Poll: There are only 2 genders....right?

IMissedThatOne

New member
Mar 7, 2015
12
0
0
Hopefully I did it. Maybe? We'll see. Thanks for your advice! I greatly appreciate it!


To me, a man is such because they are sexually male. Gender is fluid and demanding that gender identity be called male or female only serves to further the concept of binary genders to insist to define a person as male or female by the unseen gender within. I believe my line of thinking is more in line with the message transgendered philosophy puts forward and I am somewhat surprised that this hasn't been adopted by the community yet. I think it's most likely to be because using their preferred pronoun is what they see as a form of acceptance. I find that silly. Acceptance is so much more than just using the same term. People will call Bruce Jenner "her" to avoid backlash without necessarily accepting anything about the person and their condition.
So if, when I say he or she, I'm talking about someone that is sexually male or female, how does that tie into gender in your mind? Especially when considering the concept of gender which is fluid and not necessarily tied to sex at all.

Well it's because some people develop/ have a stricly male/female gender identity and therefore would be liked to addressed as any other man/woman and that ususally includes the usage of male/female gender pronouns. Afterall you might meet man or women you never know that they are transgendered and still will use he/she for them. Technically you would go against your own rule by then since you used the ?wrong? pronouns for biologically male/female people. Your rule would therefore only apply to not well passing or people who you would find out out that there transgender. Or do you check for their biological sex everytime?
And yes acceptance is more than just using some terms but using the terms is a from of showing acceptance.

An imposition is not necessarily done by force. Think of the phrase, "Oh, I don't wish to impose" when a guest is offered an invitation to something that would require the person to go out of their way to accommodate them. Imposition is not forcing. Imposition is obligation by request. It is tedious to have to go over my words and plan them more carefully around an individual and I personally find the practice to make me less genuine around the few transgendered acquaintances (and one friend) that I have.

I just don't see how using their prefered pronouns is any more going out of someones way than using a new name for someone? In which way do you have to plan your words carefully? As you said yourself in normal conversation they hardley come up but I just don't see that it is an enormous requirement of mental power to atleast try to use to right pronoun.

The only thing I would find demanding to much is when they assume you'll get it right in the first few moments of meeting people.


Not entirely, I wish not to have to refer to someone as something they are not. I don't have to label them at all or want to call them a man if they don't want to be called that. I would prefer to instead drop pronouns rather than to do something I believe is dishonest. That isn't wishing to refer to someone as I see them so much as not wishing to refer to someone as I don't see them. Sorry if that's too nuanced.
What's more is that I don't wish people who aren't the individual in question to enforce my pronoun usage when the individual isn't there. I don't know if you're transgendered or not, but do you have any idea what it's like to first learn about this whole pronoun thing? For many of us, it's a confrontation, not a simple lesson. It's us using "he" or whatever and then getting our asses handed to us in a multiple minute long rant. That's our introduction. You don't see a guy in a dress for the first time and automatically realize you're supposed to use "her" or "she". It's (the assault of getting it wrong for the first time, not a guy in a dress) just nuts and has nothing to do with whether or not you accept a transgendered individual as a person or believe that they've got a legitimate condition, both of which I do. But holy shit, who wants to walk on egg shells every time they're around anyone? I just want to be able to hang out and have a good time with them and not worry that I might inadvertently say something to trigger a rant. I want them to have a good time too so I still do my best. But heck, most of the transgendered people I know aren't the ones who would do the rant. It's usually some jerk imposing things without the other person even knowing about it because they think its' their job to swoop in and protect the transgendered individual from any possible mistake someone else can make.

Here is the thing: I personally don't think you should scream or verbally harrass someone just because they got the pronoun wrong and I'm sorry to hear you had such a negative experience. Maybe if people would have been nicer and showed you how much it means to the person in question you'd be more willing use pronouns of their gender identity. Or maybe if they would explained to you that if all of your friends refer to a person as she but you're the only one calling them he they might get confused.

Not the way a person looks. The sex they were born as. At least one trans woman I know well absolutely does not look like a man at all. By all appearances, a quite attractive female.
Consider it like my orientation. I am oriented to be attracted to females who are sexually female and as such I have a strict distinction between males and females just like anyone who isn't bisexual does (and heck, maybe many bisexuals have a firm distinction there too). So I am hard coded to perceive the female sex as one thing and the male sex as quite another. When I say "he" or "she" I am referring to their sex, not their gender.In my mind, I am in no way discussing their gender. It is irrelevant to the pronouns of 'he' and 'she' when used thus. This is why I have such a hard time converting it and don't feel comfortable forcing it.

It most cases that would be how a person look since you most of the time cannot see their junk or know about their status, If for example you meet a man you know nothing about and you find him nice and charming and you might think to yourself ?He is really a nice dude.? And then someone would tell you he is trans. Would you then switch gender pronouns when talking with others about him. And why would it matter now? Why is accknowleging his female sex now so important if you spend maybe days perfeclty fine with calling im he in conversations he was nor around?

To my knowledge, I have not been detected as doing so for years now. Either that or they value my friendship too much to bring it up. I wonder what I'd say to them if they confronted me on it? I'd probably cave and just give them what they want I suppose. But right now, this makes me feel like I'm in control of myself and my own reality. It's important to me in a way not entirely unlike how they are wanting to have control over their own reality. It's just that their desire conflicts with mine and I'm not sure why I should be the one automatically folding just because people get all hot and bothered over it.

You see my main problem here is that you position just seems a bit inconsitent to me. You don't want to bend over when someone gets bothered by something but why then draw the line only by pronouns? Why bend over to call them by their new name, why at all avoid their pronouns, if the only thing keeping you from it is not offending them?

I'm actually quite amazed you would give them their pronouns if they asked you for it. What exaclty makes you cave in? Maybe your friendship and their happiness is more meaningful to you than sticking to the pronouns but if you can this then why not any other time?


I hardly think that using "he" or "she" is anything close to treating someone as male or female anymore than calling someone a ***** is treating them like a lady. Please don't misunderstand, my use of pronouns is pretty much my entire hold out here. In any aspects the individual is entirely treated as the sex they're presenting as. Like I said in a previous post, what do you think I'm doing? Challenging them to a "sword fight" (in which two males whip out their penis and urinate while crossing the pee streams)? If you treat everyone politely, then how would you specifically treat someone as a male or female aside from expressing romantic interest? I open the door for men and women alike, for example.

See this^ is the part that kind of confuses me. We use he/him for men and she/her for women how is then that not using these is not deneying them atleast some gendered aspekt of language? Did you ever use he for a woman?Afterall you do use their new name which is often also gendered or sexed. I could say certain names are for people of one sex or the other. By your logic you could deney naming someone Sarah arguing that this name is for people of female sex and you may use an androgenous name for them but not any cleary female name. Names afterall also serve as a distinction between the sexes but you don't do that you only (and this is somewhat strange) have reservations for pronouns.

I just don't understand why you are willing to use gendered language of ther prefered wish in any other case than pronouns? What is so fundamental different from a gender pronoun to a gendered name?

FYI, there are also studies showing that reassignment surgeries fail in a lot of ways to resolve the issue. Making things better is a far cry from a resolution. The end result may be a combination of the two things, I simply don't know and I think social ostracism of any doctors pursuing non-surgical results is a shame when we should all be in favor of pursuing the best possible results.
Here's a question, what if the gender could be changed instead of the sex? Would that be an option you think medical science should pursue?

I read a lot about them and will agree they have some problems but then again any treatment for anything has. They do good and they do so much good that most individuals lead a happier more adjusted life aftewards and that's all that's counts to me. The most striking problem is usually the lack of acceptance. You might be happier with body but that doesn't do anything if nobody respects your gender identity, your family quits contact or you can't get a job because transgender apperance may scare away customers.

Also doctors do not get ostracised for a non surgical solution. Atleast I've never heard of that. Do you know any specific example? It happens quite a lot that transgender people who are in therapy do not undergo any surgery. A great transgender researcher with the name Pfäffling once said that you cannot push any patient in one direction or another but if you show them possibilites they can chose to find what's right for them.

That depens on how invasive the treament is. Some people also argue that changing someones gender is basically elimenating an important part of their personality and there is some moral issues to be had with that but if there was a way to change your gender (identity) I would always leave it up to the person in question and therefore I wouldn't be against scientist researching in that area.


(Sorry I couldn't get the qouting to work)
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
IMissedThatOne said:
Hopefully I did it. Maybe? We'll see. Thanks for your advice! I greatly appreciate it!

(Sorry I couldn't get the qouting to work)
Quote, not qoute. Otherwise you did wonderfully. From what I can tell, if you edit your post and switch the vowels then everything would show up perfectly. I'm going through your post right now. Will take a bit to give it the attention it deserves.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
IMissedThatOne said:
Well it's because some people develop/ have a stricly male/female gender identity and therefore would be liked to addressed as any other man/woman and that ususally includes the usage of male/female gender pronouns. Afterall you might meet man or women you never know that they are transgendered and still will use he/she for them. Technically you would go against your own rule by then since you used the ?wrong? pronouns for biologically male/female people. Your rule would therefore only apply to not well passing or people who you would find out out that there transgender. Or do you check for their biological sex everytime?
And yes acceptance is more than just using some terms but using the terms is a from of showing acceptance.
If I don't know then I'm not being dishonest. Just uninformed.


I just don't see how using their prefered pronouns is any more going out of someones way than using a new name for someone? In which way do you have to plan your words carefully? As you said yourself in normal conversation they hardley come up but I just don't see that it is an enormous requirement of mental power to atleast try to use to right pronoun. I have to plan my words more carefully to make sure I'm not about to say anything indicated that I know the person in front of me is a man presenting as a woman. It's an elephant in the room, if you will. If I just don't use pronouns then I don't have to be all that concerned with my language and can be a lot freer in my interactions. If I'm going to use pronouns it'll be if I'm retelling a past event they took part in and describing something they said or did.

Look, I like the few people I know that are transgendered. But if I had to feel like I was walking on eggshells every time I was around them then I would find our times together taxing. As is, I just call them by their name and no one is being put out or hurt. I don't entirely get why this is as big of a deal as you're making it seem. I especially don't think that other people should force me to use their words when the individuals aren't there. If someone is in a forest and calls a transgendered woman a he does the transgendered woman still cry?

Here is the thing: I personally don't think you should scream or verbally harrass someone just because they got the pronoun wrong and I'm sorry to hear you had such a negative experience. Maybe if people would have been nicer and showed you how much it means to the person in question you'd be more willing use pronouns of their gender identity. Or maybe if they would explained to you that if all of your friends refer to a person as she but you're the only one calling them he they might get confused.
Yes, I suspect if I had better experiences in person with the subject then I wouldn't feel so put out by the demand. I mean, I'm already the sort of person that welcomes anyone into my home and defends them whenever necessary. So I do find it a bit surprising that I feel as strongly in this one area as I do. But I also don't see any harm in my response and that gives me the control over myself and my environment that I felt was being wrestled away from me in those previous interactions.

But I still maintain that pronouns are mean to describe the sex of the person. The idea of fluid genders is a remarkably new concept in mainstream society. So He and She always meant a person born physically male or female. So I'd still have to evaluate the deception involved in what amounts to a lie. Here would be my own personal moral evaluation on the subject:

Not hurting their feelings (utmost priority) > Not telling a lie (stable characteristic of an honest person) > telling a lie to make them happy.

Look, I'm the person you trust with a secret or with money. I'm not the person you get to do something unethical or to lie for you. You know? Which is better? Awkwardly saying the pronoun because I'm terrible at lying or not using pronouns at all?

It most cases that would be how a person look since you most of the time cannot see their junk or know about their status, If for example you meet a man you know nothing about and you find him nice and charming and you might think to yourself ?He is really a nice dude.? And then someone would tell you he is trans. Would you then switch gender pronouns when talking with others about him. And why would it matter now? Why is accknowleging his female sex now so important if you spend maybe days perfeclty fine with calling im he in conversations he was nor around? That's kind of what happened with a friend I had in college (totally different from the guy I mentioned earlier). A Japanese female presenting as male. I had no idea for the first year. He just looked like a small guy to me and I've known a lot of short Japanese males with slightly feminine facial features so the possibility they weren't male didn't cross my mind at all. Eventually someone else breached the topic and I was surprised but supported the individual.

In that scenario pronouns didn't change. The individual had already been established in my mind as male and so that was the most convenient pronoun for me to use. It would actually have been more awkward for me to try to shift the pronoun.

The problem generally comes when the individual is first presented to me as their birth-sex and then the pronouns are requested. Or if the individual is obviously a member of the sex they aren't presenting as.

You see my main problem here is that you position just seems a bit inconsitent to me. You don't want to bend over when someone gets bothered by something but why then draw the line only by pronouns? Why bend over to call them by their new name, why at all avoid their pronouns, if the only thing keeping you from it is not offending them?

I'm actually quite amazed you would give them their pronouns if they asked you for it. What exaclty makes you cave in? Maybe your friendship and their happiness is more meaningful to you than sticking to the pronouns but if you can this then why not any other time? Perhaps because these individuals are my friends and have earned the right to impose on me. I wouldn't want strangers to impose on me for the same reason I wouldn't offer my guest bedroom to a stranger I don't trust.

My comments in general are directed at the overall transgendered community. Not my close personal friends that overlap with that community. Friends and family are allowed to impose. That's just the way things are.

What's more is if they ever confronted this on me, then it would mean I haven't been doing a good enough job of not hurting their feelings. Not using pronouns helps me maintain personal control while also not hurting their feelings. If that turns out not to be the case then not hurting their feelings is more important to me than not talking in a way I believe is dishonest.

For example, maybe I can pitch this idea to you since I may be facing this shortly and would love advice. What if a transgendered female friend asked you to try and hook her up with a non-transgendered friend of yours? Would you feel justified in speaking with your non-transgendered friend about dating the transgendered female without mentioning that he'd be dating someone that is sexually male? Or do you feel like omitting that fact would be misleading your other friend?

I would consider it misleading not to tell them but am otherwise perfectly fine in presenting the idea of them hooking up.

See this^ is the part that kind of confuses me. We use he/him for men and she/her for women how is then that not using these is not deneying them atleast some gendered aspekt of language? Did you ever use he for a woman? Afterall you do use their new name which is often also gendered or sexed. I could say certain names are for people of one sex or the other. By your logic you could deney naming someone Sarah arguing that this name is for people of female sex and you may use an androgenous name for them but not any cleary female name. Names afterall also serve as a distinction between the sexes but you don't do that you only (and this is somewhat strange) have reservations for pronouns. Names can be anything. I do not consider them inherently gendered. Pronouns are specifically distinguishable on the basis of sex and have been since pronouns were introduced. If someone can change their name to a symbol then why can't a male have a female's name? To me, names might as well be social security numbers. I've met men named Ashley, Abby, and Tammy. I shit you not. Straight, non-transgendered males. Any notion that names are gendered is entirely gone from my brain. With sex, about the most non-binary option you'd see is intersex and that's incredibly rare.

I just don't understand why you are willing to use gendered language of ther prefered wish in any other case than pronouns? What is so fundamental different from a gender pronoun to a gendered name? You should ask the Artist Formerly Known As Prince. [/joke]

I read a lot about them and will agree they have some problems but then again any treatment for anything has. And a lot of treatments actually fully resolve the problems they're designed for. I'm in favor of pursuing a better solution that leaves significantly less problems. It's almost not worth having the procedure from what I've read. It just doesn't fill the hole that's there and these people deserve better than that. Leaving this to 1930's tech is just unacceptable until we're sure nothing more can be done and nothing else can be done.

They do good and they do so much good that most individuals lead a happier more adjusted life aftewards and that's all that's counts to me. I've heard very different stories. That's why I'm genuinely concerned. If I'd heard that the procedure really led to a marked improvement in happiness (not just what they say shortly after the surgery), then I'd be fine. But this is the sort of stuff I've come across in my studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

This indicates that the issues of a higher likelihood of mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity due to the sex reassignment are still right there with them afterwards.

We also have a non-trivial number of patients with sex change regret. These people are also lashed out at viciously by the public (thinking of Alan Finch there) to the point where we have no idea how many people are just keeping quite to avoid that kind of attention.

I mean, this is Rene Richards of all people. The champion of the procedure who brought the issue far more into the public eye:

"If there was a drug that I could have taken that would have reduced the pressure, I would have been better off staying the way I was?a totally intact person. I know deep down that I?m a second-class woman. I get a lot of inquiries from would-be transsexuals, but I don?t want anyone to hold me out as an example to follow. Today there are better choices, including medication, for dealing with the compulsion to cross dress and the depression that comes from gender confusion. As far as being fulfilled as a woman, I?m not as fulfilled as I dreamed of being. I get a lot of letters from people who are considering having this operation?and I discourage them all.? ?Rene Richards, ?The Liaison Legacy,? Tennis Magazine, March 1999."

This response to the surgery seems to be a recurring theme. From the Australian individual who felt more like a "Monster than a man" and was subsequently euthanized upon request to people like the two men in the 2010 Swedish documentary called "Regretters".

Johns Hopkins University, the first to do the female to male procedure:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

"We at Johns Hopkins University?which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"?launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study?up to 30 years?followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription."


I just keep seeing these kinds of things from respected sources and legitimate people. It's enough for me to step off the bandwagon and say, "Hey, maybe we're forcing things to work in a way that isn't the most beneficial to the people suffering from this condition?"

Mob mentalities have certainly been guilty of forcing something through ignorance before. Why not here? What if in our self-righteous crusade to combat anti-transgender mentalities we're going too far in this one area?

This should be a discussion to be had in earnest and in the open without it being pushed into the ignorance or bigot category, you know? Not that you're doing it, you've been quite kind in considering that I'm coming from a place of concern rather than prejudice.

The most striking problem is usually the lack of acceptance. You might be happier with body but that doesn't do anything if nobody respects your gender identity, your family quits contact or you can't get a job because transgender apperance may scare away customers. That's terrifying. The concept of being disowned. Not getting a job should hopefully trigger an OSHA complaint regarding discrimination based on disability (it is a disorder, after all).

Also doctors do not get ostracised for a non surgical solution. Atleast I've never heard of that. Do you know any specific example? It happens quite a lot that transgender people who are in therapy do not undergo any surgery. A great transgender researcher with the name Pfäffling once said that you cannot push any patient in one direction or another but if you show them possibilites they can chose to find what's right for them. My examples are moreso regarding individuals who were dissatisfied with their procedure and advocate against them and for something else.

That depens on how invasive the treament is. Some people also argue that changing someones gender is basically elimenating an important part of their personality and there is some moral issues to be had with that but if there was a way to change your gender (identity) I would always leave it up to the person in question and therefore I wouldn't be against scientist researching in that area.
Right, I think it would be nice for the option to be available. However, I believe any response to such a notion would meet the fiercest of opposition for the reasons you mentioned. Just like certain deaf communities consider cures for deafness insulting due to them internalizing the condition as part of the tribe and culture.
 

IMissedThatOne

New member
Mar 7, 2015
12
0
0
That's kind of what happened with a friend I had in college (totally different from the guy I mentioned earlier). A Japanese female presenting as male. I had no idea for the first year. He just looked like a small guy to me and I've known a lot of short Japanese males with slightly feminine facial features so the possibility they weren't male didn't cross my mind at all. Eventually someone else breached the topic and I was surprised but supported the individual.
In that scenario pronouns didn't change. The individual had already been established in my mind as male and so that was the most convenient pronoun for me to use. It would actually have been more awkward for me to try to shift the pronoun.
The problem generally comes when the individual is first presented to me as their birth-sex and then the pronouns are requested. Or if the individual is obviously a member of the sex they aren't presenting as.

Doesn't this show that their physcial sex doesn't matter to you when giving pronouns? You seem to be more concered to giving pronouns based on first looks. If they look male/female enough they get their pronouns regardless of their sex if they don't well then bad for rhem. How can you then defend you give pronouns based on sex when you leave open this loophole`?

For example, maybe I can pitch this idea to you since I may be facing this shortly and would love advice. What if a transgendered female friend asked you to try and hook her up with a non-transgendered friend of yours? Would you feel justified in speaking with your non-transgendered friend about dating the transgendered female without mentioning that he'd be dating someone that is sexually male? Or do you feel like omitting that fact would be misleading your other friend?
I would consider it misleading not to tell them but am otherwise perfectly fine in presenting the idea of them hooking up.

Ahh a very tricky situation indeed. Well what I would do first is ask the transgendered friend if you're allowed to reveal her status and maybe explain to her why I would do this. If she would be really against it i might try to figure out the position of general attitude towards transgender people of the love interest (if that's possible), if he shows signs of being uncormfortable it might be best not to hook them up in the first place but in the end I'd hope she would reveal her status after a few dates. If this friend is then pissed that he had dates with a trangendered woman I might ask him why he feels so strongly negative about it. He might then ask me to never set dates up with transwomen again and I will do so.

If some close friend would set me up with a transwoman (I have somwhat of a biase concering dating them) he knew was trans but didn't tell me I personally would not be angry I may have met a wonderful person and I can atleast understand that this is some very personal information that he was unsure if to reveal to me.

BUUUT, Here is the thing. If you know your friend is someone you could trust wiht this information and I might prevent someawkwardness telling him straight up is to me not a terrible crime,

Names can be anything. I do not consider them inherently gendered. Pronouns are specifically distinguishable on the basis of sex and have been since pronouns were introduced. If someone can change their name to a symbol then why can't a male have a female's name? To me, names might as well be social security numbers. I've met men named Ashley, Abby, and Tammy. I shit you not. Straight, non-transgendered males. Any notion that names are gendered is entirely gone from my brain. With sex, about the most non-binary option you'd see is intersex and that's incredibly rare.

Names also are specifically distinguishable on the basisc of sex. People usually give names to baby boys and girls and there are millions of names that only go for one sex. How many women do you know are called adam, henry, steve, michael? And why? And if you can earse the notion that names are gendered why not pronouns?

If I write down the sentence. Henry goes to the park and then ask you which pronoun would you substitute for Henry in almost all cases people would go for he. He goes to the park. And the reason for that would be that the name Henry tells us somehting about his sex. I mean why have gendered name in the first place for centuries if they don't convey gender?

I've heard very different stories. That's why I'm genuinely concerned. If I'd heard that the procedure really led to a marked improvement in happiness (not just what they say shortly after the surgery), then I'd be fine. But this is the sort of stuff I've come across in my studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
This indicates that the issues of a higher likelihood of mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity due to the sex reassignment are still right there with them afterwards.
We also have a non-trivial number of patients with sex change regret. These people are also lashed out at viciously by the public (thinking of Alan Finch there) to the point where we have no idea how many people are just keeping quite to avoid that kind of attention.

I've read this study before and it does not conclude that surgery is the cause of the suicial behavior and morbitity.

I qoute from the study you posted:

?For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism ?

?In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit.?

And just to go further: These studies say a positive result.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02348.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8928364
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261554/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11963265
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17075731

And just to make a point here is the most current evaluation of transgender healt care and why it's necessary: The HHS decided a new ruling and they had to lay down medical evidence that transgneder surgery is benefical and safe!
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hhs.gov%2Fdab%2Fdecisions%2Fdabdecisions%2Fdab2576.pdf&ei=CbhcVbS3KsyZsgGFxoEQ&usg=AFQjCNEKbNLcj740RKwImFiTWlqcIPjYxg&bvm=bv.93756505,d.bGg


This response to the surgery seems to be a recurring theme. From the Australian individual who felt more like a "Monster than a man" and was subsequently euthanized upon request to people like the two men in the 2010 Swedish documentary called "Regretters".
Johns Hopkins University, the first to do the female to male procedure:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120
"We at Johns Hopkins University-which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"-launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.
It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study-up to 30 years-followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription."
I just keep seeing these kinds of things from respected sources and legitimate people. It's enough for me to step off the bandwagon and say, "Hey, maybe we're forcing things to work in a way that isn't the most beneficial to the people suffering from this condition?"
Mob mentalities have certainly been guilty of forcing something through ignorance before. Why not here? What if in our self-righteous crusade to combat anti-transgender mentalities we're going too far in this one area?
This should be a discussion to be had in earnest and in the open without it being pushed into the ignorance or bigot category, you know? Not that you're doing it, you've been quite kind in considering that I'm coming from a place of concern rather than prejudice.

There are a lot of issues with the Johns Hopkins Clinic and with Paul MchHugh. He presented false evidence as I have shown above to push his narative. Why should we trust somebody who outright lies?
He after all still thinks transgender people are delusional.

But here is some interesting article that gives more insight into the history:
http://dallasdenny.com/Writing/2014/03/06/the-campaign-against-transsexuals-part-i-2013/

I'm by no means against a discussion but things were often times really against surgery. So we should be aware of biase on both sides. Check mutiple sides and read studies thoroughly.

That's terrifying. The concept of being disowned. Not getting a job should hopefully trigger an OSHA complaint regarding discrimination based on disability (it is a disorder, after all).

I've seen a lot of people do push for discussin and education. Something like this never has an easy solution but evey step in the way of transgender people being treated more like people is good one :)

Hopefully the quoteing works this time. So embarrassing. I'm sorry for your inconvience with me being an idiot.
Well almost. I hope you can manage it :(
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Thanks again for having this discussion with me. I haven't really had anyone to talk to on the subject and I appreciate being able to have an open and honest discussion about it with someone like you.

IMissedThatOne said:
Doesn't this show that their physcial sex doesn't matter to you when giving pronouns? You seem to be more concered to giving pronouns based on first looks. If they look male/female enough they get their pronouns regardless of their sex if they don't well then bad for rhem. How can you then defend you give pronouns based on sex when you leave open this loophole`?
Not really, it just shows that my emphasis is on feeling comfortable in conversations around and about these people. That person just happened to establish a comfort level with me using that criteria before I learned additional information.

Ahh a very tricky situation indeed. Well what I would do first is ask the transgendered friend if you're allowed to reveal her status and maybe explain to her why I would do this. If she would be really against it i might try to figure out the position of general attitude towards transgender people of the love interest (if that's possible), if he shows signs of being uncormfortable it might be best not to hook them up in the first place but in the end I'd hope she would reveal her status after a few dates. If this friend is then pissed that he had dates with a trangendered woman I might ask him why he feels so strongly negative about it. He might then ask me to never set dates up with transwomen again and I will do so.

If some close friend would set me up with a transwoman (I have somwhat of a biase concering dating them) he knew was trans but didn't tell me I personally would not be angry I may have met a wonderful person and I can atleast understand that this is some very personal information that he was unsure if to reveal to me.

BUUUT, Here is the thing. If you know your friend is someone you could trust wiht this information and I might prevent someawkwardness telling him straight up is to me not a terrible crime, That's approximately my line of thinking. Thank you for the input. I also appreciate you acknowledging that the practice of presenting is somewhat deceptive (not deceptive as in unethical, just the purposeful concealing of a fact) and can carry with it some moral quandaries where the individual's sex may be relevant.

Names also are specifically distinguishable on the basisc of sex. People usually give names to baby boys and girls and there are millions of names that only go for one sex. How many women do you know are called adam, henry, steve, michael? And why? And if you can earse the notion that names are gendered why not pronouns?

If I write down the sentence. Henry goes to the park and then ask you which pronoun would you substitute for Henry in almost all cases people would go for he. He goes to the park. And the reason for that would be that the name Henry tells us somehting about his sex. I mean why have gendered name in the first place for centuries if they don't convey gender? I simply view names differently than pronouns. Pronouns are specifically designed to refer to sex. Names are customizable and have only seemed to have gotten stranger the older I've gotten. When I hear about boys being named Zelda or Ultron I'm just not phased by the notion that traditionally female names are being given to boys and vice versa. Names can be changed with a piece of paper. Names that are traditionally one gender frequently become open to another gender over time. But pronouns? They are axiomatically sex-based and always have been since pronouns begun. The point of "he" is to say that the individual you're referring to is sexually male. Not to say that internally he's undergoing a gendered struggle that is incongruent with his body's sex.

I've read this study before and it does not conclude that surgery is the cause of the suicial behavior and morbitity.

I qoute from the study you posted: I didn't say it did. I said that the issues "are still right there with them afterwards." The point being that the procedure did not remove the components that make Gender Dysphoria a disorder. The vast majority of studies ask the individuals how they feel. It does not measure what actually happens to them and that's the most important part. Especially when the first organization to establish the practice indicates that after ten years things seem to go the other way sharply. It's all fun and well to see studies that take place 1 to 2 years after it, but that's not where the data against the procedure is actually coming from. It's longterm life satisfaction.

And just to make a point here is the most current evaluation of transgender healt care and why it's necessary: The HHS decided a new ruling and they had to lay down medical evidence that transgneder surgery is benefical and safe!
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hhs.gov%2Fdab%2Fdecisions%2Fdabdecisions%2Fdab2576.pdf&ei=CbhcVbS3KsyZsgGFxoEQ&usg=AFQjCNEKbNLcj740RKwImFiTWlqcIPjYxg&bvm=bv.93756505,d.bGg Of course, as long as this is the best known treatment for the disorder then it's bullshit for an insurance company to dance around it.


There are a lot of issues with the Johns Hopkins Clinic and with Paul MchHugh. He presented false evidence as I have shown above to push his narative. Why should we trust somebody who outright lies? Was the study falsified? I'm not seeing any information you provided that would indicate the study falsified. That article was written last year and confirms the study.

He after all still thinks transgender people are delusional. Ok... so your response to a doctor pursuing the line of thought that the disorder is psychological is to discredit him and his work as a professional? This is what I mean by doctors getting immediate negative damage to their reputation if they say anything than is incongruous with the official narrative. Our reaction should be, "Well, I hope he's right and can produce a viable and better alternative", not "That asshole has some nerve presenting a different hypothesis". What if he's right and there's an alternative method? Might as well let him pursue that and fail rather than pretending you or I specifically know the truth, right? Assuming his patients are there voluntarily and it does not impact other patients' ability to pursue their own resolutions in the meantime.

It is unhealthy (for society) to insist that we absolutely 100% know the truth and not to let the medical community progress the field. This is because the belief that it could be a psychological disorder is deemed as offensive. As though a psychological disorder is somehow less real (seriously, if your brain tells you you're in pain then how is that any less true in function that the pain being caused by the body itself?). We need to get beyond our pride and offenses to get to the truth of the matter. All trying provides is more evidence to corroborate or condemn his views.

But here is some interesting article that gives more insight into the history:
http://dallasdenny.com/Writing/2014/03/06/the-campaign-against-transsexuals-part-i-2013/ Dallas Denny? Do you perhaps have a more reputable resource or perhaps one with a little less clear bias (he acknowledges having been personally rejected by the clinic for the procedure)? It's very "conspiracy theorist" in form. For me to start paying attention to conspiracies I need real news organizations to take it up.

I'm by no means against a discussion but things were often times really against surgery. So we should be aware of biase on both sides. Check mutiple sides and read studies thoroughly. It's one of the reasons I'm getting information from you here. I'm not really for or against anything since I have no personal experience on the matter. I'm seeing enough information on both sides to make the question persist.

Hopefully it's clear that I'm not saying that the surgeries should be stopped. Just that we need to continue pursuing other less invasive resolutions.

Hopefully the quoteing works this time. So embarrassing. I'm sorry for your inconvience with me being an idiot.
Well almost. I hope you can manage it : It worked a lot better this time. Don't worry about getting it wrong. Everyone had to learn for the first time some time.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Mong0 said:
There is also more to physiology than superficial form. The shape is the only thing that it changes.
There's more to physiology, yes, but form and hormonal balance are by quite a margin the most important elements in sex. When was the last time you judged a stranger to be a man or woman by checking their chromosomes?

Anywho, that was in response to the patently false notion that SRS "doesn't change physiology", when it demonstrably does. It doesn't change everything, but it changes significant elements of physiology.


Mong0 said:
Infertile people still have their sex organs, usually. Injured people on the other hand, originally had their sex organs at one point, so genetically they're the same. I suppose with certain deformities you would have a point, they do fall outside of the normal definition of the sexes. That said, SRS isn't a deformity, its a self inflicted injury that so happens to heal in the shape of the opposite sex.
By that bizarre metric, somebody undergoing any surgery is "injuring" him/herself, which "just so happens to heal in a shape which works better".
 

IMissedThatOne

New member
Mar 7, 2015
12
0
0
Please read below before you post :)

I simply view names differently than pronouns. Pronouns are specifically designed to refer to sex. Names are customizable and have only seemed to have gotten stranger the older I've gotten. When I hear about boys being named Zelda or Ultron I'm just not phased by the notion that traditionally female names are being given to boys and vice versa. Names can be changed with a piece of paper. Names that are traditionally one gender frequently become open to another gender over time. But pronouns? They are axiomatically sex-based and always have been since pronouns begun. The point of "he" is to say that the individual you're referring to is sexually male. Not to say that internally he's undergoing a gendered struggle that is incongruent with his body's sex.

Again I could also say Henry is male surename given almost exclusively to people of the male sex.
When I refer to someone as Henry I unintentionally also say he is male therefore no one who is not male can have this name.
And again aren't pronouns now too are given to people of the other sex in case of transgender people?
Most people refer to Laverne Cox by she and her. A lot of people call Chaz Bono he/him. If we can dettach names from their genderend meaning why not pronouns atleast in cases of transgender people?

I didn't say it did. I said that the issues "are still right there with them afterwards." The point being that the procedure did not remove the components that make Gender Dysphoria a disorder. The vast majority of studies ask the individuals how they feel. It does not measure what actually happens to them and that's the most important part. Especially when the first organization to establish the practice indicates that after ten years things seem to go the other way sharply. It's all fun and well to see studies that take place 1 to 2 years after it, but that's not where the data against the procedure is actually coming from. It's longterm life satisfaction.


Maybe I'm mistunderstanding your phrase but doesn't this say that they have higher likelihood of mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity due to the sex reassignment.

Your quote:
?This indicates that the issues of a higher likelihood of mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity due to the sex reassignment are still right there with them afterwards.?


But the study made no statement about sex-reassignment. It even says;

?Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group. ?

Which to me says. Surgery can be good but they need continued counseling afterwards also; quoting again:

?Other facets to consider are first that this study reflects the outcome of psychiatric and somatic treatment for transsexualism provided in Sweden during the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, treatment has evolved with improved sex reassignment surgery, refined hormonal treatment,[11], [41] and more attention to psychosocial care that might have improved the outcome?

At this time transgender issues weren't well known. The social stress and general attitude towards transgender people might have caused some of the distress experienced.

Ok... so your response to a doctor pursuing the line of thought that the disorder is psychological is to discredit him and his work as a professional? This is what I mean by doctors getting immediate negative damage to their reputation if they say anything than is incongruous with the official narrative. Our reaction should be, "Well, I hope he's right and can produce a viable and better alternative", not "That asshole has some nerve presenting a different hypothesis". What if he's right and there's an alternative method? Might as well let him pursue that and fail rather than pretending you or I specifically know the truth, right? Assuming his patients are there voluntarily and it does not impact other patients' ability to pursue their own resolutions in the meantime.
It is unhealthy (for society) to insist that we absolutely 100% know the truth and not to let the medical community progress the field. This is because the belief that it could be a psychological disorder is deemed as offensive. As though a psychological disorder is somehow less real (seriously, if your brain tells you you're in pain then how is that any less true in function that the pain being caused by the body itself?). We need to get beyond our pride and offenses to get to the truth of the matter. All trying provides is more evidence to corroborate or condemn his views.

No the study was not falsified but the way he presented it was untrue to was actually written in the study but let me elaborate since I don't not want you to think of me as someone who just throws away peoples ideas because they do not confrom with my undestanding. I will now hopefully rationally critise Paul McHugh statement

Paul McHugh: ?It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study?up to 30 years?followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.?

Again the study he quotes cleary expresses that no assumptions about the effectiveness of surgery can be made from it:

For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit.

This study found substantially higher rates of overall mortality, death from cardiovascular disease and suicide, suicide attempts, and psychiatric hospitalisations in sex-reassigned transsexual individuals compared to a healthy control population. This highlights that post surgical transsexuals are a risk group that need long-term psychiatric and somatic follow-up. Even though surgery and hormonal therapy alleviates gender dysphoria, it is apparently not sufficient to remedy the high rates of morbidity and mortality found among transsexual persons. Improved care for the transsexual group after the sex reassignment should therefore be considered.


Paul McHugh: ?At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder. ?

Most people who have SRS do know they don't get a full sex change with all the parts but that doesn't mean it does nothing. It does rather alter the physical phentotype of the person to make them feel more comfortable with themselves and reduces gender dyshphoria. It doesn't need to be anything more. It has to help the patient become stable and happy. If transgender people could only be happy if they could produce sperm or get pregnant then there would be no treatment available yes but changing sexual phenotype seems to suffice,

I'm quoting from the report of the HHS I linked you.

?The expert testimony and studies on which the experts rely support the surgery?s effectiveness.


Dr. Ettner described as ?a large-scale prospective study? finding ?that after surgery there was ?a virtual absence of gender dysphoria? in the cohort and that the ?results substantiate previous conclusions that sex reassignment is effective.?? Ettner Decl. at ¶ 21, citing Smith et al. (2005), AP Ex. 27;26 WPATH Br. at 8. Dr. Ettner concluded that Smith et al. and other studies have, variously, ?shown that by alleviating the suffering and dysfunction caused by severe gender dysphoria, sex reassignment surgery improves virtually every facet of a patient?s life,? including ?satisfaction with interpersonal relationships and improved social functioning,? ?improvement in self-image and satisfaction with body and physical appearance,? and ?greater acceptance and integration into the family[.]? Ettner Decl. at ¶ 24, citing studies at AP Exs. 1, 12, 15, 19, 22, 26, 27, 30. She also cited nine studies as having ?shown that surgery improves patients' abilities to initiate and maintain intimate relationships.?


Based on our own review of the cited studies, we find no reason to question the expert testimony about them. In general, the studies included interviewing post-operative patients with a variety of surveys or questionnaires to assess changes in different aspects of their lives and psychological symptoms following surgery. The studies also generally used statistical techniques to assess the results. The studies were conducted in countries including the United States, Canada, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Israel, Brazil, The Netherlands, and Belgium. 18 ?

If it would just play into a mental delusion no professional would advocate it.
They actually made as statement about his views:
"Dr. Paul McHugh ("Transgender surgery isn’t the solution”) writes about the study at Johns Hopkins in the 1970’s showing poor outcomes from transgender surgeries, leading to McHugh shutting down Johns Hopkins’ transgender program in 1979, and the US Department of Health and Human Services declaring transgender surgery experimental, and therefore not covered. Two weeks ago, HHS reversed its 1981 decision, and removed transgender health exclusions from Medicare. McHugh seems unaware of the work in transgender health in these last 30 years that led to this reversal by HHS.

McHugh does cite one study from 2011, by Cecilia Dhejne, MD and colleagues at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. However, he misunderstands Dr. Dhejne’s work. In the paper, Dr. Dhejne states that the study was not designed to draw conclusions on the efficacy of transgender surgeries, yet McHugh does exactly that. A closer reading of the paper shows that the increased mortality is in those who had surgery before 1989, and that mortality in trans people after 1989 is not statistically different from the general population. A recently published paper by Dr. Dhejne and colleagues shows that the regret rate for those having surgery from 2001-2010 is only 0.3%. Dr. Dhejne’s work shows that outcomes for transgender surgery have improved tremendously in the past 30 years, which supports the HHS decision to remove trans exclusions.

McHugh also mischaracterizes the treatment of gender nonconforming children. As McHugh states, most gender nonconforming children do not identify as transgender in adulthood. However, those who receive puberty blocking drugs do not do so until puberty, when trans identity is likely to persist. These drugs allow adolescents and their parents to work with doctors to achieve the best outcome. This approach was demonstrated to be successful in research in the Netherlands before being adopted widely in the U.S.

The American Psychiatric Association and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health no longer view transgender identity as inherently pathological. Dr. McHugh’s views are stuck in the past.

Dan Karasic, MD
Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCSF
Member, American Psychiatric Association Workgroup on Gender Dysphoria
Member, Board of Directors, World Professional Association for Transgender Health"



And no I'm not against Paul McHugh trying anything to find a way to deal with gender identity in any other way but first he has to become more educated on the current state of the condition. At the moment he lacks the professional understanding of it. He very biased and outright rejects surgery. Nowhere does he say. Surgery is after new research a good solution so far but I might want to explore in other fields and maybe reduce the cases of surgery if we find other ways in which the patient can explore themselves without srs.


It's one of the reasons I'm getting information from you here. I'm not really for or against anything since I have no personal experience on the matter. I'm seeing enough information on both sides to make the question persist.
Hopefully it's clear that I'm not saying that the surgeries should be stopped. Just that we need to continue pursuing other less invasive resolutions.

I'm all open for new ways of thinking but the patient always has to be taken seriously and if somebody wants to find a new way I actually want them to be educated on what already has been done. Just saying ther just need more of some therapy is not helpful. There has to be a real and reasonable concept behind it. Afterall again people once got very desperate:

?Most physicians believed that homosexual, cross-dressing, and transsexual activities were deviant; the treatment for the atypical behaviors seemed to be clear. The subject should be helped to ?unlearn? and get rid of whatever misperceptions and negative experiences had engendered these behaviors. Often, the treatments that were applied would be considered abusive today. They ranged from different aversion therapies to castration to electroshock [20,21]. Such treatment was seen as justified. ?

Quoted from this review:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2004-sex-gender-and-identity.html
 

IMissedThatOne

New member
Mar 7, 2015
12
0
0
Lightknight said:
Thanks again for having this discussion with me. I haven't really had anyone to talk to on the subject and I appreciate being able to have an open and honest discussion about it with someone like you.

IMissedThatOne said:
Doesn't this show that their physcial sex doesn't matter to you when giving pronouns? You seem to be more concered to giving pronouns based on first looks. If they look male/female enough they get their pronouns regardless of their sex if they don't well then bad for rhem. How can you then defend you give pronouns based on sex when you leave open this loophole`?
Not really, it just shows that my emphasis is on feeling comfortable in conversations around and about these people. That person just happened to establish a comfort level with me using that criteria before I learned additional information.

Ahh a very tricky situation indeed. Well what I would do first is ask the transgendered friend if you're allowed to reveal her status and maybe explain to her why I would do this. If she would be really against it i might try to figure out the position of general attitude towards transgender people of the love interest (if that's possible), if he shows signs of being uncormfortable it might be best not to hook them up in the first place but in the end I'd hope she would reveal her status after a few dates. If this friend is then pissed that he had dates with a trangendered woman I might ask him why he feels so strongly negative about it. He might then ask me to never set dates up with transwomen again and I will do so.

If some close friend would set me up with a transwoman (I have somwhat of a biase concering dating them) he knew was trans but didn't tell me I personally would not be angry I may have met a wonderful person and I can atleast understand that this is some very personal information that he was unsure if to reveal to me.

BUUUT, Here is the thing. If you know your friend is someone you could trust wiht this information and I might prevent someawkwardness telling him straight up is to me not a terrible crime, That's approximately my line of thinking. Thank you for the input. I also appreciate you acknowledging that the practice of presenting is somewhat deceptive (not deceptive as in unethical, just the purposeful concealing of a fact) and can carry with it some moral quandaries where the individual's sex may be relevant.

Names also are specifically distinguishable on the basisc of sex. People usually give names to baby boys and girls and there are millions of names that only go for one sex. How many women do you know are called adam, henry, steve, michael? And why? And if you can earse the notion that names are gendered why not pronouns?

If I write down the sentence. Henry goes to the park and then ask you which pronoun would you substitute for Henry in almost all cases people would go for he. He goes to the park. And the reason for that would be that the name Henry tells us somehting about his sex. I mean why have gendered name in the first place for centuries if they don't convey gender? I simply view names differently than pronouns. Pronouns are specifically designed to refer to sex. Names are customizable and have only seemed to have gotten stranger the older I've gotten. When I hear about boys being named Zelda or Ultron I'm just not phased by the notion that traditionally female names are being given to boys and vice versa. Names can be changed with a piece of paper. Names that are traditionally one gender frequently become open to another gender over time. But pronouns? They are axiomatically sex-based and always have been since pronouns begun. The point of "he" is to say that the individual you're referring to is sexually male. Not to say that internally he's undergoing a gendered struggle that is incongruent with his body's sex.

I've read this study before and it does not conclude that surgery is the cause of the suicial behavior and morbitity.

I qoute from the study you posted: I didn't say it did. I said that the issues "are still right there with them afterwards." The point being that the procedure did not remove the components that make Gender Dysphoria a disorder. The vast majority of studies ask the individuals how they feel. It does not measure what actually happens to them and that's the most important part. Especially when the first organization to establish the practice indicates that after ten years things seem to go the other way sharply. It's all fun and well to see studies that take place 1 to 2 years after it, but that's not where the data against the procedure is actually coming from. It's longterm life satisfaction.

And just to make a point here is the most current evaluation of transgender healt care and why it's necessary: The HHS decided a new ruling and they had to lay down medical evidence that transgneder surgery is benefical and safe!
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hhs.gov%2Fdab%2Fdecisions%2Fdabdecisions%2Fdab2576.pdf&ei=CbhcVbS3KsyZsgGFxoEQ&usg=AFQjCNEKbNLcj740RKwImFiTWlqcIPjYxg&bvm=bv.93756505,d.bGg Of course, as long as this is the best known treatment for the disorder then it's bullshit for an insurance company to dance around it.


There are a lot of issues with the Johns Hopkins Clinic and with Paul MchHugh. He presented false evidence as I have shown above to push his narative. Why should we trust somebody who outright lies? Was the study falsified? I'm not seeing any information you provided that would indicate the study falsified. That article was written last year and confirms the study.

He after all still thinks transgender people are delusional. Ok... so your response to a doctor pursuing the line of thought that the disorder is psychological is to discredit him and his work as a professional? This is what I mean by doctors getting immediate negative damage to their reputation if they say anything than is incongruous with the official narrative. Our reaction should be, "Well, I hope he's right and can produce a viable and better alternative", not "That asshole has some nerve presenting a different hypothesis". What if he's right and there's an alternative method? Might as well let him pursue that and fail rather than pretending you or I specifically know the truth, right? Assuming his patients are there voluntarily and it does not impact other patients' ability to pursue their own resolutions in the meantime.

It is unhealthy (for society) to insist that we absolutely 100% know the truth and not to let the medical community progress the field. This is because the belief that it could be a psychological disorder is deemed as offensive. As though a psychological disorder is somehow less real (seriously, if your brain tells you you're in pain then how is that any less true in function that the pain being caused by the body itself?). We need to get beyond our pride and offenses to get to the truth of the matter. All trying provides is more evidence to corroborate or condemn his views.

But here is some interesting article that gives more insight into the history:
http://dallasdenny.com/Writing/2014/03/06/the-campaign-against-transsexuals-part-i-2013/ Dallas Denny? Do you perhaps have a more reputable resource or perhaps one with a little less clear bias (he acknowledges having been personally rejected by the clinic for the procedure)? It's very "conspiracy theorist" in form. For me to start paying attention to conspiracies I need real news organizations to take it up.

I'm by no means against a discussion but things were often times really against surgery. So we should be aware of biase on both sides. Check mutiple sides and read studies thoroughly. It's one of the reasons I'm getting information from you here. I'm not really for or against anything since I have no personal experience on the matter. I'm seeing enough information on both sides to make the question persist.

Hopefully it's clear that I'm not saying that the surgeries should be stopped. Just that we need to continue pursuing other less invasive resolutions.

Hopefully the quoteing works this time. So embarrassing. I'm sorry for your inconvience with me being an idiot.
Well almost. I hope you can manage it : It worked a lot better this time. Don't worry about getting it wrong. Everyone had to learn for the first time some time.


Heyho sorry for the double post. I just saw that tomorrow begin some really work heavy weeks for me so I won't be able to respond for quite some time. I really hate to cut you short here especially since I enjoyed our discussion. You were very friendly and offered me some new insight and I'm thankfull for that.

I also think were pretty much in agreement at large. Yes we may differ in minor points but who cares? From what I know you treat your friends and those around you respectfully and that's all that matters to me.

We could probably nitpick each other for days and that's fun and good but I much rather see us discuss games and boobs (huehue)

You can just read through my text above and if you want you can answer but I'll probably not respond because I might have vanished from my mind by then or I might be to laaaazy haha.

If I was in any way harsh to you or you got the impression that I might have been rude in any way I apologize now. Sometimes one can get a bit lost in words and no matter how rational one thinks of themselves emotions will always leak in.

So thanks again. And my god did we offtopiced the shit out off this thread. Highfive for that one brah :)
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Lightknight said:
The problem with your using sex phenotype for the basis of gender pronouns is that is something you cannot be absolutely certain of, unless you check, but there is no polite way to do that. The argument I've seen you put up based on sex phenotype holds no water, what if you run into a particularly masculine cisgender woman, or feminine cisgender man? If you misgender them, they correct you, I'm willing to bet you'll take their word on the matter and not actually check their physical sex, because that's the reasonable way to do it. So saying anything different regarding transgender people is a prejudice and discriminatory way to act, especially when regarding a large number of trans people, I'd actually say most, you'll not be certain of their physical sex. If you do know and avoid gender pronouns with a trans person you know, you might be outing that trans person, which is never ever okay, because of how dangerous it is. So you're not making any good argument for a discriminatory behavior that you can't reasonably enforce, at least not without being a real jerk to someone who doesn't pass well.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Lightknight said:
The problem with your using sex phenotype for the basis of gender pronouns is that is something you cannot be absolutely certain of, unless you check, but there is no polite way to do that. The argument I've seen you put up based on sex phenotype holds no water, what if you run into a particularly masculine cisgender woman, or feminine cisgender man? If you misgender them, they correct you, I'm willing to bet you'll take their word on the matter and not actually check their physical sex, because that's the reasonable way to do it. So saying anything different regarding transgender people is a prejudice and discriminatory way to act, especially when regarding a large number of trans people, I'd actually say most, you'll not be certain of their physical sex. If you do know and avoid gender pronouns with a trans person you know, you might be outing that trans person, which is never ever okay, because of how dangerous it is. So you're not making any good argument for a discriminatory behavior that you can't reasonably enforce, at least not without being a real jerk to someone who doesn't pass well.
If I'm not certain of the sex then I have no foundation about what pronoun to associate with them so there isn't a problem. I don't use pronouns until I get additional information (boy oh boy do I remember getting reamed for using a female pronoun for a feminine looking boy with long hair and a gender neutral name in middle school, that's when I learned this lesson). In that scenario, if they told me they were male or female I'd assume that's what they were and that's how my frame of mind towards them would develop. If I found out later that they were actually the other sex I'd have difficulty changing that frame of mind and would likely not since the frame of mind developed regarding them is what determines the natural pronoun I use.

My real point here is regarding individuals that are clearly another sex or that I am fully aware were another sex. That really pretty transgendered woman I still hang out with? I knew her as Jonathan in Wrestling back in high school. Natalie now. But had I met her as Natalie? I probably wouldn't falter.

Hmm, it is interesting that when writing pronouns for Natalie here I defaulted to her. Perhaps that frame of reference has changed without me recognizing is. If so, then perhaps I'm not as at risk of slipping up in speech as I thought I was. Maybe I just learned it over time without realizing it because I wasn't using pronouns all this time?

I guess when it comes down to the core of things. I'm really just afraid of hurting these people. I personally have what seems to be a stable frame of reference and I'm terrified of slipping and really hurting the people who have come to trust and rely on me as their friend. So when I defend this decision, I feel like I'm defending them from my potential failures. I do bristle at being lashed out at, but I don't think these people would do that. But I'd far rather be bristled at than see their faces drop. That would just feel like a huge failure on my part. A betrayal of trust even though I don't mean it.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
IMissedThatOne said:
Lightknight said:
Thanks again for having this discussion with me. I haven't really had anyone to talk to on the subject and I appreciate being able to have an open and honest discussion about it with someone like you.

IMissedThatOne said:
Doesn't this show that their physcial sex doesn't matter to you when giving pronouns? You seem to be more concered to giving pronouns based on first looks. If they look male/female enough they get their pronouns regardless of their sex if they don't well then bad for rhem. How can you then defend you give pronouns based on sex when you leave open this loophole`?
Not really, it just shows that my emphasis is on feeling comfortable in conversations around and about these people. That person just happened to establish a comfort level with me using that criteria before I learned additional information.

Ahh a very tricky situation indeed. Well what I would do first is ask the transgendered friend if you're allowed to reveal her status and maybe explain to her why I would do this. If she would be really against it i might try to figure out the position of general attitude towards transgender people of the love interest (if that's possible), if he shows signs of being uncormfortable it might be best not to hook them up in the first place but in the end I'd hope she would reveal her status after a few dates. If this friend is then pissed that he had dates with a trangendered woman I might ask him why he feels so strongly negative about it. He might then ask me to never set dates up with transwomen again and I will do so.

If some close friend would set me up with a transwoman (I have somwhat of a biase concering dating them) he knew was trans but didn't tell me I personally would not be angry I may have met a wonderful person and I can atleast understand that this is some very personal information that he was unsure if to reveal to me.

BUUUT, Here is the thing. If you know your friend is someone you could trust wiht this information and I might prevent someawkwardness telling him straight up is to me not a terrible crime, That's approximately my line of thinking. Thank you for the input. I also appreciate you acknowledging that the practice of presenting is somewhat deceptive (not deceptive as in unethical, just the purposeful concealing of a fact) and can carry with it some moral quandaries where the individual's sex may be relevant.

Names also are specifically distinguishable on the basisc of sex. People usually give names to baby boys and girls and there are millions of names that only go for one sex. How many women do you know are called adam, henry, steve, michael? And why? And if you can earse the notion that names are gendered why not pronouns?

If I write down the sentence. Henry goes to the park and then ask you which pronoun would you substitute for Henry in almost all cases people would go for he. He goes to the park. And the reason for that would be that the name Henry tells us somehting about his sex. I mean why have gendered name in the first place for centuries if they don't convey gender? I simply view names differently than pronouns. Pronouns are specifically designed to refer to sex. Names are customizable and have only seemed to have gotten stranger the older I've gotten. When I hear about boys being named Zelda or Ultron I'm just not phased by the notion that traditionally female names are being given to boys and vice versa. Names can be changed with a piece of paper. Names that are traditionally one gender frequently become open to another gender over time. But pronouns? They are axiomatically sex-based and always have been since pronouns begun. The point of "he" is to say that the individual you're referring to is sexually male. Not to say that internally he's undergoing a gendered struggle that is incongruent with his body's sex.

I've read this study before and it does not conclude that surgery is the cause of the suicial behavior and morbitity.

I qoute from the study you posted: I didn't say it did. I said that the issues "are still right there with them afterwards." The point being that the procedure did not remove the components that make Gender Dysphoria a disorder. The vast majority of studies ask the individuals how they feel. It does not measure what actually happens to them and that's the most important part. Especially when the first organization to establish the practice indicates that after ten years things seem to go the other way sharply. It's all fun and well to see studies that take place 1 to 2 years after it, but that's not where the data against the procedure is actually coming from. It's longterm life satisfaction.

And just to make a point here is the most current evaluation of transgender healt care and why it's necessary: The HHS decided a new ruling and they had to lay down medical evidence that transgneder surgery is benefical and safe!
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hhs.gov%2Fdab%2Fdecisions%2Fdabdecisions%2Fdab2576.pdf&ei=CbhcVbS3KsyZsgGFxoEQ&usg=AFQjCNEKbNLcj740RKwImFiTWlqcIPjYxg&bvm=bv.93756505,d.bGg Of course, as long as this is the best known treatment for the disorder then it's bullshit for an insurance company to dance around it.


There are a lot of issues with the Johns Hopkins Clinic and with Paul MchHugh. He presented false evidence as I have shown above to push his narative. Why should we trust somebody who outright lies? Was the study falsified? I'm not seeing any information you provided that would indicate the study falsified. That article was written last year and confirms the study.

He after all still thinks transgender people are delusional. Ok... so your response to a doctor pursuing the line of thought that the disorder is psychological is to discredit him and his work as a professional? This is what I mean by doctors getting immediate negative damage to their reputation if they say anything than is incongruous with the official narrative. Our reaction should be, "Well, I hope he's right and can produce a viable and better alternative", not "That asshole has some nerve presenting a different hypothesis". What if he's right and there's an alternative method? Might as well let him pursue that and fail rather than pretending you or I specifically know the truth, right? Assuming his patients are there voluntarily and it does not impact other patients' ability to pursue their own resolutions in the meantime.

It is unhealthy (for society) to insist that we absolutely 100% know the truth and not to let the medical community progress the field. This is because the belief that it could be a psychological disorder is deemed as offensive. As though a psychological disorder is somehow less real (seriously, if your brain tells you you're in pain then how is that any less true in function that the pain being caused by the body itself?). We need to get beyond our pride and offenses to get to the truth of the matter. All trying provides is more evidence to corroborate or condemn his views.

But here is some interesting article that gives more insight into the history:
http://dallasdenny.com/Writing/2014/03/06/the-campaign-against-transsexuals-part-i-2013/ Dallas Denny? Do you perhaps have a more reputable resource or perhaps one with a little less clear bias (he acknowledges having been personally rejected by the clinic for the procedure)? It's very "conspiracy theorist" in form. For me to start paying attention to conspiracies I need real news organizations to take it up.

I'm by no means against a discussion but things were often times really against surgery. So we should be aware of biase on both sides. Check mutiple sides and read studies thoroughly. It's one of the reasons I'm getting information from you here. I'm not really for or against anything since I have no personal experience on the matter. I'm seeing enough information on both sides to make the question persist.

Hopefully it's clear that I'm not saying that the surgeries should be stopped. Just that we need to continue pursuing other less invasive resolutions.

Hopefully the quoteing works this time. So embarrassing. I'm sorry for your inconvience with me being an idiot.
Well almost. I hope you can manage it : It worked a lot better this time. Don't worry about getting it wrong. Everyone had to learn for the first time some time.


Heyho sorry for the double post. I just saw that tomorrow begin some really work heavy weeks for me so I won't be able to respond for quite some time. I really hate to cut you short here especially since I enjoyed our discussion. You were very friendly and offered me some new insight and I'm thankfull for that.

I also think were pretty much in agreement at large. Yes we may differ in minor points but who cares? From what I know you treat your friends and those around you respectfully and that's all that matters to me.

We could probably nitpick each other for days and that's fun and good but I much rather see us discuss games and boobs (huehue)

You can just read through my text above and if you want you can answer but I'll probably not respond because I might have vanished from my mind by then or I might be to laaaazy haha.

If I was in any way harsh to you or you got the impression that I might have been rude in any way I apologize now. Sometimes one can get a bit lost in words and no matter how rational one thinks of themselves emotions will always leak in.

So thanks again. And my god did we offtopiced the shit out off this thread. Highfive for that one brah :)
Haha, well, it was a natural evolution of the topic of the thread. So at least it was that.

I am certainly going to read through your post now. I've really appreciated your input and time. Thank you.

Also, forgive me for any offense you may have suffered at my responses. You've really helped me to re-evaluate a lot of things and that's something I don't get to do that frequently. You should post more here, even if just about games and bewbs. Feel free to message me any time, just be ware that I don't log into the site on weekends or evenings (working as a tech generally means I shun computers at home, there's an old Spanish refrane on the subject about how the house of a blacksmith only has wooden cutlery)

Below are my responses. Nothing really needing responding to per se. Just a clarification of a misunderstanding and pointing out some conflicting studies that you were citing (like one study people are leaning on claiming that gender dysphoria was virtually gone when we know that not to be true via various other studies showing persistent elevated mortality and only claiming alleviation of the issue).

<spoiler=Just in case you're interesting in my response>
IMissedThatOne said:
Maybe I'm mistunderstanding your phrase but doesn't this say that they have higher likelihood of mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity due to the sex reassignment.

Your quote:
?This indicates that the issues of a higher likelihood of mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity due to the sex reassignment are still right there with them afterwards.?
I understand the confusion with how I wordied things but what I'm saying there is that transgendered individuals who already have a higher likelihood of those things just due to their condition still have them on the other side of the procedure in severe enough degrees to truly not having been addressed enough by the surgery. In order for the surgery to be effective, those statistics need to stop being at disorder levels on the other side.

No the study was not falsified So then after 10 years or so the problem of Gender Dysphoria do tend to wreck havoc?

Dr. Ettner described as ?a large-scale prospective study? finding ?that after surgery there was ?a virtual absence of gender dysphoria? in the cohort and that the ?results substantiate previous conclusions that sex reassignment is effective.?? But we know for certain that there is not a "virtual absence of gender dysphoria". How can I be expected to trust a study that makes that kind of claim when nearly any other study just talks about an improved quality of life rather than a virtual disappearance of the condition? The Swedish Study alone absolutely destroys this one on that front even though it does not adequately compare pre and post operation statistics directly.

If it would just play into a mental delusion no professional would advocate it. That's not strictly true. A delusion is no less dangerous than a physical condition. Even if it's a delusion and this procedure helps then it would be a viable thing to consider. At least, I would think so. Perhaps I shouldn't be thinking of delusion as a psychological issue?

Two weeks ago, HHS reversed its 1981 decision, and removed transgender health exclusions from Medicare. McHugh seems unaware of the work in transgender health in these last 30 years that led to this reversal by HHS. Interesting, perhaps this means that advancements in the field have led to more qualitative results than the tools at the disposal of Hopkins back in the day? I could see that being the case.

A closer reading of the paper shows that the increased mortality is in those who had surgery before 1989, and that mortality in trans people after 1989 is not statistically different from the general population.While the first claim would certainly explain why Hopkin's study may no longer be relevant due to advances in the field, the second claim about mortality in post op trans people being the same as the general population is flat out rejected in that Swedish study.

There is a clear conflict in results here.

McHugh also mischaracterizes the treatment of gender nonconforming children. As McHugh states, most gender nonconforming children do not identify as transgender in adulthood. However, those who receive puberty blocking drugs do not do so until puberty, when trans identity is likely to persist. These drugs allow adolescents and their parents to work with doctors to achieve the best outcome. This approach was demonstrated to be successful in research in the Netherlands before being adopted widely in the U.S. He seemed to indicate that something like 90% of gender non-conforming children go on to be non-trans in adulthood. Which treatment the number changes drastically. Were his findings incorrect? I get that this treatment would greatly assist a transgendered person the earlier it received but would you wish gender dysphoria on people who could otherwise avoid it? This is a really tough moral question. Is it better to treat earlier and risk inflicting gender dysphoria on someone or better to wait until later when the condition persists and so is made certain?


I'm all open for new ways of thinking but the patient always has to be taken seriously and if somebody wants to find a new way I actually want them to be educated on what already has been done. Just saying ther just need more of some therapy is not helpful. There has to be a real and reasonable concept behind it. Afterall again people once got very desperate: I'm not really sure that he made the claim that they need more "therapy". His claims just seemed to be against surgery and against early hormone treatment during childhood due to the impact it could have in causing gender dysphoria in some cases where it would have resolved itself with time. Perhaps this can be treated with a combination of things, drugs, better surgery, therapy. We just know that Surgery isn't good enough yet. Rather than stagnating or doubling down I want more funding going into basic research. People do appear to be looking into it now but it would help if people presenting controversial findings weren't lashed out against.