I wonder how transgender people feel about being labelled noncisgendered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ve used it. I don’t specifically identify as transgender (long story) but I’m also among those who are not cisgender. I doubt many transgender people would object to “non-cisgender” if randomly applied by someone.
So do you ever go to the doctor? For anything? If you had cancer (no idea how you would establish that without the help of a doctor, but let’s just assume), would you go to the doctor for treatment? After all, check out Doctor Oz! This is an argument against the science behind gender theory only to the degree that it is a fully general argument against doctors and medical science as a whole. It’s painfully fallacious.
Do you have a cite that those who have undergone SRS function sexually as well as cisgender people, on average?
Regards,
Shodan
The problem I see with this comparison is that you seem to have two opposite reactions. For depression, the more severely mentally ill person is the one who is unable to face the world or live their lives. But for trans people, transitioning, or altering the way they live their lives so as to better identify as their actual gender, leads to them being better able to live their lives and face the world.
You make a similar point before - you say that “most of them are severely mentally ill and indulging that illness does them as much good as telling a paranoid schizophrenic that aliens have actually put implants into them that the CIA monitors on the constant.” The same problem; backing up a paranoid schizophrenic’s delusions will further their problems telling delusions from reality, and so lead to a reduced ability to live their lives. After all, they can’t face the world if they can’t see it. But “indulging” a trans person* improves* their ability to live their lives.
Fundamentally - being transgender just doesn’t work the same way as being mentally ill. It works the same way as being sane.
That’s not a remotely fair comparison.
Given what seems to be, in my impression, plenty of trans people who had no interest, sexual or otherwise in using the genitalia they were born with, a comparison to someone who is perfectly happy with their genitals (well, at least in terms of which they have) seems like an overshoot in terms of talking about harm, as Guinastasia is doing.
I’m curious, though; if medical technology WAS up the standard of perfected sex changes, would this alter your position at all?
Then Guinastasia shouldn’t have made it.
But it highlights the difficulty of trying to say “transwomen are women. Period.” (Or, presumably, “transmen are men. Period.”) Simply announcing that there are no differences doesn’t make the differences go away.
Regards,
Shodan
She referred specifically to “function”, which is why I asked for the cite.
Regards,
Shodan
If you actually cared about this subject enough to do any legwork, rather than playing the game of “you, person on message board, provide umpteen cites to defend what is an established medical practice,” you’d know better.
This has already been done. I’ve provided the cite in past threads that there are clear similarities and anomalies many times. Others have as well. Do your own legwork.
What does this sentence even mean? Provide a cite for “transgenderism?”
Perhaps you should start reading your own posts.
So…because the American Heart Association mentions “heart” in their name, we can’t trust them on cardiac medicine? Like OMG, are you actually for real? Is no one else seeing this?
The issue was about blockers, something YOU brought up. Neither of your panic-Googled “cites” involve 6-year-olds on blockers.
You really should read your own “cites” before posting them. It makes you look…even worse. Also, posting the same link twice doesn’t equal 2 cites. You’re really failing to make any point.
And here’s where you demonstrate to everyone here that you’re part of the problem. While playing wounded innocence about not hating people like me, you made a deliberate threat of violence or death towards a transgender woman who called you on some factually incorrect statements in an online forum.
You threatened to either hurt or kill me over this issue. It’s one thing if you’re just one of the socks or a newbie; I can ignore those. But an established poster who knows the rules and yet is so seething with rage that they couldn’t even control themselves in Great Debates. No, you don’t have aaaaaaaaaaany problems with transgender persons.
At this point, I’m done. I see people doing the game of “provide a cite water is wet”, others playing the “my arbitrary morals are my cite,” and like many trans threads online go, when all else fails have one of the players make a violence or death threat to create a chilling effect.
I don’t think this is an entirely unreasonable question. Let’s look at it, including the embedded assumptions.
First off, let’s consider the transgender person who has not undergone SRS and how well they function sexually, since it isn’t really fair to compare how they function after SRS to the typical cisgender person if they weren’t functioning that well to begin with. That’s like the old joke about the patient scheduled for an operation on the hand and wrist asking the orthopedist, “So after the operation, will I be able to play the piano?” The orthopedist assures the patient, yes. “Wow, that’s so cool. I’ve never been able to play the piano and I’ve always wanted to”. The comparisons being made have to be specific to the people pursuing the surgery.
Some transgender people are able to function sexually prior to (or in the absence of) SRS more or less as well as cisgender people —and these would often tend to be people who don’t seek SRS. (Raise your hands if you were not aware that some transgender people do not find SRS a necessity for themselves).
But most of the people who seek it out are doing so because they can’t function sexually with the physical morphology with which they were born.
I visualize the probability that some of the participants in this discussion would want to call “foul” if that lack of functionality isn’t strictly a physical incapacity but rather involves processes of the mind, emotional and cognitive elements of sexual functioning. In other words, I anticipate that some people would say “That doesn’t count, if the organs in question can function physically then they’re fully functional”.
But neither you nor anyone else has a magic wand that can make it so that they are sexually functional in the environment that matters to them and to their potential and actual partners. The folks providing the surgical intervention have success stories, people who have reported back that, yes, this solution has worked for them.
That, to me, makes it sound like a reasonable and rational course of action for them to pursue. They can’t function as is. SRS has a high likelihood of making it so that they can. Neither you nor anyone else standing around second-guessing SRS as a bad idea has a better one to offer. If you think you do, by all means make it available and let folks avail themselves of it.
But it’s not an illogical or inappropriate decision, or conclusion, or course of action, or plan. It addresses the situation. It has a proven track record of outcomes satisfying to those who have gone that route.
Hence (to re-answer the titular question again) no, there’s nothing “mentally ill” about it.
If you aren’t using it, it isn’t functional, is it?
I was NOT talking specifically about sexual function, but about living as a trans person in general.
My comment on “function” was in regards to people who hack off limbs, NOT trans people. Is SRS necessarily always perfect? Alas, no. For example, we don’t have a way to transplant uteruses (spelling?), or, AFAIK, testicles. Medical science isn’t perfect. But by and large, it’s not the same as making yourself disabled.
I’m not an expert on the sexuality of trans people. I imagine in varies from person to person. I THINK that it’s less common for FTMs to undergo “bottom” surgery. Here’s probably the best (at least most scholarly) cite I could find. The conclusion? Yes, they pretty well do function just as well. Or at least, people are satisfied with the results.
So is PBS fake news?
Here is the only passage with the word irreversible:
"Doctors say the benefit of using puberty blockers is that they block hormone-induced biological changes, such as vocal chord changes, the development of breast tissue or changes in facial structure, that are irreversible and can be especially distressing to children who are gender-non conforming or transgender. "
Seems like they are just saying that puberty blockers hit the pause button on puberty. But the article also mentions all sorts of risks that might come along with their use. I can’t imagine that ethical doctors use this stuff capriciously.
Why imply that any doctor uses blockers capriciously? Why imply that any doctor who has used blockers has been unethical or has acted capriciously?
I am sure that there are cranks and quacks out there. However, unless one has evidence that every doctor (or some significantly large portion of such doctors) who have used blockers have been capricious, the implication that you suggest is little more than your personal beliefs imposed on situations for which you are not trained and in which you are not involved.
That’s not the usage of “irreversible” that Una was referring to. She was talking about this one:
Bolding mine.
As you may have noted by now, this claim is not supported by his cite. Which was Una’s point.
I can understand why a parent might be concerned about puberty blockers, (and well they should – any parent should be concerned when a drug is prescribed for their kid, no matter if it’s puberty blockers, Ritalin, or whatever). But I imagine it’s not done like, right away, or without major consideration. And eleven is right around the age when most kids start puberty, anyways.
Also, puberty blockers have other uses – precocious puberty, for example.
I’m pretty sure I was doing the opposite. So wtf are you talking about? Or did my comment about PBS being fake news color the rest of my post. Una was saying that PBS was unreliable. That statement requires a cite imo. Why is the “World Professional Association for Transgender Health” any more authoritative than a journalist?
Here is an article about how the APA dumped WPATH guidelines because they: “WPATH guidelines for psychiatric/medical/surgical “treatment” of “gender” have never been based on any research or study into the treatments they advocate. Instead, the guidelines were created by those interested in making a living off the burgeoning gender treatment market. As the practice of genderiam explodes in popularity (some clinics showing a doubling of business ANNUALLY) tension between the APA and WPATH has grown.”
and "WPATH standards of care guide offered no pretense of objectivity or professionalism and reads as more of a genderist political manifesto. "
Once again, WTF are you talking about. I said, I can’t imagine any doctors using this stuff capriciously. But in light of your comments and the article about WPATH, I will take that back and say that there may be a few quacks out there that might be a prescription mill for the stuff but I think it is probably vanishingly rare.
I agree his cite works against him on the notion of irreversibility.
It seems like puberty blockers can be taken (for t leas a short period of time) with minimal long term effects. It is not clear what happens when you come off of puberty blockers at 18 or 25.
When you come off puberty blockers you… go through puberty.
Seriously, these drugs are not new and they have other uses besides trans gender treatment, such as the previously mentioned precocious puberty as well as certain hormone-stimulated cancers and reproductive dysfunctions. They’ve been used for decades. Doctors actually do have a pretty good idea of their effects and side effects.