LostGryphon said:
Apologies for me being mentally stunted here, but...would it be fair to say it's a treatable disorder, which is then cured by the aforementioned treatment, resulting in an erasure of said disorder?
THe act of distress is what makes it a disorder, yes. But being trans does not correlate to permanent distress. Which is why it's important to not conflate the two. That is what I'm saying. I have made this point 4 times, now. It's getting quite boring to have to repeat myself.
Being trans is not a disordered state. Being UNHAPPY about beung trans
CAN be ... in much the case of many people feeling sorrow and performing self-harm about being gay.
LostGryphon said:
I mean, from what I can see with a quick glance around info sites, the two are used to describe the same thing with no real consensus on the terminology. Surely dysphoria, by its very nature, in relation to ones biological sex/gender not aligning would and indeed could by considered a disorder? A misalignment of body and mind?
*He asked, with palpable trepidation.*
Unless it causes visible distress or irrationality and self-harm.
But many trans people are happy, socially active, well-adjusted, and cognitively functioning as a rational entity, once they have satisfactorily transition. I know I no longer feel dysphoric. So pretending like I'm a disordered person simply for being trans is no different when they used to treat homosexuals the same way.
If there is no distress, there can be no dysphoria. THat's why the modern definitions in multiple places refer to dysphoria as only the
PAIN of dissatisfaction with one's body. Not the aftermath as one moves towards transition.
LostGryphon said:
Bearing in mind that we're trying to ignore negative connotations for words and take them at face value. This approach mirrors some folks' argument for 'Cis' being employed, regardless of its own potential negative connotations toward those its targeting.
The fuck? I have never used it like that, my friends have never used it like that.
LostGryphon said:
Er. Well, ya see.
Someone could make that exact same argument for the use of 'abormal' in relation to trans folks, with their particular friends or conversational partners and as an argument for not using 'cis.'
'Abnormal' refers to an abnormality, something that I am perceivable deficient or differentiated by. I don't want to be differentiated. And I certainly don't want to be arbitrarily lumped into a group of people who have fuck all to do with me.
Cis shouldn't be offensive because it has no offensive undertones, abnormal should be because for the longest time it made people outliers for no other reason than personal prejudice. This is WHY it has no clear borders, just anybody that someone wants to promote as 'other' for arbitrary, bullshit reasons.
Much like the term. Arbitrary and generally bullshit. Cis cuts through ALL that
LostGryphon said:
I realize that they're not equivalent terms. I specifically put 'disorder' in quotes to indicate that I wasn't meaning to conflate the two and was going for parity with a specific meaning, ie. 'abnormal condition' (sort of a literal interpretation)...which didn't work.
Don't really appreciate the inference of prejudice though.
I calls it likes I sees it. Arbitrary, prejudicial garbage. Also, I don't really care if you weren't or not. A disorder generally relates to a state of confusion. So no, there's a reason I call it prejudicial garbage as it's the same argument used again, and again, to try to invalidate gay and trans people...
You'll forgive me if I believe the same rhetoric cropping up deserves a stern, flat; "NO!"