Sign In

flametitan

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
1-Mar-2016
Last activity
14-Dec-2018
Posts
645

Post History

Post
#1254992
Topic
An Environmental & Ecology thread
Time

oojason said:
Remarkable decline in fertility rates’:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

I feel like it’s missing another point as to why there’s a lower birth rate, at least for people my age: It’s just not really feasible in this economy. Raising children, even one, is expensive, and young people are finding it harder to meet those costs.

Post
#1254464
Topic
An Environmental & Ecology thread
Time

oojason said:

^ Same here mate.

 

Some good news re the environment…

Earth’s ozone layer is healing, UN report says

… the upper ozone layer above the Northern Hemisphere should be completely repaired in the 2030s and the gaping Antarctic ozone hole should disappear in the 2060s, according to a scientific assessment released Monday at a conference in Quito, Ecuador. The Southern Hemisphere lags a bit and its ozone layer should be healed by mid-century.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/earths-ozone-layer-is-healing-un-report-says

This is good news, but not surprising. The Ozone layer’s depletion was caused by relatively specific compounds, and limiting/outlawing them meant they’re not added to the atmosphere to ruin the Ozone layer. It helps that the Ozone layer appears to be self regenerating.

Edit: quality links, flametitan - nice one, enjoyed reading them.

Glad you enjoyed those links. I feel they help show the problem with Climate Change: There are large powers invested in ignoring it, and there’s only so much we as individuals can do to stop it without radical change.

Post
#1253587
Topic
An Environmental & Ecology thread
Time

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/31/we-have-less-time-we-thought-alarming-new-study-shows-oceans-have-retained-far-more

Oh no.

EDIT: Oh, and here’s the top producers, ranked by company instead of nation. https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240

Post
#1253103
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Post Praetorian said:

Do you believe there should be minimum age requirements for transitioning?

No.

Okay, let me rephrase that. Usually when people say transition in this context, they mean medical transition. Age requirements for medical transition are already in place (though HRT’s requirement could be lowered to 14, rather than its current 16). There’s also social transition, which involves things like changing name, changing what pronouns you’re referred to, etc. That doesn’t need an age requirement.

What are your feelings with regards to the concept of researching the psychology behind an individual’s desire to transition? Would you prefer a greater, or lesser, amount of such research be conducted?

It is what it is. As long as it includes actually talking to us and our experiences, then it’s not really a major concern, unless it becomes used as a means of gatekeeping who’s “really” trans.

What might you consider your views to be as to the benefits of requiring individuals undergo psychiatric evaluations prior to transitioning? Is this discriminatory or rather a measure in prudent caution?

Discriminatory. I mean, it’s useful for those who aren’t sure, but when you’re confident that it’s the right course of action, it becomes a game of jumping through hoops to prove that you deserve treatment.

Do you believe any further such psychiatric evaluations should be undertaken post-operation?

If they see a therapist already (likely for anxiety, depression, etc,) they shouldn’t stop seeing them because of srs, but if they didn’t before, then there’s no real reason to begin seeing them

What might be your greatest hopes and fears upon achieving a successful transition?

Whether or not others are violent towards me (Luckily this town is like, passively not caring atm, if not actively supporting it 😃), and in general getting used to be considered female.

Aside from that, I’m just another person, which much the same concerns as other humans.

Do you believe such transitioning surgeries should be privately or publicly funded? Do you believe the same as to regards de-transitioning surgeries?

I come from a country where SRS is already covered by the federal government (Canada). So, yes. If Facial Feminization Surgery (FFS) was covered, it’d be even better. I believe masectomies are covered, though I’m not sure there.

Do you have any thoughts with regards to the following article?

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-new-taboo-more-people-regret-sex-change-and-want-to-detransition-surgeon-says

The general problem is that “Detransition” stories like this one focus on a tiny, tiny portion of the population, (like, that’s… 14 total people out of… how many get SRS?) and then they become the driving force behind trying to tighten up the process by which the other 99% of trans people have to go through, and make it even more hellish for us.

Also wonderfully, the article appears not to interview any of the detransitioners, but rather a surgeon who appears to fear that the WPATH Standards of Care will update to let minors have SRS (which… there’s no indication they will), and a psychotherapist who tried to write a study based on a handful of people and discuss it like it were an increasing trend. How impartial! :V

From the vague way the surgeon explains it, it reads like those detransitioners ended up where they were because of poor training (on the staff’s end) leading to poor communication, leading to a surgery that wasn’t actually asked for. It seems more like they need to raise the bar on training regarding trans care, not raise the bar on who’s eligible for trans care.

What is your view of the following statement:

A 2011 study found that after sex reassignment surgery, more than 300 Swedish transsexuals faced a higher risk for mortality, suicide ideation, and psychiatric issues compared to the rest of the population. The researchers concluded, “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.”

That it’s taken out of context, has been frequently taken out of context, and one of the individuals behind the study wishes it wasn’t taken out of context:

“People who misuse the study always omit the fact that the study clearly states that it is not an evaluation of gender dysphoria treatment. If we look at the literature, we find that several recent studies conclude that WPATH Standards of Care compliant treatment decrease gender dysphoria and improves mental health.”

http://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm

Do you have a comment with regards to the differences between dysphoria and transsexualism?

The former is the currently accepted term for discussing the distress that comes from a gender identity incongruent with their assigned sex, and the other is an outdated term (though some trans people still identify by it) that’s used sparingly at best.

Further, what might be the proper reaction to the following:

The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.

Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth of patients regret changing sex. A 1998 review by the Research and Development Directorate of the NHS Executive found attempted suicide rates of up to 18% noted in some medical studies of gender reassignment.

To what extent should the above be potentially discredited due to the use of 20-year old review given the likely differing views and societal pressures as compared to modern sentiments? To what extent should it be accepted given the previously quoted 2011 Swedish study?

That it’s a 20 year out of date study based on an older version of the standards of care, advances have been made since then, and that the environment a dysphoric individual lives in is just as important as the actual medical transition. Nvermind that the 2011 study is taken out of context and does not actually support these results.

To what degree might you concur with the following statements as a means of potentially further addressing the above?

Transgender psychiatrists, who assess whether patients should change sex, agree that more scientific research is needed. But Kevan Wylie, chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ working party on gender identity disorders, said that all of his patients’ lives have drastically improved following gender reassignment surgery.

Dr Wylie added that it was difficult to conduct research on the outcome of gender reassignment, or to compare its effects with alternative treatments, because transsexualism was such a “rare experience”. Urological surgeon James Bellringer, who has performed more than 200 sex changes over the past four years, claimed that trying to carry out research that involves studying a control group of transsexual patients who were denied hormones and surgery would be unethical.

Mr Bellringer, who works at the main NHS gender identity clinic at Charing Cross hospital in west London, said: “I don’t think that any research that denied transsexual patients treatment would get past an ethics committee. There’s no other treatment that works. You either have an operation or suffer a miserable life. A fifth of those who don’t get treatment commit suicide.”

Pretty much. Pretty much everyone I know has found an improved frame of mind due to transition, and my own life has become much improved since starting. Denying transition is, to a lot of us, like denying medication for any other disease.

There have been attempts made to not treat it with transition in the decades past, but transition has stayed because transition works.

Do you have any reservations with regards to the above statements?

Well, Bellringer does exaggerate with the “Operation or miserable life.” Some (a significant number) of trans people do require SRS, but the non-op community exists as well, with myself on the fence between the two.

Otherwise, nope.

Do you have any comments with regards to the following article?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/16/transition-caused-more-problems-than-it-solved

Specifically, to what extent might one consider it possible that some gender dysphoria might have a connection to a failure to feel safe in the role of one’s previous gender?

Eh. Again, it’s one story. While I can agree with and understand his reasons for detransitioning, I’d still rather not have to make the agony for myself and others worse.

How, in general, do those in the trans community view those who have chosen to de-transition?

Over-sensationalized. The reason trans people get defensive over detransitioners is because the media loves “both sides-ism,” and presenting the detransitioners as an undercurrent that the trans narrative doesn’t want you to know about. This in turn creates uncertainty and stigmatizes transition, (WHAT IF YOU REGRET IT!? is something my friends and I have hear far too often), and is often used to support more draconian gatekeeping, which forces us to present as almost a stereotype of our gender identity and might even force us to be at risk of violence. Real life experience before HRT is hated by the trans community for that reason.

Post
#1252224
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Trident said:

flametitan said:

Trident said:

That’s interesting. You see the people I know with dysphoria fall into 2 camps. There are those who accept it’s something, but they don’t think it’s right to fix it (operate) because of their beliefs? And then there are those like that friend of mine who’s still pre-op.

The former group you describe is one I’ve never seen trawling through support groups or general meeting places for trans people. Probably because of that opposition to the treatment that alleviates dysphoria.

As for your friend… I am autistic as well. That’s not a factor in how “sorted through” I am with this. Likewise, you absolutely cannot just jump on board of any sort of operation. It takes a minimum of a year on HRT before any facility capable of it will even consider seeing you. Now, there’s been debate over whether that’s too long, whether such gatekeeping is helpful at all, but the year of HRT before surgery is the standard currently. On top of that, everyone jumps to talking about whether or not someone will “regret” SRS. For the most part, it’s rare that such a thing happens, and as I said on the religion thread, for transfemme individuals it has a lot more to do with pressure from society than them actually regretting it. (It’s a more complicated instance for trans masc detransitioners)

What do you think? Is a year too long? Or not long enough? I mean you’ve been on this road for at least 5 years (if I’ve got that right)? What took the time to get from there to here? What was the aha moment for you when you figured it was time to turn thought to action?

What took me so long was not having the resources to do so until 2016, and from 2016 to 2018 was about them redirecting and gatekeeping me until I managed to get in their good graces and be allowed a prescription. Had I access to an informed consent clinic, I would have been going along this much faster.

If your friend is pretty firm it’s the right way to go, then they really should pursue it. Dysphoria becoming some other feeling of, “something’s not right,” doesn’t happen.

That’s the big problem with him. He’s not a firm type. I mean take his trying to tell his parents? 2 years running and still nope. He keeps promising himself and keeps talking himself out of it. But at the same time he’s sure he wants the operation. I keep telling him if he can’t commit to talking about it how can he commit to the full operation? It seems like a mixed view to me. It makes me worried.

Sounds to me like procrastination cause by anxiety, or something similar. I know I’ve been in those shoes. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pursue HRT or some such.

From the people I know who’ve gone through it, it starts off painful (Because their bodies are healing, so of course it’s painful) but when the pain starts to subside, it becomes normal. It’s just kind of a part of you now. It improves emotions greatly, sure, but those improved emotions become the norm, and the individual moves on with their life.

How many years has it been since they’ve made the transition on average? I mean how far past the pain are they in general?

All over the board. Usually the pain subsides after a few weeks or months, and the people I’ve talked to have varied from having just received it to going on years afterwards. That said, it’s not always that easy to find those who have been post-op for several years, as occasionally they move “past” being trans and just start living their life as their preferred gender identity without thinking about it or identifying as trans at all.

Post
#1252215
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Trident said:

That’s interesting. You see the people I know with dysphoria fall into 2 camps. There are those who accept it’s something, but they don’t think it’s right to fix it (operate) because of their beliefs? And then there are those like that friend of mine who’s still pre-op.

The former group you describe is one I’ve never seen trawling through support groups or general meeting places for trans people. Probably because of that opposition to the treatment that alleviates dysphoria.

As for your friend… I am autistic as well. That’s not a factor in how “sorted through” I am with this. Likewise, you absolutely cannot just jump on board of any sort of operation. It takes a minimum of a year on HRT before any facility capable of it will even consider seeing you. Now, there’s been debate over whether that’s too long, whether such gatekeeping is helpful at all, but the year of HRT before surgery is the standard currently. On top of that, everyone jumps to talking about whether or not someone will “regret” SRS. For the most part, it’s rare that such a thing happens, and as I said on the religion thread, for transfemme individuals it has a lot more to do with pressure from society than them actually regretting it. (It’s a more complicated instance for trans masc detransitioners)

If your friend is pretty firm it’s the right way to go, then they really should pursue it. Dysphoria becoming some other feeling of, “something’s not right,” doesn’t happen.

So I don’t really know anyone who’s gotten to the other side of the procedure. I’ve got no connection with anyone who’s a survivor 3 years on and feeling great.

I’m assuming you’ve got more of a connection with people who’ve managed to go the full way. If so? Do you generally get the same solid feedback that it was the right thing to do? Or do you get a mixed message sometimes? I mean how much of a risk do you think you’d be taking if doing an operation? Emotionally, mentally, psychologically, whatever. I guess I’m trying to figure out if this is the lesser of 2 evils? Or if it’s guaranteed happiness and easy pacing from there?

From the people I know who’ve gone through it, it starts off painful (Because their bodies are healing, so of course it’s painful) but when the pain starts to subside, it becomes normal. It’s just kind of a part of you now. It improves emotions greatly, sure, but those improved emotions become the norm, and the individual moves on with their life.

Post
#1252202
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

There’s a lot of people going on against comparing the pedophilia and SSA point, and that one I’m probably not going to touch with a hot poker until I can better wrap my mind around what my answer is. However, the first question is one I see from a lot of “opposition” to transition, and someone who might be ignorant on it might actually not realize why it’s different.

Trident said:

What’s your take on dysphoria in terms of rating its cause to be physically caused verses psychological?

I mean take apotemnophilia or xenomelia? Both of these are obviously disorders. Obviously. I mean I’d have a hard time thinking anyone anywhere really thinks that wanting to cut your own limbs off is ever gonna be accepted as normal enough to have its own parade. They’re both accepted as caused by physical breaks in the brain. They’re not even so much psychological as physical brain wiring problems.

The problem with comparing to those two is that Body integrity dysphoria (BID) has a serious lack of research behind it; by contrast, Gender dysphoria is well documented by the medical community. Transition is by no means the same as desiring to remove a limb. Ignoring that the non-op segment of the trans community exists, the worst thing srs does is sterilize you, an effect that’s not unique to it, either. It is by no means a desire to disable your body, especially when you look into how much work is put into the neo-genitals (or at least the neovagina. The neophallus is apparently still underdeveloped, hence why the majority of transmasc folk I know are non-op.)

On top of that, while there’s few studies about BID, there seems to be an indication that amputation does not cure BID. Rather, amputation temporarily relieves the patient’s feelings, before returning at some point or another. In contrast, if/when GD persists during transition, it tends to be one of two things. The first is that it overcorrects, in which case fine tuning the individual’s HRT regiment remedies it. I’ve only seen it a handful of times, and when I have, it’s usually because the individual in question identifies as non-binary.
More commonly, in my experience, is that instead that the new point of focus for dysphoria has always caused dysphoria, it just wasn’t as large a source as the others. For example, my shoulders and voice. They’ve always contributed to my dysphoria, but not to the extent that, say, growing facial hair or the lack of breasts have. Now that I’ve been on HRT for nine months, developed small chest buds, and have a proper regiment for dealing with my facial hair (though being able to afford laser and remove it permanently is a long term goal of mine), I’ve focused back on my voice dysphoria, in order to relieve that. After that, the shoulder dysphoria will remain, because there is no cure for shoulder dysphoria. If there were, I probably wouldn’t have to worry about dysphoria at all.

And as far as the, “If there was a pill that cures dysphoria, would you take it?” question… If I follow the question literally, there is such a pill. I do take it. It’s called Estradiol and an Anti-Androgen (though I might try to convince my doc to switch me from Spironolactone to Cyprotone, as I hear it gives better results with less side effects) for transfemme individuals, and Testosterone for transmasc individuals.

Following more the spirit of the question, with a “cure” that somehow eliminates dysphoria and lets one live their assigned gender, that becomes a deeply personal thing that depends on who you ask, how far along they are, and how “acceptable” transition is where they are. For myself, who’s been on this road for almost half a decade now, has access to proper transition care and has been on it for nine months with a generally accepting community… Yeah, no. I wouldn’t trade it. If someone was still trying to come to terms with it, or lives in a situation where pursuing transition might lead ostracize them at best or lead to violence at worst… I can see why they’d rather take a pill to repress those feelings.

But it doesn’t exist. The most effective cure to dysphoria is, and continues to be, transition.

As far as physical versus psychological goes, there’s some indications that the brain of a trans individual more closely matches that of a cis person of their preferred gender identity, but from what I recall, the sample had so much variance that it was hard to find a trend for “male brain,” and “female” brain at all.

Post
#1251611
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Mrebo said:

I think that’s basically right, flametitan. Journalists often flub issues that concern law, science, and other areas of specialized knowledge. Frustrating they didn’t link the memo itself. I’m no expert on Title IX but as it prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex,” but not gender, it appears that is what the fight is about. For obvious reasons, not least of which it’s not the best use of your thread, I’m not going to dwell on that. It does however bear upon my questions about people confusing what they’re talking about and getting people to understand each other and engage in productive dialogue. I’ve enjoyed your answers.

I’m glad you’ve been enjoying my answers. Sometimes I feel like I’m not quite getting my own point across as clear as I’d like, or that I might be missing something in the question, so it’s reaffirming that people are finding them informative. Likewise, I’ve enjoyed the questions so far. They’ve seem to come mostly from a place of genuine interest, rather than trying to get me to confirm or deny your own biases, or a deliberate attempt to trip me up.

In particular, yours has me thinking about it hard, as while, “Are the people in the debate talking past each other?” seems like it should have a straightforward answer, it really doesn’t. It’s more multifaceted, owing to a combination of deliberate or accidental spreading of misinformation, people reporting on it getting terminology mixed up, simple talking past one another, people being unwilling to educate others, people being unwilling to listen, etc. Probably doesn’t help that I have some obvious biases 😉

Post
#1251445
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Handman said:

I’m continuing this from the Current Events thread because I have some questions that seem better suited here.

snooker said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Current event that affects me (and the rest of the LGBTQ community) very personally.

I have read this article, which states:

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

Now, from what I’ve gathered elsewhere, and from the rest of this thread, is that gender and sex are two very different things. As such, I don’t really see how the bit quoted above is controversial, as that is what I’ve been led to believe for quite some time.

The main problem, far as I can tell, is that most laws were written before such a distinction was made, hence laws like Title IX will say that discrimination based on sex is not good, but did not make the distinction to mention gender. Have I got that right?

The article seems to be saying that the definition of sex itself is offensive, at least that’s the way it’s worded to me. Wouldn’t that be inaccurate?

Needless to say, I do think clarifying this all is necessary given how messy recent events have been, but to use it as an excuse to discriminate is abhorrent. It should be easy to see that all previous laws using “sex” should also extend to gender, seeing as they were written before there was such a distinction.

If I am misinformed, please do not hesitate to correct me. I don’t intend to be harmful, but this is how I’m currently understanding these events.

Reading the article, there seems to be an issue where it uses the terms sex and gender interchangeably, which muddies matters. Is the administration defining sex, or defining gender? The article said they were defining gender in the first two paragraphs, and then switched to saying they’re defining sex, and at least once switched back to saying they were defining gender. It could’ve used another editor, possibly one with some more experience with LGBT topics to help clarify what’s going on. That said, I think I have a rough understanding of what it’s trying to say.

The issue isn’t so much defining sex and gender as different. Canada has recently done that with C-16, though that was to make it clear that Gender identity and expression are protected concepts, rather than having to find relevant examples of case law which ruled that gender was protected by the same acts that protected sex.

Like you said, the issue is about the fact that this is an excuse to rollback protections. It would be one thing if they were doing an American equivalent of C-16, and then tighten up the definition of sex, but they’re not. They’re defining it so that they have an excuse to discriminate against trans people. They don’t intend on adding gender identity to Title IX; they want to erase that concept entirely.

Unrelated, but I’m actually kinda laughing at using chromosome tests to determine one’s sex like the administration suggests. There are a lot of problems with that, from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Klinefelter’s (XXY chromosomes), Turner Syndrome (only one X chromosome), cases where the SRY gene has been replicated on an X chromosome allowing for an XX chromosome male…

Post
#1249568
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Mrebo said:

flametitan said:

Mrebo said:

What I’ve seen of the public debate over transgender issues, one side is talking about sex while the other is talking about gender identity.

You made a remark about the difference between gender identity and gender expression and I think that goes to the point that we’re not just talking gender as that term has been generally used, but rather this compound term gender identity.

Do you agree? Do you think there’s a way to bridge the gap so people are not talking past each other?

You’re not entirely wrong about there being conflation between physical sex and gender identity; however, I feel like I’m missing something in this statement. Like, I think I get what your saying, but I can’t quite grasp it as firmly as I’d like to. Maybe some examples of what you mean might help.

As far as trying to bridge the gap so that people aren’t talking past one another, the important thing is to listen. Listen to those affected, listen to the concerns of others so that they may be properly addressed…

I hope to better grasp it myself. It seems to me that there is physical sex, there is gender, and there is gender identity. As I understand it, gender identity can manifest in any number of ways and does not depend on making physical changes nor adopting any particular gender traits. But for all of these separate concepts, we use similar or the same terminology.

As an example of what I’m getting at, today in the news is the transgender cyclist’s win. And there are many comments that the win is unfair, that males are naturally stronger, etc. On its face this denies the gender identity of an athlete. But the objectors are speaking in terms of physical sex while the cyclist and allies are speaking in terms of gender identity. Neither side wants to recognize what they other is saying, it seems to me.

First, I wouldn’t consider gender identity and gender different things, as the difference between gender and sex is that the former is about how one identifies. Rather, it would be sex, gender, and gender expression.

With that out of the way, let’s dissect the example. While I don’t know the specifics of this case, I can say this: If she’s been on hormone therapy for a significant period of time, the advantage from testosterone is more or less nuked. In fact, it’s often possible for cis women competitors to have a higher testosterone than what medical professionals lowers a trans woman’s testosterone to. This has significant effects regarding muscle to fat ratios, as well as fat distribution.

Now, it doesn’t necessarily account for bone structure that she may have been born with. It’s possible that can also provide an advantage, but to my knowledge that has more to do with weightlifting and competitions of strength, rather than cycling.

The example to me seems to be more a case of talking past each other due to one side not being properly informed of the effects of HRT, and the other side refusing to educate.

Post
#1249544
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Mrebo said:

What I’ve seen of the public debate over transgender issues, one side is talking about sex while the other is talking about gender identity.

You made a remark about the difference between gender identity and gender expression and I think that goes to the point that we’re not just talking gender as that term has been generally used, but rather this compound term gender identity.

Do you agree? Do you think there’s a way to bridge the gap so people are not talking past each other?

You’re not entirely wrong about there being conflation between physical sex and gender identity; however, I feel like I’m missing something in this statement. Like, I think I get what your saying, but I can’t quite grasp it as firmly as I’d like to. Maybe some examples of what you mean might help.

As far as trying to bridge the gap so that people aren’t talking past one another, the important thing is to listen. Listen to those affected, listen to the concerns of others so that they may be properly addressed…

Post
#1246978
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

flametitan said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Interesting. I’d need more examples to really be able to put myself in your shoes though.

What makes you think it’s not a psychological disorder? Or do you think that even if it is, the appropriate treatment is to undergo gender reassignment surgery or HRT, or alternatively, that it’s harmless enough that it’s pointless to label it as such?

OK, so, to the best of my knowledge, those who work in Psychology and Psychiatry believe that being trans in and of itself is not a disorder, but the distress that derives from it can be treated as if it were one. Indeed, the DSM-5 stresses that Gender Dysphoria is about the distress, not the fact that they identify as another gender identity. The International Classifications of Disease 11th edition, (the draft of which was released in June) will shift what it calls gender incongruence out of the mental health section, and into the section on Sexual health matters.

Thanks for the reply. It seems to me to be pretty arbitrary sometimes what is classified as a disorder and what isn’t–I recall the National Geographic article on transgenderism saying that an unusual amount of estrogen in a guy or testosterone in a woman was one cause of gender dysphoria, and other comparable biological phenomena could play a role as well. I googled the definition of “psychological disorder”, and it’s officially:

“A syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning.”

My understanding was slightly different, but the definition still seems to apply to gender dysphoria. Clearly, the level of “disturbance” is much lower, but based on your anecdote about your friend having “vivid dreams of being a mother and [waking] up crying because that can’t happen” sounds like a disturbance in behaviour. The suicide rates of transgender people (regardless of whether they’ve transitioned) is abnormally high, which is strange if it isn’t in fact a disorder, unless the suicides are due to social rejection.

What think you?

The problem is mostly in the baggage the term disorder carries, as well as where that label begins and ends.

Would some parts of being trans fall under the clinical disorder label? Yes, very specific elements do. Namely dysphoria, which is defined specifically as the resultant distress. The diagnosis was changed to Gender Dysphoria because psychologists felt it described the problems they wanted to address in clients better than the old “Gender Identity Disorder” label did. It is a matter of curing the distress, not the variant identity.

However, most people who argue whether the disorder label applies are not arguing from this stance. Instead, the argument tends to go that the gender variance itself is disordered thinking, and that transition or supporting transition is an act of enabling said disorder. This, implies, if it’s not directly stated, that the cure shouldn’t be transition, and that transition makes us feel worse instead of better.

Now, of course, the people who make that argument tend to conveniently ignore that transition does help. Is the suicide rate still higher than average? Yes, but the fact that it goes down as much as it does after transition indicates that it’s worked better than alternatives. Why is it higher? I’m not an expert, but my guesses involve lack of positive depictions in media (it’s getting a little better now, but this was definitely a factor for the generation before me and when I grew up,) The possibility of friends and family ghosting you or turning hostile, the demonization from things like recent bathroom bills, dysphoria itself, how shitty access to transition care can be…

I could go on.

TL;DR:
It used to be labelled a disorder, but changing understanding of both dysphoria and what psychiatrists are aiming to cure led to a name that they felt was more accurate. Most people who srgue that it should be labelled a disorder still tend do be doing so from bad faith and a lack of understanding of the science behind it.