"Gender identity" is mental illness

[aux203]

@Una_Persson

Really. Think this one through with me.

Er. Okay… Clearly I’ve never thought about this before but why not?

It has nothing to do with whether they consider them butch, femme, androgynous, etc. I was simply pointing out that trans men for example, have a mindset and concept of masculinity that is more similar to cis women than cis men, in general. What men and women find attractive in each gender and their conception of the use and social impact of violence and the threat of violence are the most obvious ones that spring to mind. And no where did I argue that somehow invalidates someone’s gender identity. However, it’s quite jarring sometimes.

And while I’m generally sympathetic to the idea that there is some mild sexual dimorphism to the brain I will again point out that the idea that we can categorize brains by anatomy with anything close to accurate is a) total bs and b) completely meaningless even if it were true.

The studies cited on transcity, frankly, are terrible though I don’t intend to read every one. My major complaints are as follows:

Though it’s no longer my primary field I’ve done my fair share of neuroanatomy and fMRI research. Any study that performs brain imaging, then “discovers” areas which meet statistical significance pegs my BS to the roof. If you’re selecting areas as small as the anterior portion of the slf, how many discrete areas were you comparing? How many would you expect to meet significant given your analysis? Why is it each study finds a different anatomic region to study? This is similar to the problems with fMRI studies in general: if you compare two brain states and have a 1000 voxels and 40 patients, you’ll find plenty of significant activations. But are they real?

Sample sizes are small and the resulting error bars are huge, and there’s large overlap in most of these graphs. Considering how much overlap there is between cis male and female, most of these studies only reinforce the difficulty in distinguishing male from female brains. Yokata could only distinguish cis male and female 75% of the time, let alone trans brains. Has anyone ever replicated this study?

Of course all this mimics a much older body of literature examining homosexual brains. Quite a few variances were noted here as well, which raises the question: if all the transexuals included in the studies were straight, are you identifying gender identity in these brain scans? Or orientation?

Ultimately my biggest problem with all of this literature is: who cares? If someone identifies as a man or woman, what does their brain anatomy matter?

If you follow this through, if we’ve decided anatomy, gender roles, biology, etc do not “count” when it comes to gender identity, you can have a trans woman who is biologically and anatomically a man, who has no desire to transition physically (her body doesn’t determine her gender, asshole!), who enjoys and accepts male gender roles, dresses like a man, “acts” like a man, and is a lesbian, so she prefers to sleep with women. In fact she’s completely indistinguishable from a cis man, except he identifies as a woman.

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose, but at the same time I see why most women wouldn’t want her in their locker room. And why she poses a problem with the concept of “women’s” sports.

[SlackerInc]

@Una_Persson

I was a competitive fencer - I say was, because after I started hormone treatment, my body lost muscle so quickly it was scary. I lost stamina too, and found that where I used to be able to fence 2 hours until I could wring out my jacket, now I’m limited to an hour. My speed decreased as well, and like many transgender people who start hormones, my sense of balance and distance changed, which meant I was even getting my butt kicked by novice fencers until I could re-learn balance and distance.

So either transitioning is unfair to born-female athletes (as Renee Richards suggests), or it significantly harms a person physically such that they become significantly weaker and slower. Frying pan, fire?

@Una_Persson

It’s a propaganda campaign - they fill nervous suburbanite heads with images of hairy men in dresses abducting their children from mall bathrooms

This is so incredibly ironic, because it was just these bathroom fears that I confronted at that City Council meeting a week ago, subsequently spearheading a boycott campaign against business owners who spoke out against the human rights bill.

@foolsguinea

I am quite willing to stipulate that many trans* persons are deeply, hugely delusional. Is this mental illness? No more than several popular religions.

Oh wow, that’s a good point. Hmmm…maybe I should have just used “delusion” instead of “mental illness”.

@foolsguinea

If in fact there is a tendency for women to have Brain Development Pattern A and men to have Brain Development Pattern B, does that mean a man with Pattern A is not a real man? Should his manliness be arbitrarily denied? “Sorry, your brain is interconnected like a woman’s. You are a woman by law.” No, of course not.

For that matter, should a man with Brain Development Pattern B be denied the right to transition? “Sorry, you’re really a man, whatever you think. You wouldn’t be happy. We have scans.”

Oh, man, great questions!

@Una_Persson

It’s an existential question. If you ask 100 red-blooded Americans if they “feel” like a boy or a girl, I’ll wager at least 99% will answer immediately with full confidence.

I don’t know about anyone else, but my first thought (as in, unconscious or pre-conscious thought) when hearing that question is to become physically aware (mor than usual) of the junk between my thighs. It’s not some ephemeral sense of self.

ETA: **aux’s **post just above this is so on point. Suh-nap!

[Marley23]

@SlackerInc

So either transitioning is unfair to born-female athletes (as Renee Richards suggests), or it significantly harms a person physically such that they become significantly weaker and slower. Frying pan, fire?

Sounds more like you’re determined to find a catch-22. It doesn’t really work.

[Una_Persson]

@aux203

The studies cited on transcity, frankly, are terrible though I don’t intend to read every one.

You know they’re terrible because you haven’t read them. :dubious: There’s been a lot of that in this thread.

Any study that performs brain imaging, then “discovers” areas which meet statistical significance pegs my BS to the roof. If you’re selecting areas as small as the anterior portion of the slf, how many discrete areas were you comparing? How many would you expect to meet significant given your analysis? Why is it each study finds a different anatomic region to study? This is similar to the problems with fMRI studies in general: if you compare two brain states and have a 1000 voxels and 40 patients, you’ll find plenty of significant activations. But are they real?

Perhaps you should do some legwork and answer your question?

If you follow this through, if we’ve decided anatomy, gender roles, biology, etc do not “count” when it comes to gender identity,

Who decided gender roles don’t count? Not me. Gender roles are IMO critical to transsexual identity. Not all-defining, and gender roles are not consistent among cispeople - the woman who is a stay at home mom and likes to knit and cook, versus the woman who doesn’t want kids and would rather spend her time playing tennis and partying. But generally speaking,

… you can have a trans woman who is biologically and anatomically a man, who has no desire to transition physically (her body doesn’t determine her gender, asshole!), who enjoys and accepts male gender roles, dresses like a man, “acts” like a man, and is a lesbian, so she prefers to sleep with women. In fact she’s completely indistinguishable from a cis man, except he identifies as a woman.

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose, but at the same time I see why most women wouldn’t want her in their locker room. And why she poses a problem with the concept of “women’s” sports.

I can see why women would feel uncomfortable with someone who doesn’t adapt their gender roles in the over-the-top example you give.

Do you think under WPATH 7 that this hypothetical person you’ve created would be diagnosed transsexual? Since you didn’t look it up, the answer is NO, they are not. It’s in one of those links you won’t read…WPATH 7.

Transsexual: Adjective (often applied by the medical profession) to describe individuals who seek to change or who have changed their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics through femininizing or masculinizing medical interventions (hormones and/or surgery), typically accompanied by a permanent change in gender role.

I’ve never in my life heard of or met a transsexual person like that, and I’ve met just a few. Call it a “no true Scotsman” fallacy if you wish, but you have not described a transsexual person, I don’t know what to call the person you created. You may be describing someone who considers themselves transgender. I don’t know. I may have to give you that one if you mean to say “transgender,” as transgender is a very problematic umbrella term which I personally consider to be much too broad.

[Una_Persson]

@SlackerInc

So either transitioning is unfair to born-female athletes (as Renee Richards suggests), or it significantly harms a person physically such that they become significantly weaker and slower. Frying pan, fire?

Again we get back to, where are these hordes of transwomen who are stealing the thunder from female athletes. There are an estimated 700,000 transgender persons in the United States; a significant subset of them are full transsexuals. At the generally accepted 1:10,000 level for transwomen, there must be at least 35,000 of us alive in the United States right now.

Where are the piles of stolen gold medals? Where is the flood of trans athletes stealing endorsements? Where are the broken and mutilated bodies of the ciswomen trampled on the playing fields? Transsexuality with SRS and HRT aren’t exactly new - try the late 1940’s. Maybe we’re all just biding our time, waiting for our moment…since apparently 60+ years hasn’t been enough time for we diabolical switch-hitters to start storming the award podiums…

[Una_Persson]

BTW, have at it everyone. I’ve done my share to try to present facts, testimonial, and opinion, whether or not you agree with a single thing I’ve said. I’m behind at work and I will only try to answer questions which haven’t been asked already.

[SlackerInc]

So getting back to sports (and IMO this is interesting to study not because of some deep, ugly prejudice but because this is an area where gender/sex is used as a gate to allow women to compete with each other only, despite their being huge financial incentives for men to horn in). Do you believe there must be a clear, empirically definable definition of “female” to protect women’s sports? Or should there be just open-category “sports”, and may the best person win (even though that would be about the polar opposite of Title IX)?

Because if we don’t even require evidence of irreversible surgery to allow someone born a man to compete in women’s tennis, the floodgates will open once a frustrated marginal or failed ATP player figures out that he can just identify himself–er, herself–as female and be allowed to play against women. Have you ever heard of Karsten Braasch? He played on the men’s tour for twenty years, and his total lifetime prize money earned is just under $1.5 million. Serena Williams won a little over $2 million for two weeks’ work this past May, by winning the French Open. But Braasch crushed both the Williams sisters when they were bragging they could beat any man ranked under 200 (he was 203).

If you do require some kind of gatekeeping, then I acknowledge your point that an irreversible change to one’s body is going to deter most men from going after these piles of money. But then aren’t you just going to shift the locus of the controversy? Surely there will be people who self-identify as female who don’t quite qualify by your standards and will accuse you of discrimination and rank hypocrisy.

[Una_Persson]

@SlackerInc

So getting back to sports (and IMO this is interesting to study not because of some deep, ugly prejudice but because this is an area where gender/sex is used as a gate to allow women to compete with each other only, despite their being huge financial incentives for men to horn in). Do you believe there must be a clear, empirically definable definition of “female” to protect women’s sports? Or should there be just open-category “sports”, and may the best person win (even though that would be about the polar opposite of Title IX)?

I think for now the IOC regulations are a good start, but they may be overly restrictive.

Because if we don’t even require evidence of irreversible surgery to allow someone born a man to compete in women’s tennis, the floodgates will open once a frustrated marginal or failed ATP player figures out that he can just identify himself–er, herself–as female and be allowed to play against women.

I would consider surgery to remove androgen or estrogen-producing glands as the criteria, not full SRS.

Have you ever heard of Karsten Braasch? He played on the men’s tour for twenty years, and his total lifetime prize money earned is just under $1.5 million. Serena Williams won a little over $2 million for two weeks’ work this past May, by winning the French Open. But Braasch crushed both the Williams sisters when they were bragging they could beat any man ranked under 200 (he was 203).

Granted that even the top-ranked women can barely break into the top 200 for men. I helped Cecil with a column roundabout that subject.

If you do require some kind of gatekeeping, then I acknowledge your point that an irreversible change to one’s body is going to deter most men from going after these piles of money.

I am a pro-gatekeeper person, in most aspects of transsexuality. This does put me at odds with some.

Surely there will be people who self-identify as female who don’t quite qualify by your standards and will accuse you of discrimination and rank hypocrisy.

Already happened at lunch today, where my girlfriend got on my case on a closely related subject. I may be her dominatrix, but I don’t tell her what to think.

[Broomstick]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The suggestion has been made that trans women (for example) are deciding that “women feel like X. Men feel like Y. I feel like X. Therefore I feel like a woman”, and that just perhaps there is some room for error in these people’s assessments of what men and women feel like

Isn’t that possibility for error one of the reasons extensive counseling is required for those wanting SRS? As noted, no one simply walks into a surgeon’s office, slaps down a stack of money, and gets SRS. There’s a long process to ensure that it really is the best course for that individual (or that’s the theory, at least). I’d be interested if there is any info on people who started the process then at some pointed decided no, this isn’t me after all.

[SlackerInc]

Good answers, Una. Thanks.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Una_Persson

Social cues, body stance, poise, comportment, fidgeting, the way the head tilts, conversation style…it’s not entirely intangible. And sometimes it’s shoulder/waist ratio - even a relatively slim person will give off a guy vibe due to the hips being small.
No, it’s a matter of gender-specific body language and body cues. Those are things which are practiced and learned unconsciously by women as they grow up. Not all women, but many. There are entire books on the subject.

OK, but the question was: if these people always felt like girls and identified with girls, why don’t they have the same social cues, body stance, poise, comportment etc. etc. as girls?

It’s an existential question. If you ask 100 red-blooded Americans if they “feel” like a boy or a girl, I’ll wager at least 99% will answer immediately with full confidence. I don’t see any difference. How do they know? Are they deluded by social pressure and a need to fit in? Or is there something inside us which just lets us know, regardless. Honestly, I don’t know.

I’m not sure there is an answer, since the premise may be incorrect.

IOW, I’m not sure “red blooded Americans” feel like boys or girls. They know that they are boys or girls but don’t think much about it, in trms of gender identity. It’s only the people who feel like misfits in this regard that ponder these types of existential questions. And the question then is: are their conclusions correct?

When I say I felt like a girl, it means I was drawn to girls as a peer group. I felt like I wanted to be around them, not make out with them. I became a lesbian out of reaction to severe trauma, not because I had still had guy urges. Girls faces, voices, bodies, mannerisms, interests, emotions and how they showed them, the companionship and closeness, all seemed natural to me. Boys seemed to be a different thing entirely. I could not think of any way I fit in with them at all, and it was really something I tried to do. I simply felt driven that I should be over with the girls and not with the boys, and I didn’t make any conscious decision, it was just a natural flocking instinct of sorts.

But the question remains: are these identical to the types of feelings that cis girls feel? Or is it something else?

@Broomstick

Isn’t that possibility for error one of the reasons extensive counseling is required for those wanting SRS? As noted, no one simply walks into a surgeon’s office, slaps down a stack of money, and gets SRS. There’s a long process to ensure that it really is the best course for that individual (or that’s the theory, at least).

Fair point

But OTOH, there’s also a long history of psychological theories being accepted and then rejected. It’s not so long ago that a guy won a Nobel Prize for inventing prefrontal lobotomies. This particular field is not that old, and as noted in this thread Johns Hopkins which was in the forefront of this type of surgical reassignment has since pulled back.

And this is magnified in this case by the fact that this has become a very PC issue. You can see in this very thread that several posters have labeled anyone who questions the current orthodoxy as haters. This atmosphere is not one which leads to accurate scientific conclusions.

[Una_Persson]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

OK, but the question was: if these people always felt like girls and identified with girls, why don’t they have the same social cues, body stance, poise, comportment etc. etc. as girls?

This was already answered, and is somewhat obvious on inspection - you learn by doing, by existing in that female or male social space, over years of interpersonal interaction. Just as no amount of wishing upon a star will let you walk perfectly in high heels the first time, it will also not ingrain in you all of the subtle mannerisms of women, voice inflection, the causal closeness. Or vice-versa. As I said, there are entire books written on this subject, and it’s not just transpeople who try to learn either - a teacher in female comportment once told me that about 1/4 of her clients are women, who want to learn to build the tiny social interactions, physical presence, etc. of being female. They are tired of being pegged as or even called to their face “butch”, “dyke”, or even “male.” And these are cis-gendered women.

Is the fact that people raised and interacting for years in specific gender groups take on common cues from said groups, a point in contention here? I would want to see some studies to the contrary on that one.

IOW, I’m not sure “red blooded Americans” feel like boys or girls. They know that they are boys or girls but don’t think much about it, in trms of gender identity. It’s only the people who feel like misfits in this regard that ponder these types of existential questions. And the question then is: are their conclusions correct?

But why do they know it? Just because they have, as one other poster said it, “their junk?” If that’s all it takes, then we would have to recognize that someone with SRS is now defined solely or predominantly by “their junk” (what a terrible term; aren’t most men proud of their enormous penises?).

But the question remains: are these identical to the types of feelings that cis girls feel? Or is it something else?

Reading about how cis-gendered children develop their sense of gender identity and social interaction, it seems like the same drives and feelings. But every person is unique. Many women want to hang out with the boys, play baseball and not house, don’t like gossiping, can’t stand subtle social cues like the touching during talking and the voice inflection changes. I’m not a Betazoid; I can’t look into the mind of my secretary and tell how she feels, any more than I can look into the mind of my male personal assistant.

But OTOH, there’s also a long history of psychological theories being accepted and then rejected. It’s not so long ago that a guy won a Nobel Prize for inventing prefrontal lobotomies. This particular field is not that old, and as noted in this thread Johns Hopkins which was in the forefront of this type of surgical reassignment has since pulled back.

With respect, that caveat can be applied to every single psychological theory in existence, not just the ones we don’t like. “X was once accepted and is now thrown out or questioned, therefore we can’t accept unrelated item Y” seems a stretch. Unless one questions all of psychology theory, in which case…(shrug).

[AHunter3]

@Una_Persson

When I say I felt like a girl, it means I was drawn to girls as a peer group. I felt like I wanted to be around them, not make out with them. I became a lesbian out of reaction to severe trauma, not because I had still had guy urges. Girls faces, voices, bodies, mannerisms, interests, emotions and how they showed them, the companionship and closeness, all seemed natural to me. Boys seemed to be a different thing entirely. I could not think of any way I fit in with them at all, and it was really something I tried to do. I simply felt driven that I should be over with the girls and not with the boys, and I didn’t make any conscious decision, it was just a natural flocking instinct of sorts.

I could have written this myself, pretty much verbatim.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Una_Persson

But why do they know it? Just because they have, as one other poster said it, "their junk?

They’ve been told that since as long as they can remember and it’s consistent with all other evidence including but not limited to their junk.

With respect, that caveat can be applied to every single psychological theory in existence, not just the ones we don’t like. “X was once accepted and is now thrown out or questioned, therefore we can’t accept unrelated item Y” seems a stretch. Unless one questions all of psychology theory, in which case…(shrug).

With respect, if the current conventional wisdom in this field is considered the final word, then there’s no point in discussing these types of issues altogether.

I would say the evidence suggests that conventional wisdom in this particular field tends to be less conclusive than that of many other areas of study, and I’ve further suggested that WRT this particular issue - being both fairly recent and very politically sensitive - this would be even more so than most. That doesn’t mean you “can’t accept” it, but it makes the argument from authority rather less conclusive than it might otherwise be.

[aux203]

@Una_Persson

You know they’re terrible because you haven’t read them. :dubious: There’s been a lot of that in this thread.

No, the first several I read were terrible and I didn’t have high hopes for the rest. I read enough terrible papers at work.

@Una_Persson

Perhaps you should do some legwork and answer your question?

It was sort of a rhetorical question. I’ve done more work than I care to recall in neuroimaging before I left the field. Studies with that type of design are crap, and while they were sort of fun early on we now realize their limitations: namely, if you sample enough areas you’ll have some significant findings. These findings are often not repeatable, because they arose by chance.

Really, I just want an answer to this question: given a particular brain, do you think you can identify the owner’s gender with any sort of accuracy? And if someone has the “wrong” brain anatomy (i.e. Trans woman with male anatomy), what does that imply?

@Una_Persson

Who decided gender roles don’t count? Not me. Gender roles are IMO critical to transsexual identity.

To you maybe. As many cis women aggressively reject gender roles as socially constructed, I’m not sure why you’d not extend the same courtesy to trans women.

@Una_Persson

Do you think under WPATH 7 that this hypothetical person you’ve created would be diagnosed transsexual? Since you didn’t look it up, the answer is NO, they are not. It’s in one of those links you won’t read…WPATH 7.

I know very little about WPATH, to be honest, but they lost all credibility with me when they made their statements about elective vs indicated surgery. As an actual surgeon, I couldn’t believe it when that made it into actual case law. Such crap. I’ll explain at length if people are actually interested.

But if you are making a distinction between transexual and transgender, then yes I concede my example doesn’t really fit. The problem is, if you are claiming that it is a desire for gendered sex characteristics and certain gender roles define transsexuality, you seem to be excluding actual gender identity entirely from this definition.

To take it step further, the internet has spawned a truly incredible (and I mean that literally) subculture of trans-black, trans-Asian, trans-cat, trans-dragon, etc that have co-opted this sort of reasoning to say, essentially, if I feel I am actually Asian, and desire Asian features, get surgery to look Asian, and take on Asian social and cultural roles, I am trans-Asian. (Don’t look up the trans-dragon people if you value your sanity. :eek:) If race is a social construct, is gender? Do you get to pick one and not the other?

@Una_Persson

I’ve never in my life heard of or met a transsexual person like that, and I’ve met just a few. Call it a “no true Scotsman” fallacy if you wish, but you have not described a transsexual person, I don’t know what to call the person you created. You may be describing someone who considers themselves transgender. I don’t know. I may have to give you that one if you mean to say “transgender,” as transgender is a very problematic umbrella term which I personally consider to be much too broad.

I’ve also met and interacted with many self-identified transexuals. I’ve met a few who wanted to transition to female and wanted hormone therapy but wanted to keep their penis. (Specifically they liked their penis, they didn’t avoid surgery solely due to expense, or lack of satisfaction with the results) One was bisexual with a strong leaning towards women. She would alternate between femme and essentially passing as male depending on the situation (like… most women, really). She wanted to be considered a woman and be called Paris, though obviously that wasn’t her given name. Does she count? Or does she not meet your criteria? Paris, to put it very mildly, did not come close to passing, and if she showed up in a women’s locker room would cause quite a lot of distress. There’s plenty of oddities and shades of grey in trans anything, so yeah, I’ll take you up on your invitation.

[adaher]

It seems to me that people should be allowed to be who they want to be, and that this is not confined to gender, but to anything people imagine. However, that does not make them scientifically or legally that thing. I do not think people with penises should be in womens’ locker rooms and I bet most women wouldn’t be too appreciative of that either. Likewise, the athletics controversy, you can’t change Pete Sampras into a female so that he can make a few more millions dominating the womens’ circuit. Well, he can change into a female if he wants, but I don’t think it’s a civil rights issue if the ATP refuses to let him play womens’ tennis in sanctioned events.

Also, the very idea of gender identity is somewhat sexist in a society where men and women can be whatever they want to be. Most transgendered people are sexist caricatures of what they imagine a man or a woman to be.

[miss_elizabeth]

@adaher

It seems to me that people should be allowed to be who they want to be, and that this is not confined to gender, but to anything people imagine.

Thanks for your permission.

However, that does not make them scientifically or legally that thing.

So, people should be who they want to be, but then, they can’t be.

Huh?

I do not think people with penises should be in womens’ locker rooms and I bet most women wouldn’t be too appreciative of that either.

I’m a cis woman, and I don’t mind. The vast majority of women I’ve spoken to don’t mind. I, and the women I know, welcome our trans sisters into our bathrooms!

Look, ladies! We have a couch!

Likewise, the athletics controversy,

There is no athletics controversy, except in your mind.

you can’t change Pete Sampras into a female so that he can make a few more millions dominating the womens’ circuit. Well, he can change into a female if he wants, but I don’t think it’s a civil rights issue if the ATP refuses to let him play womens’ tennis in sanctioned events.

:rolleyes:
This isn’t happening. Call if it does, but I don’t think it will.

Also, the very idea of gender identity is somewhat sexist in a society where men and women can be whatever they want to be.

No it isn’t. In what way? Trans men and women can be whatever they want to be too, including their preferred gender.

Most transgendered people are sexist caricatures of what they imagine a man or a woman to be.

This is false and hateful.

[Marley23]

@adaher

However, that does not make them scientifically or legally that thing. I do not think people with penises should be in womens’ locker rooms and I bet most women wouldn’t be too appreciative of that either.

Having made it to 100 episodes, this thread is now in reruns.

[Una_Persson]

@aux203

No, the first several I read were terrible and I didn’t have high hopes for the rest. I read enough terrible papers at work.

Then I don’t know why you would even discuss the topic, and your following paragraph still offers no cites to refute anything other than your appeal to authority. With respect, no one here knows who you are and your credentials. You could be Dr. House himself, but we don’t know that.

Really, I just want an answer to this question: given a particular brain, do you think you can identify the owner’s gender with any sort of accuracy? And if someone has the “wrong” brain anatomy (i.e. Trans woman with male anatomy), what does that imply?

I don’t know that there are enough other studies, or any good ones, which can pronounce “this brain is female/male.” On the second point, what does it imply? I would take differences in the brain to imply differences in fetal development which were due to endogenous or exogenous hormone exposure, DNA faults, or other issues.

I know very little about WPATH, to be honest, but they lost all credibility with me when they made their statements about elective vs indicated surgery. As an actual surgeon, I couldn’t believe it when that made it into actual case law. Such crap. I’ll explain at length if people are actually interested.

If by your own admission you know very little about them, I guess don’t take this the wrong way, but I fail to see why your explanation about them when you don’t know much about them is interesting.

To take it step further, the internet has spawned a truly incredible (and I mean that literally) subculture of trans-black, trans-Asian, trans-cat, trans-dragon, etc that have co-opted this sort of reasoning to say, essentially, if I feel I am actually Asian, and desire Asian features, get surgery to look Asian, and take on Asian social and cultural roles, I am trans-Asian. (Don’t look up the trans-dragon people if you value your sanity. :eek:) If race is a social construct, is gender? Do you get to pick one and not the other?

When broad medical science worldwide starts to recognize trans-dragons, I’ll have that conversation.

I’ve also met and interacted with many self-identified transexuals.

Self-identified implies they weren’t diagnosed. Fakes are very common, and crossdressers sometimes lie and call themselves transgender because it’s more socially acceptable. This board has seen a few trans fakes.

I’ve met a few who wanted to transition to female and wanted hormone therapy but wanted to keep their penis. (Specifically they liked their penis, they didn’t avoid surgery solely due to expense, or lack of satisfaction with the results) One was bisexual with a strong leaning towards women. She would alternate between femme and essentially passing as male depending on the situation (like… most women, really).
She wanted to be considered a woman and be called Paris, though obviously that wasn’t her given name. Does she count? Or does she not meet your criteria? Paris, to put it very mildly, did not come close to passing, and if she showed up in a women’s locker room would cause quite a lot of distress. There’s plenty of oddities and shades of grey in trans anything, so yeah, I’ll take you up on your invitation.

If we want to play dueling anecdotes, I’ll win. I’ll wager I’ve not only “met”, I’ve actually deeply interacted with 20 for every 1 you have. The person you described sounds like they would not qualify under WPATH 7 as a transsexual woman. But since you think WPATH are a bunch or morons you don’t know much about…well.

I don’t know what label to put on them, and really, I don’t care. Nor do I give a shit about trans-dragons, trans-Daleks, or trans-fat-free-salad-dressings. They’re not germane to the conversation. They’re akin to the “nuclear option” in 2nd Amendment debates (“oh yeah? If you can have guns, then why not bazookas? Nuclear weapons? Imperial Star Destroyers?”)

[Una_Persson]

@miss_elizabeth

I’m a cis woman, and I don’t mind. The vast majority of women I’ve spoken to don’t mind. I, and the women I know, welcome our trans sisters into our bathrooms!

Look, ladies! We have a couch!

I know…the difference in the bathrooms here at work is profound. Couches, potpourri, magazines, clean floors, clean sinks, not a scrap of paper laying about…whereas the men’s room often looked like the Samsonite gorilla wandered in one day drunk and incontinent.

There is no athletics controversy, except in your mind.

This is a critical thing -the athletics controversy is a 99.9% theoretical controversy, which people are ready to march in the streets and pass laws over. Good grief.