted driver's license. Even so I don't trust anyone under 21 years old behind the wheel of a car, younger people(hate to make my self sound old) are maniacs behind the wheel, and usually lack experience. Also in the US you have to be 18 years old minimum to consent to contract, without parental consent also. Though emancipated teens may get a exemption on that rule.

Anyways, as much faith as I may have in kids and I know they're not stupid, it's still a bit of a reach to expect them to make important medical decisions. We are talking about an age group that's well known for inflicting injury on themselves by making really dumb decisions. But hey, that's part of growing up. I'll trust them more as they get more information and experience under their belts. Still how many will out right defy even their own parents, when the parents give them some very commonsense advice.

Parent's don't own their children, but until they're grown up enough they are responsible for their well being and upbringing. So parents need control over their kids, not just to command them, but to make sure they're safe, healthy, clothed, fed, and generally taken care if. That often trades off to the kids not having full freedom, which honestly is a good things, too many kids end up in danger, dead, or in jail when not looked after.

Right. Well, cultural biases. Public health and welfare typically make the HRT accessible regardless of circumstaces. It costs me $10.50/fortnight, and that's not even on concession card (rightfully no acces to, given I earn slightly too much to be on welfare). Endocrinology review, blood work, psychological counselling, etc are free. Well, for the time being ... we'll see what Abbott-Hockey mangling of civil liberties will do. Also. Right on. Christian-run boarding houses are the pits. There's a huge number of LGBTQ homeless youth. Throw into this Christian zealotry and with no real capacity to leave?

I was more so thinking assisted living and public housing for 16 and older.

As I said before, authoritative guidance, not authoritarian policing. If you're hurting your children due to your beliefs and forcing them through fear, pain, or emotional torment not to do things you don't like. No. If you're helping your children learn from experience? That's authoritative guidance.

The thing is, all accepting parents tend to be the latter. That experience you labour from. Which is why a lot of us here have been pushing for LGBTIQ parenting and easier adoption rights. We've also been pushing for providing greater access LGBTIQ specific boarding houses. The Christian boarding houses are little better than old conversion centers of religion. They are soul-destroying entities of hatred rather than providing care to all kids. Their one saving grace is their availability, but a lot of us preferred to be out on the street.

At least if we had greater public LGBTIQ welcome shelters and boarding houses, and greater adoption or temporary housing by LGBTIQ carers. There's good services out there, just too few and too far inbetween. The thing is that when coupled with the high degree of psychological damage endemic, it's likely cheaper for LGBTQ kids to have government fund these welcome spaces where they can actually live and thrive and become adjusted members of society. Comparable to YEARS of therapy due to abuse and the social and medical costs associated that tax payers will likely have to dish out regardless.

The thing is, children should have access to gender identity counselling services as soon as they come out. Because it offers insights into potential abuse, it also offers alternatives of experienced people at the fore front. Placing parents in control of this is unnecessary silencing. Which is why opening up transgender children to a world outside a repressive family unit is pretty powerful. It makes people powerful, even the youngest and most vulnerable. It makes you believe you can fight back, to survive.

It's also something you can use in a practical sense. If you have a hostile family unit to you being trans, such individual counselling arms you to perhaps, maybe, help to show your supposed caregivers just what it means to be as you are, and why it's important to you. (edit) Also, just because you are reliant on somene doesn't mean you're beholden to their whims. That's blackmail. It's certainly unfair to bar access to free services dedicated to helping you cope. That's the definition of bad parenting.

I also think that if your parents can't accept that you are capable of self-construction, and affirming your identity by 16 after NUMEROUS health and psychological examinations, then they're just trying to find feeble excuses. This isn't a maturity thing, as trans people generally know from their earliest memories.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Right. Well, cultural biases. Public health and welfare typically make the HRT accessible regardless of circumstaces. It costs me $10.50/fortnight, and that's not even on concession card (rightfully no acces to, given I earn slightly too much to be on welfare). Endocrinology review, blood work, psychological counselling, etc are free. Well, for the time being ... we'll see what Abbott-Hockey mangling of civil liberties will do. Also. Right on. Christian-run boarding houses are the pits. There's a huge number of LGBTQ homeless youth. Throw into this Christian zealotry and with no real capacity to leave?

I was more so thinking assisted living and public housing for 16 and older.

As I said before, authoritative guidance, not authoritarian policing. If you're hurting your children due to your beliefs and forcing them through fear, pain, or emotional torment not to do things you don't like. No. If you're helping your children learn from experience? That's authoritative guidance.

The thing is, all accepting parents tend to be the latter. That experience you labour from. Which is why a lot of us here have been pushing for LGBTIQ parenting and easier adoption rights. We've also been pushing for providing greater access LGBTIQ specific boarding houses. The Christian boarding houses are little better than old conversion centers of religion. They are soul-destroying entities of hatred rather than providing care to all kids. Their one saving grace is their availability, but a lot of us preferred to be out on the street.

At least if we had greater public LGBTIQ welcome shelters and boarding houses, and greater adoption or temporary housing by LGBTIQ carers. There's good services out there, just too few and too far inbetween. The thing is that when coupled with the high degree of psychological damage endemic, it's likely cheaper for LGBTQ kids to find these welcome spaces where they can actually live and thrive and become adjusted members of society. Comparable to YEARS of therapy due to abuse.

The thing is, children should have access to gender identity counselling services as soon as they come out. Because it offers insights into potential abuse, it also offers alternatives of experienced people at the fore front. Placing parents in control of this is unnecessary silencing. Which is why opening up transgender children to a world outside a repressive family unit is pretty powerful. It makes people powerful, even the youngest and most vulnerable. It makes you believe you can fight back, to survive.

It's also something you can use in a practical sense. If you have a hostile family unit to you being trans, such individual counselling arms you to perhaps, maybe, help to show your supposed caregivers just what it means to be as you are, and why it's important to you. (edit) Also, just because you are reliant on somene doesn't mean you're beholden to their whims. That's blackmail. It's certainly unfair to bar access to free services dedicated to helping you cope. That's the definition of bad parenting.

I also think that if your parents can't accept that you are capable of self-construction, and affirming your identity by 16 after NUMEROUS health and psychological examinations, then you're just trying to find feeble excuses.

Well I'll make this part abundantly clear. Any sort of emotional, physical abuse, no matter the basis is absolutely not okay. I absolutely agree. I also agree that gender identity counselling should be available from the moment a trans child comes out. I had accepting parents, which is horrifyingly unusual, I'll admit that, and I have too many trans friends who are, or have been abused by their families. Yes I believe that makes parents unfit. But parents having reasonable input in raising their children is part of parental rights. I do mean reasonable input, and denigrating one's children is indeed abuse. As for further treatment such as HRT and GRS: Too many parents fail here, because they refuse to listen to their children seriously, but it's a decision that needs to be made as a family, at least until the person in question can emancipate themselves. Which in most of the USA you can do at age 15, or 16, and is the same idea you had.

Also talking about child services, boarding houses can be the least of the problems here in the US. Child protective services actually does stunning and immoral things to violate parental rights, even in cases where there is no abuse, even by adamant conformation from the child. Foster care is just a mess largely here in the US too, many foster homes are in it either for a government check, or for a ideological bent. That's why there are so many horror stories from the foster care system in the US, while there are plenty of great caring foster families, there are also far too many horrible and abusive ones.

Basically the support systems and protections for trans people, especially trans children desperately needs massive improvement.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well I'll make this part abundantly clear. Any sort of emotional, physical abuse, no matter the basis is absolutely not okay. I absolutely agree. I also agree that gender identity counselling should be available from the moment a trans child comes out. I had accepting parents, which is horrifyingly unusual, I'll admit that, and I have too many trans friends who are, or have been abused by their families. Yes I believe that makes parents unfit. But parents having reasonable input in raising their children is part of parental rights. I do mean reasonable input, and denigrating one's children is indeed abuse. As for further treatment such as HRT and GRS: Too many parents fail here, because they refuse to listen to their children seriously, but it's a decision that needs to be made as a family, at least until the person in question can emancipate themselves. Which in most of the USA you can do at age 15, or 16, and is the same idea you had.

Also talking about child services, boarding houses can be the least of the problems here in the US. Child protective services actually does stunning and immoral things to violate parental rights, even in cases where there is no abuse, even by adamant conformation from the child. Foster care is just a mess largely here in the US too, many foster homes are in it either for a government check, or for a ideological bent. That's why there are so many horror stories from the foster care system in the US, while there are plenty of great caring foster families, there are also far too many horrible and abusive ones.

Basically the support systems and protections for trans people, especially trans children desperately needs massive improvement.

Ahhh, well ... kind of in agreement then I guess, I must have mistook one of your positions before. Sorry about that. And yeah, though we seem to have the opposite problems over here. In the Department of Education you'd hear horror stories. Teachers would bring complaints of potential child abuse and suffering of one of their students. Then the Department of Community Services would investigate, do nothing. Kid just drops out of school. Teacher contacts DoCS AGAIN. Turns out they're in hospital because the parents blamed them for telling on them to the teachers.

The teacher had invested more kindness into this kid than their parents ever had. Trying to help them catch up on work. Trying to tell them about pathways into higher education. Trying to write up a resume for job searching or seek emergency housing. They spent more time one on one with the kid than DoCS even bothered to. They had to take leave, due to their feelings of guilt and powerlessness.

It doesn't just hurt one person. The sheer hatred of it all is inimical to any rational understanding when you're there observing it firsthand. Honestly, it gets to a point when you read these stories, you learn of them, that it all feels like what child protections that are there are largely for naught when it really matters.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Btw, OP, there's a webcomic called Rain that is about a MtF transsexual based on the author's own experiences. Perhaps you'd like to check it out and see if you like its portrayal of transgenderism?

I looked up Rain yesterday out of curiosity. I found it enlightening, emotional, and entertaining, if a bit dramatic and ham-fisted at times. I ended up reading the entire series.

Thank you, for posting about it

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

What happens if I self-identify as someone who doesn't believe you're trans-gendered?
Couldn't I say that you disagreeing with me is bigoted, maybe even prejudiced?

******* A bro! I love your enthusiasm! You're right, if someone says their male, their male. If someone says their female, their female. And well I personally believe that the Trans- terminology is useful for identification I love how balls out accepting of Trans people you are.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Btw, OP, there's a webcomic called Rain that is about a MtF transsexual based on the author's own experiences. Perhaps you'd like to check it out and see if you like its portrayal of transgenderism?

I looked up Rain yesterday out of curiosity. I found it enlightening, emotional, and entertaining, if a bit dramatic and ham-fisted at times. I ended up reading the entire series.

Thank you, for posting about it

I'm glad I caught this now, because apparently I missed the first post. Thanks Twintix for the original recommendation, and Spif for dredging it up.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Well if you're going to be totally literal about it. But at it's core being cisgender is having ones gender identity and physical sex match up, being transgender is actually the opposite of that. Beside cisgender is easy to say, easy to remember, and shouldn't hold any particular negative attachments. Then again transgender can be used as a negative term. But shouldn't allow reactionary idiots like people who use terms "cis het scum" and "transgender scum" dictate the English language, and it's use, because that's like allowing Luddites to dictate technological advancement.

But doesn't that mean that someone who is post-op/has had reassignment surgery is no longer trans but is now cis? Do trans people start to think of themselves as cis after they're living completely as their preferred gender?

And I'd argue it does have negative connotations, even if it'd be nice to claim it doesn't. Not just on the side of the people that the label applies to, but to trans people too since cis in Latin does mean 'this side'. As you said in your very first post, you don't like the idea of 'other'ing yourself but that is the literal meaning of that word. I can respect why it feels important to have a word to label non-trans people in your eyes, but I'm not sure cis- is the best means to do so :-/

Still, this is just my opinion, as there isn't an ice-cube's chance in a volcano of me making any headway in changing the preferred nomenclature to one I think is more fitting. Just wanted to express the thought.

since transgender isn't about being on 'the other side' of gender, it's about transitioning between them from one you aren't comfortable with to one you are.

Not sure about that.

I might be wrong but I thought that was the definition of being trans? I welcome corrections because if I am wrong then I may have been talking a load of crap this whole time.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

But doesn't that mean that someone who is post-op/has had reassignment surgery is no longer trans but is now cis? Do trans people start to think of themselves as cis after they're living completely as their preferred gender?

That's actually a damn good question, and one I can't be entirely definitive on. I've met some trans people who have fully transitioned and that consider themselves to be "cis" for it. But to me that seems a little dishonest, because even post transition they still have a link to the trans community. I mean to me that's kind of like a "fuck you, got mine" situation, as post transition transgender people have a lot of valuable insight and experience to share. Most importantly to those who are just coming out, and/or just coming to terms with being transgender. Also I'm essentially where I want to be, but still consider myself trans to the extent that I'll never actually be a fully functional biological woman. As for post op, that's not the best way to describe someone who has fully transitioned. Not everyone opts for any reassignment surgery at all, like PaulH I've had my orchi, I've needed essentially no other surgical treatment, and I'm not interested in vaginoplasty. So as far as transition goes I'm basically where I want to be. Not every trans person even goes on hormone replacement therapy, but are happy with the state of transition they ended with.

And I'd argue it does have negative connotations, even if it'd be nice to claim it doesn't. Not just on the side of the people that the label applies to, but to trans people too since cis in Latin does mean 'this side'. As you said in your very first post, you don't like the idea of 'other'ing yourself but that is the literal meaning of that word. I can respect why it feels important to have a word to label non-trans people in your eyes, but I'm not sure cis- is the best means to do so :-/

Still, this is just my opinion, as there isn't an ice-cube's chance in a volcano of me making any headway in changing the preferred nomenclature to one I think is more fitting. Just wanted to express the thought.

Well to be perfectly honest, transgender people, while we're still people, we are also different from the typical person who's gender identity matches their birth sex. Cis, and cisgender are just a more or less easy to remember, not too weaponized as words, and not a terrible mouthful to say. I understand your position, but for a lot of trans, being trans is part of our unique life experience, and though it makes us different in a way, it's also part of our identity.

I respect your opinion, understand it, and agree to an extent, but we need a basically non-hurtful way to express the thing, and cisgender as it's applied generally fits that. Remember that application of a word can change it's definition, especially in English, and especially when we're taking it from another language. Kamikaze is a great example here, we use it to mean "someone performing a suicide attack" but in Japanese it means literally "divine wind."

since transgender isn't about being on 'the other side' of gender, it's about transitioning between them from one you aren't comfortable with to one you are.

Not sure about that.

I might be wrong but I thought that was the definition of being trans? I welcome corrections because if I am wrong then I may have been talking a load of crap this whole time.

What thaluikhain said there is basically correct, the ultimate goal is to transition, to whatever extent that entails on a personal level.

 

[Redryhno]

If you are trans, and the options to change either mind or body were available, with no discernable drawbacks(essentially the way it is now) to either, would you take the choice to change your mind to match the body you have? Or change the body to fit the mind?

Following that, do you believe that GRS and other trans related surgeries should be covered under healthcare and not require you to invest your money yourself or that they shouldn't and continue being considered largely elective surgeries?

Huh, looks like I did skip over some of your questions yesterday.

For the first part, I'll edit this post later to answer on that.

As for healthcare, some do cover it, some don't. It really depends on the plan and which company (not sure if its the right word) you have healthcare from. I do think it should be standard though, for those who want GRS and gett the greenlight for GRS it gets really expensive (5000 to 10000$ if I'm not under/overestimating it) when healthcare doesn't cover it.

I'm aware that some do and alot don't, I'm just wondering if I could get a couple people's thoughts on it. I know it's sorta callous considering the circumstances, but it IS a largely elective surgery much like any other form of plastic surgery, it is not required to keep living, it's someone not being comfortable with part(s) of themselves. Which I can get behind and understand, just not having them not need to pay for the majority of the cost.

There's plenty of actual medical things that aren't covered by most healthcare as well. My mom injured her back like thirty years ago to the point of causing nerve damage, but any surgery to fix it has never been available to her, either due to them not knowing how to fix it, it not being covered under any kind of health insurance/care/etc., or just being too far out of any plan we knew of. I've got a friend that was born without a hand or arm until around two inches after his elbow, any surgery or treatment for his stuff has never been covered as well(not to say he laments this, he's got to be one of the best people in terms of positivity and fun-having I've met).

It's just I've seen a bit more pushing of it being needed to be covered under health plans without paying attention to other things that have been affecting others as well. Yet there's a whole slew of people that also haven't been able to afford the treatment they need to work in modern society. And it doesn't have anything to do with being born the wrong gender, you can still function on everything but a perfect societal level as that. These people I'm talking about? They have to HEAVILY change the ways they do nearly everything in the world to function in it. And they're not getting the attention that I can guarantee you affects them much more(at the very least in terms of numbers if nothing else) than trans-individuals.

I'm sorta hoping that some will read this and think slightly more about the non-trans people that have their own medical-related problems that aren't covered as well that really do affect their daily routines mostly as opposed to just having GRS, hormone therapy, etc, be talked about needing to be covered and making it more important than other things, don't mean to be preaching at you, just off work and I'm rambling.