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

[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.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

Ugh why does this keep coming up? I'll be as brief as possible on this point. Studies indicate that trans people who are unable to transition to a satisfactory level are significantly more likely to have suicidal thoughts, attempt suicide, and succeed in committing suicide. Then there are basic day to day issues that cause massive problems, even post transition, like bathroom and locker room usage just as simple ideas. Finally trans people who are not fully through transition are far more likely to be targeted for abuse, assaults, rape, and murder, than those who have fully transitioned. Being trans is it's own bucket of day to day issues that really do affect daily life. Consider that mental illness is also a disability, trans people often suffer mental illness from abuses they've suffered through out their life.

Physical disabilities can also be a bit of a skewed comparison, because it is horrific that so many medical plans don't cover necessary medical care. Even after the affordable healthcare act here in the US. Especially in the case of your mom who was injured and never given treatment. The other person, with the deformity that prevented his arm from fully forming? Well unfortunately there is no real surgical fix for that, so he's limited to prosthetic, which are usually covered.

Edit: I notice I tend to externalize when I talk trans people being abused... I wonder why that is? Perhaps it's because I've been very fortunate not to have really suffered much abuse for it myself... Hmm. Then again I tend to post when I'm dead tired too, that might have something to do with it.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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."

Kamikaze is a bit of an odd one, though I get it was just the first example you could think of, culturally it was all about the whole... crashing the plane was like for the Emperor who's descended from Amaterasu and all that...

Anyhow! I do get what you mean and despite what I might say or think, I'm also aware that cis- is now a thoroughly ingrained prefix and is pretty much perfectly functional. I just feel like it's got some problems that I wanna address. Only problem I see is how you might view the trans/cis deal once you reach a comfortable point but I guess that is all pretty personal in the same way everyone has some elements of hetero/homosexuality :-/

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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."

Kamikaze is a bit of an odd one, though I get it was just the first example you could think of, culturally it was all about the whole... crashing the plane was like for the Emperor who's descended from Amaterasu and all that...

Anyhow! I do get what you mean and despite what I might say or think, I'm also aware that cis- is now a thoroughly ingrained prefix and is pretty much perfectly functional. I just feel like it's got some problems that I wanna address. Only problem I see is how you might view the trans/cis deal once you reach a comfortable point but I guess that is all pretty personal in the same way everyone has some elements of hetero/homosexuality :-/

I'm not trying to shoot you down here, no pun intended... >.>; Cis/cisgender almost certainly very well have problems associated with it, I just can't think of anything better off the top of my head to use in it's place. Also it's become more or less the accepted terminology, and that's probably not gonna change unless, or until it becomes sufficiently toxic to both sides. I'd bet that's more likely a when, rather than an if considering how few people understand transgender people and how many are still actively hostile to the concept of transgenderism.

 

[hentropy]

I hope you don't mind some more "inside baseball" questions, mostly I'm just looking for another opinion on it, as someone who is... well, non-conventional myself.

Some of it has to do with terminology. Do you think using the "LGBT***+" format is really helpful? I feel like the whole thing may be counterproductive the more letters you tack onto it, and it seems like no matter how many you use you're still leaving someone out or relegating them to the plus sign. I prefer to use the term "GSM", Gender/Sexual Minority, as a catch-all term, and it also doesn't prioritize any group with the ordering.

Though, there's also the question as to whether or not gender identities should be lumped in with sexual orientations at all. I feel like tying gender intrinsically to those that you enjoy sexually confuses people, with them thinking that gender identity is more like orientation.

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.

Transgender simply means that you sincerely do not identify as the physical sex assigned to you. It's not technically stipulated by whether someone is actually in the process of transitioning, though the name does sort of imply that. Transitioning can also be defined as something as simple as wearing different clothes or changing one's hair, it doesn't imply surgical sex change. It gets particularly sticky when you get into non-gender-binary individuals, where one doesn't "transition" in any direct way, or their identity might change frequently.

You could say that the moment of "transition" is when one admits to themselves that they do not identify with their assigned sex or gender.

 

[Actual]

I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the "male trapped in a female body" and vice versa idea, personally. If someone were to approach me and ask "What does it feel like, mentally, to be a man?" I would have absolutely no idea how to answer that question. So, when I hear the trans community speak as if they are trapped inside the wrong body, I'm legitimately puzzled by this. While I think the trans community deserves everyone's love and support, I've had a hard time buying into the rhetoric and I can't bring myself to advocate gender reassignment surgery just yet. It just seems too similar to other psychological disorders. I really and genuinily want to be on the other side of this issue because I feel like I'm the wrong side, but I feel like all I hear are appeals to emotion.

Just quoting you because I feel exactly the same and I never see anyone else who shares this viewpoint. But then I rarely comment myself because I'm afraid of seeming unaccepting when that isn't my desire.

I don't feel like a man in a male body, I'm just me and my body is coincidental. I can't imagine I'd feel any more or less comfortable in a female body.

So I'm all for trans people being happy and treated with the same respect everyone else gets but I also think we should be discouraging surgery and encouraging more research into what causes these feelings of not fitting in your body and perhaps finding a way to treat that.

 

[Dark Knifer]

So its a mindset basically? Well I can see how trying to actualize that would be difficult. If it makes people happy I'm glad but I'd like to learn more about it. So its something that bothers people and they can't put their finger on until until they make this realization and that puts it into perspective? Hope I'm understanding this right.

It's more a sense of despair in the face of lacking a means to marry flesh and mind from the beginning. About authentcity of character and shaping the self. Allowing oneself to be open with others in how they wish to be, and how they wish others to associate. Being true unto oneself. It's hard to articulate, primarily because it's like an existential crisis for most since their earliest thoughts. They know they are wrong, and want to correct that wrongness. That deficiency. So that they can be owners of, and embody, truth of character and self.

Thanks that clears up things quite well. Thanks for explaining it

 

[Platypus540]

As for pansexual, someone needs to correct me on this if needed, and sorry if I sound blunt, a person can be attracted to someone who possibly doesn't fall under the gender binary but also to those who do. It's seen as a subset of bisexuality.

See, this is what I don't get. At the risk of being overly blunt, what difference is there in attraction to someone who doesn't fall under the gender binary? Regardless of what their mental gender is, they still look like one or the other of the two physical sexes. So is pansexuality then just willingness to date/have sex with a non-binary person? Because that's not the impression I've gotten.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Some of it has to do with terminology. Do you think using the "LGBT***+" format is really helpful? I feel like the whole thing may be counterproductive the more letters you tack onto it, and it seems like no matter how many you use you're still leaving someone out or relegating them to the plus sign. I prefer to use the term "GSM", Gender/Sexual Minority, as a catch-all term, and it also doesn't prioritize any group with the ordering.

Ah, but who does GSM actually refer to? If you say "LGBT", that's at least 4 groups (with overlap). GSM can be as wide or as narrow as you want it to be.

Though, there's also the question as to whether or not gender identities should be lumped in with sexual orientations at all. I feel like tying gender intrinsically to those that you enjoy sexually confuses people, with them thinking that gender identity is more like orientation.

There is that. "Not cishet" would often be easier, but there are problems with that.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Thanks that clears up things quite well. Thanks for explaining it

No probs! Every trans person is different. Not all want surgery and HRT, I did for example. But at the same time, I wanted HRT and surgery so that I could achieve a gender neutral expression of self, leaning towards an easier means to preset and identify as female. In ten years time, I might just go full-time trans woman and just do that, as that's my likely natural and most present state of being.

It's kind of like ... hmmm ... I'm not sure how much you're invested in philosophy or how much you'd like to learn about it, but if you want a book that I think best encapsulates the nature of despair and how it correlates to at least my understanding of it as myself (there is only a subjective sense of self, after all), I kind of suggest Kierkegaard's The Sickness unto Death.

That book changed my life in so many ways. And it's pretty understandable in terms of most big philosophy works. Just remove Kierkegaard's ideal of Christian existence and just insert a subjective transcendental ideality of self as pertaining to manhood or womanhood.

But I think that book best encapsulates why (most) trans people are so excited by not merely treatment, but being offered extensive means to individualize their treatment in terms of moving towards an ideal sense of self and form. Why it's important to marry body and mind, and why it's difficult to contemplate if you do so happen to be cisgender. Like, I honestly get why cisgender people might feel perplexed by why trans people feel despair, or feel like they have to alter their physical presence to attain a sense of self-happiness.

That book REALLY clears it up, and it also helps as a leeway into other existentialist writers that came after.

It's not that big ... just send me an email or note if you decide to read it and get stuck on some concepts. But I think it will answer all (or at least some) of your questions about why trans people feel despair as it relates to self (the ONLY way that despair can relate to and be born by), and how they find liberation in marrying form with mind, and the importance of having the right to expression and agency in terms of self construction.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I hope you don't mind some more "inside baseball" questions, mostly I'm just looking for another opinion on it, as someone who is... well, non-conventional myself.

Some of it has to do with terminology. Do you think using the "LGBT***+" format is really helpful? I feel like the whole thing may be counterproductive the more letters you tack onto it, and it seems like no matter how many you use you're still leaving someone out or relegating them to the plus sign. I prefer to use the term "GSM", Gender/Sexual Minority, as a catch-all term, and it also doesn't prioritize any group with the ordering.

Though, there's also the question as to whether or not gender identities should be lumped in with sexual orientations at all. I feel like tying gender intrinsically to those that you enjoy sexually confuses people, with them thinking that gender identity is more like orientation.

Some people have taken to using LGBTIQ anymore and that covers Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer. It's a bit weird but as it is there it actually makes the best catchall I've seen so far, as the final part, Queer covers everyone who doesn't fall in to other listed groups. Still I don't really approve of it much as a lump term because it's also supposed to cover the whole community it's supposed to fit, and we're anything but unified. I've actually encountered more gay men and lesbian women who are less accepting of trans than most other people I end up getting outed to. Also as far as bisexual and other sexuality groups, too many gay and lesbian people have given me the line of; "you're either gay, straight, or lying." So I have mixed feelings on the whole thing.

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.

Transgender simply means that you sincerely do not identify as the physical sex assigned to you. It's not technically stipulated by whether someone is actually in the process of transitioning, though the name does sort of imply that. Transitioning can also be defined as something as simple as wearing different clothes or changing one's hair, it doesn't imply surgical sex change. It gets particularly sticky when you get into non-gender-binary individuals, where one doesn't "transition" in any direct way, or their identity might change frequently.

You could say that the moment of "transition" is when one admits to themselves that they do not identify with their assigned sex or gender.

That's probably the most accurate description of the whole thing I've seen thus far, at least to my own mind. Not everyone is as open to that broad a definition though. As I said before the larger grouping is already divided. Some trans individuals I've known insist that you're not trans unless you're getting full GRS all the way up to the "bottom surgery, or have already gotten it.

I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the "male trapped in a female body" and vice versa idea, personally. If someone were to approach me and ask "What does it feel like, mentally, to be a man?" I would have absolutely no idea how to answer that question. So, when I hear the trans community speak as if they are trapped inside the wrong body, I'm legitimately puzzled by this. While I think the trans community deserves everyone's love and support, I've had a hard time buying into the rhetoric and I can't bring myself to advocate gender reassignment surgery just yet. It just seems too similar to other psychological disorders. I really and genuinily want to be on the other side of this issue because I feel like I'm the wrong side, but I feel like all I hear are appeals to emotion.

Just quoting you because I feel exactly the same and I never see anyone else who shares this viewpoint. But then I rarely comment myself because I'm afraid of seeming unaccepting when that isn't my desire.

I don't feel like a man in a male body, I'm just me and my body is coincidental. I can't imagine I'd feel any more or less comfortable in a female body.

So I'm all for trans people being happy and treated with the same respect everyone else gets but I also think we should be discouraging surgery and encouraging more research into what causes these feelings of not fitting in your body and perhaps finding a way to treat that.

Gender dysphoria in general needs more research into it, but so does every other issue that discomfort with ones own. The problem is that if there was a medication treatment it'd either be making one's self into an emotionless zombie just to function, or a treatment that changes who someone is inside their own mind. In either case the moral questions that go with that sort of thing are really kinda damning, because one way you're just medicating someone until the pain goes away, in the other you're changing who they are as a person on a fundamental level.

As for pansexual, someone needs to correct me on this if needed, and sorry if I sound blunt, a person can be attracted to someone who possibly doesn't fall under the gender binary but also to those who do. It's seen as a subset of bisexuality.

See, this is what I don't get. At the risk of being overly blunt, what difference is there in attraction to someone who doesn't fall under the gender binary? Regardless of what their mental gender is, they still look like one or the other of the two physical sexes. So is pansexuality then just willingness to date/have sex with a non-binary person? Because that's not the impression I've gotten.

The simple answer is that pansexuality means that gender has no bearing on weather or not you love someone. You can be attracted to a person no matter what their sex or gender identity, the attraction instead from falling in love with that person emotionally first.