LostGryphon said:
I get the feeling that we're just not going to see eye to eye here, which is perfectly fine.
I specifically said 'an erasure of said disorder,' meaning that the 'disorder' aspect would disappear once their transformation was complete, as it effectively 'treats' the initial 'disorder' apparent in the person in question.
As opposed to, say, some other sort of mental or biological disorder that cannot be cured, but for which treatment is available for its symptoms.
But, until they are 'treated' in whatever sense that leads to a curtailing or flat removal of their 'dsyphoria,' they are, in effect, 'disordered.'
With that said, in either state, pre or post transition, a trans person is still 'abnormal,' as are homosexuals. They're a statistical deviation; around .3% and 2% respectively, according to national polls. That's all 'abnormal' means in this context.
If I, a white dude, was placed in a 99% African American community, or a community consisting entirely of trans folks, I would then be 'abnormal' as well. It is not an inherently negative term.
I have not denied that there are negative connotations to the term. I have denied that those are the only connotations, especially in a medical/psychological/physiological/statistical context.
Or, you know ... you can stop using the word 'disorder/ed' because it has real connotations and definitions, ones that aren't
supposed to be prejudicial or subjective. It has categorical boundaries. Whether you mean it outside psychology, or within it. None of the definitions are exemplary of transgender people by dint of bein trans.
As for normal/abnormal there's a reason why we dropped aristotelian-esque ideas of a rightful 'center' ... because it was garbage and lacked definition. Cis has none of these problems. You know exactly to who I refer, or to what concept I'm trying to talk about. The manufactured dislike of the word seems just that, manufactured.
People talk about how it has 'bad connotations' ... I'd actually like to know how, because I've never confronted them in my daily life. And it's a word that is direct and unambiguous. Whereas a LOT Of people have a problem with being arbitrarily designated 'abnormal' ... whether that is right or wrong, seems less of an issue.
If you want to call someone 'abnormal' go ahead, though EQUALLY I feel that's it's also pretty good grounds for the person so named to ask 'why?' ... Such critique rarely comes up with 'cisgender' ... and given I have yet to come across it used as a slur, you'll forgive me if I use it because it's direct, unambiguous and cuts through any subjective evaluations that I or my listener might have.
If being a statistical minority in ANY Group of things is enough to be abnormal. Then all of us are abnormal. I like the colour green. Favourite colour. But then again, I'm abnormal. I'm ambidextrous, but then again ... I'm abnormal. I'm 5'10'', but then again ... I'm abnormal ... I have a B- blood type, but then again ... I'm abnormal.
There's a reason why abnormal in these cases isn't abnormal. My entire livelihood or value is not measured, reduced, or increased, by simply being trans. I'm more than just me being trans. Identity is a pretty big thing ... made bigger than it needs to be because identity underpins social fabric stuff, government papers, etc ... but it's pretty important to formulating an ideal of self and co-ordinating one's will to power. But being trans is not my be all and end all, and judged 'abnormal' just for being so? Really?
I'm like every other person around me. I struggle to get by, I have university pressures, I often don't get enough sleep, I worry about money, I do my taxes, and like a growing number of Australians, I have to take pills to get by with the day to day stuff of just surviving. That being said, if I ever fell off my meds for schizophrenia ... then you can call me abnormal. I'll be displaying abnormal behaviour.
But if someone is going to tell me I'm 'abnormal' because I look and present a certain way ... I'm going to ask 'why?' Why am I specifically abnormal? You're telling me that being trans puts me in a statistical minority isn't going to cut it. Because all of us, barring perhaps monozygotic twins, are abnormal then.
Nobody has your DNA (Except monozygotic twins ... and even then), nobody shared your womb conditions (Except, well twins), or early childhood socialising and education (Except twins, perhaps). That makes monozygotic twins the most normal of all humanity. After all, there's two of them that shared the same womb and genetics ... meaning each ohave perfectly comparable qualities. The rest of us have no comparable qualities with any other person down to the cellular level.
IN this context you're just as normal or abnormal as me. More to the point, it's just as feasible to say them being monozygotic twins has more relevance to others than me being genderqueer does to you. Which makes your categorization pale in comparison. As it has measurable, objective foundations of descriptions.
A monozygotic twin has more right to say their genome and foetal development is more normal than anybody else, because they have another person who shared it.
But my measuring someone as being abnormal solely because of one arbitrary thing you decided should be the underpinning of their classification of abnormal, you're participating in a system that treats people according to prejudices of how someone should be judged. There's a reason why we usually refrain from using such words until they ACTUALLY matter. Analyzing TRULY anomalous behaviour, or conditions. Trans people aren't the mystery they used to be. Most people accept they are around. Most people who live in a decently sized city will likely knowingly, and more likely unknowingly, worked with or had dealings with trans people.
You know when 'abnormal' should be used? Observing anomalous phenomena, or comprehending some weird existential crisis ... seeing a python slithering up a busy city street, or observing some strange astronomical event. Watching a group of people howling at the Moon, wearing animal skins in a circle around a fire pit in a forested little nook in Western Somerset. Things that are
weird and lack a means towards reasonable explanation in a timely fashion.
LostGryphon said:
I don't believe a 'completed' trans person is 'disordered,' nor do I think a gay person is 'disordered,' in any negative sense. Reading through my previous posts, I don't think I'm doing too good a job of communicating what I'm intending, which is a fun side effect of sleepless posting.
They're not disordered in
any sense;
"Hi. You're gay ... do you have a disorder?" >>> "No. I fuck men/women."
"Do you have an innate sense of confusion or do you think being gay disrupts your health?" >>> "No, I fuck men/women, it's not really confusing. I also tend to feel better during and after."
Same thing for trans people. Though different objective goals of being true to self.
This is why they are dropping GID in favour of dysphoria. As then it only relative in the case of where someone feels dissatisfaction with their body. It makes no clinical sense, much as it made no clinical sense for homosexuality, to see it in its own right as a disorder.
Compare with schizophrenia;
"Hi, you're schizophrenic ... do you have a disorder?" >>> "Yeah, I have simple schizophrenia."
"Do you an innate sense of confusion or do you think it disrupts your health?" >>> "Well ... yeah, I can't ever afford to be off my meds and even then there's still some level of impairment."
Not comparable.
LostGryphon said:
Didn't say you did? Other people have.
Just covering bases and providing a bit of framework for the discussion.
Who has? Specifically? I associate with plenty of trans people ... never once heard it used in a derogatory fashion. Mainly because we don't like outing ourselves needlessly. World's a dangerous place ... but between me and my friends we'll ***** about certain cis people, but cis isn't a slur. It's just used to designate a type of person in terms of thei gender identity.
It does so far better than any proposed alternative. Particularly this 'normal'/'abnormal' stuff.
LostGryphon said:
I appreciate that you take the word a certain way. This does not make the word mean those things and those things only.
'Subnormal' is the word that calls something inferior.
Differing from a norm does not make something deficient or inferior. The word itself is meant to differentiate from an established norm. Whether or not you're comfortable with the term doesn't really matter in relation to its application.
Just. Like. "Cis."
If you can't be bothered to actually show me proof how normal is at all better than cis, or has more utility than cis when talking about cisgender persons, or how normal or abnormal don't arbitrarily lump people into groups that have fuck all to do with eachother, then it's a moot point.
By all means, if someone calls me abnormal, I'll just call them abnormal. I'm sure I'll find something to make it stick just by looking at them.
LostGryphon said:
Whether or not some people are comfortable with the word, as there ARE negative connotations to it (this thread and the responses therein should tell you as much), which you seem to be ignorant of, willfully or otherwise, does not make "Cisgender" itself any less valid in the correct context.
Even though the majority of people either think it's a useful term, don't care, or think it's unnecessary or have never heard/knew of it? It's hella useful every now and again with my friends, and I still find it quick and pragmatic ...
LostGryphon said:
Hokay.
I'm referencing the medical definition, not the general one, a variation of which is seen here, "a disruption of normal physical or mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition," from a simple google search.
Specifically referencing the 'abnormal condition' bit.
And, hell, even that definition can be further blown up or shrunk down to fit a specific context. Ie. abnormal for the individual or abnormal for the species?
Maybe I should have put that initial part of my 'first' post where I say, "but I can't bring myself to disagree with the core argument, since it's essentially a semantic one," in bold, with ten foot tall text.
...And, wait just a moment here, what the holy fuck have I said that 'invalidate(s) gay and trans people'?
Not being normal doesn't make something any less valid. Someone being 'disordered' doesn't make them less valid or their condition, mental or biological, any less important.
Which is why I'm telling you, again and again. Trans people are not disordered by dint of simply being trans. Neither are gay people. Neither are Native American Indians, left handed people, and anybody without an AB+ bloodtype. There's a reason why the oxford dictionary lists abnormal as deviating from the norm in a manner typically seen as undesireable.
So basically you're asking to change the meaning of a word that has been accepted in English as to be undesireable as a qualifier, and make it suitable grounds to judge anybody you don't consider normal. But hey, it's not without precedent. 'Queer' was a bad word until it was refashioned.
There is no disruptions of normal physical or mental functions if a trans person has no clinical disorder. If a trans person has dysphoria, that can represent real physical and mental health problems. But trans people are fully capable of having a normal degree of social and physical participation.
The Lunatic said:
Well, I mean, technically, even if you are transitioned, you're not the opposite sex.
So, transitioning has no affect on sex.
Now, transitioning does have an affect on gender, but, gender is a very vague issue and difficult to really define. Some would claim Gender doesn't exist in any sense and is just a social construct. In which case, gender dysphoria can't exist, as gender doesn't exist.
So, we say that gender does exist and has a biological element, then transitioning at present isn't a "100% thing" as the biological element of sex is still present.
Not that I mean to say that "Transgendered beliefs are a disorder" or anything, I'm just pointing out that it's a pretty complicated issue, and it's too simple to declare that gender dysphoria ends when one is transitioned.I mean, if you want my view on the issue, I think there's a big distinction between "disorder" and "illness".
I'm homosexual, I believe that's a disorder. But, it's not an illness. I mean, homosexuality prevents the desire to reproduce, which is a pretty important thing for an organism. And therefore, I would say that things which impact that aren't "How things are supposed to be" so to speak.
However, it's not a negative trait that affects my ability to deal with our present society, therefore it's not an illness, ailment, or disease.
Would I label people who identify as trans as having a disorder?
Well... Certainly not before explaining as I have. Not that I mean any harm by using such a label, but, just like "Cisgendered", to use the word "Disorder" has a lot of negative connotations which can lead to a lot of confusion and unintended insult.
But, that's just my opinion.
Actually, I'm more than adequately geared to say EXACTLY that... precisely because gender is both a social and psychological construct. There are also genetic and womb conditions connections also, given monozygotic twins examinations. Also, I have no problems defining my gender. I do it every day. I would also critique that sex in terms of genetics alone means little in terms of how one is female.
Plenty of examples where genetics is not the be all and end all of gender identity and sexual attraction. For example, regardless of genetics ... womb conditions are more likely to play a part in whether you're gay or straight. Simply being the youngest of your siblings makes you more likely to be a gay male than your brothers who came into the world before you. Precisely because of the altering womb conditions with each successive pregnancy.
What would you like to know? I'm sure of my gender identity as you are your sexuality. Probably more so infact, when examining actual case studies of gender dysphoria in studies. Gender dysphoria, much like the name itself describes, ends when one is no longer feeling the effects of dysphoria. When there has been a suitable period of transition. Whereby the person feels comfortable in their own body.
Your homosexuality does not limit you from full social and physical participation in society. Neither does my gender identity. Nor do we measure the nature of disorders as to mean vague potentialities. O- bloodtype is not a disorder, and yet they only represent 9% of the population, and can only accept blood from other O- donors. Because O- blood is useful for ALL patients, the supply for O- blood is usually the most stressed for blood banks.
That is not a disorder... the potentiality they might need surgery and be at a critical shortfall for blood products does not make it so. Ditto pregnancy or anything like that. A disorder represents something that disrupts basic social and physical functioning. Being trans is not a disorder, and neither is homosexuality. Not without making the definition of disorder to be so encompassing and broad as to be meaningless.
Politrukk said:
Uh huh ...
So, given I was infertile to begin with it seems like a zero sum game. Also, plenty of trans people can cryogenically store any semen/ova they wish. Technology is marvelous. And you're still misusing disorder.
As for what I like to be called? My name for starters.
Frankly, I find it creepy people talking about my reproduction, when it's pretty common knowledge that many people are quite fine with adoption or just plain do not want kids. Unless you feel like calling them 'defective' also?
