There’s a huge problem with medical gatekeeping if you’re transgender. Having to prove that you’re transgender enough. Having cis doctors judge you. Having to jump through so many hoops. Having to justify your very existence.
So, I’m inclined to say that self-diagnosis is for the best. If people say they’re transgender, don’t judge, you can’t know what’s going on inside them. Okay, so some people might be lying to be special, they might be appropriative, but I think accepting even them at their word is far, far better than the harm that can be done to trans people by telling them they’re not trans enough.
Even if something isn’t objectively measurable, it can still have criteria within that subjective experience. Gender dysphoria, which was brought up earlier as a classic indicator of transgender status, is simple example of this. There’s no way for me to put down a meterstick to measure whether or not someone experiences it - it has to be self-reported. But it still refers to something specific and real within the subjective, and so can be used as a marker. If someone claims to suffer dysphoria when they do not, then they are simply lying, and there’s no great philosophical concern about the fact that people can lie.
Beyond a certain point, this criticism defeats itself. The concern about medical gatekeeping is because medical intervention is necessary to address the key feature of transgenderism - mind/body mismatch. If we’re at the point of denying that mind/body mismatch has anything to do with transgenderism, then why would they require any special interaction with medical professionals at all? Why would they have to jump through hoops?
I used to think that the gender dysphoria criteria made sense before reading this thread, but now it doesn’t make sense to me anymore. Since there are apparently transgender people who do not experience this it seemed to me that it was high time for me to re-evaluate my criteria of what does and does not fall under the transgender umbrella. See it as a scientific experiment. If data pops up which does not fit your original hypothesis, what do you do? You change your hypothesis, not the data that challenged your original hypothesis.
Some fact-checking might be advised, but I’m tempted to believe Bagelthief on their word. They simply know much more people who are transgender than I do.
As you said a moment ago, Cecilia, transgender status is not an objectively observable phenomenon. As such, someone claiming that status is not necessarily contradictory data to a hypothesis which suggests that they don’t have it. Certainly I’m not particularly inclined to accept an alternate definition which makes transgenderism a social club, defined only by the fact that one wants to be a member.
I have such a hard time wrapping my mind around how people can not have gender dysphoria and yet still be transgender. It’s something I still don’t quite understand and I’ve had such an issue trying to find sources for. But I’m not going to erase someone’s identity just because I don’t understand.
Depending on the ‘we’ in question, of course. That was Bagelthief’s position, which I considered to be absurd, and which prompted our present disgression. If you’re uneasy with it, then you and I are on the same page, as far as that goes.
I have a tendency of treating my assumptions, especially when it comes to sociological issues, as if they were scientific hypothesis, because they follow the same ground rules. They are “truth” until something pops up that disputes it. In this case that was this thread.
To me it just means that I’ve learned something new, which is nice.
If you haven’t learned anything new from from this thread I think that would be a shame, but with this much information going around I doubt that would be the case here.
I’m not uneasy and I’d never call someone’s views absurd like that.
I just don’t understand. It’s something I would like to understand. I think I’ve got as far as it’s a big umbrella term and it erases some non-binary people to assume gender dysphoria? I don’t know. I just don’t really understand it.
Same as I have an extremely hard time understanding how demi-sexual/gray asexual people fit under the asexual label. But just because I don’t understand, doesn’t mean their identities aren’t valid.
Another thing that cis people need to remember is that the gender binary is not applicable to all cultures. Some cultures have ( or had before colonization ) third genders. They were accepting of people we now know as transgender. Hawaiian culture is one example of this. I recommend going to this sight to learn about the Hawaiian view of gender http://aplaceinthemiddle.org
It can. It’s certainly a sympathetic impulse, to assume the best and trust that people are being forthright - but the old saw is that you “trust, but verify.” When people with genuine problems get attention, there’s a certain (natural, I suppose) hunger on the part of others to share in it. And when the source of the problems is invisible, not objectively discernible, there’s room for them to squeeze themselves in - such as in the case you mention, people who have sex drives quite within the normal range labeling themselves as though they were part of a unique minority.
Doing so, unfortunately, muddies the waters for those who are actually different, and who might benefit from that ‘awareness.’ (A catch-phrase I somewhat hesitate to use.) It does those people a disservice if you let everybody sit down at their table - as it were.
What about people who may not feel dysphoric about their body, but still feel happier/more at peace when recognised as their preferred gender? I think Bagelthief mentioned that concept of ‘gender euphoria’ several posts ago.
At the cis people arguing over who counts as trans and who doesn’t; stop it. This is not your discussion to have. It’s trans and non binary’s people discussion to have. What you should do is respect the pronouns and gender of trans people. Whether they are faking or not is not up to you to decide. Whether this is a phase or not is not up for you to debate. What you need to do is respect that person. If they were lying or decide later on that this isn’t who they are that will be dealt with when that road is crossed. Let the trans community decide what is good for us and how we handle the label of who is and isn’t trans.
I never asked for acceptance. I merely said stop arguing about this because it is not your discussion to have. Are you a gender therapist? Are you trans? Then you have no say in what is and isn’t trans.
If you have an issue with my reasoning, please share it. Suggesting that there might be offense from a particular turn of phrase is not a substantive criticism.
I apologise; please allow me to ask for clarification. Are you making the assumption that all trans people de facto have underlying problems because they are trans?
Please be nice to the other people in this thread, specifically the transgender ones. In a way this is their topic, and we are merely guests here. If one of them asks you to drop a topic, please do. I’m pretty sure this particular topic has already caused enough discomfort as it is.
The section you quoted was actually referring to asexuals (and their hangers-on, “grey aces” and what have you). But the logic does and did apply to trans individuals as well, and yes, at least twofold - one, the issue of mind/body mismatch, which is certainly “problem” enough that it is a great and ongoing struggle on the part of many trans people, and two, the interaction of trans people with a society that is, at best, uncomfortable with them. Both, I think it’s fair to say, are genuine problems. Do you disagree?
Exactly. Also, without a proper definition of what trans actually is and means, how do you expect cis people to accurately portray trans people in their writings? Dominic isn’t coming from an aggressive or hateful place, he is only trying to pin down a definition, which has not yet been offered. That’s part of learning.
