Transgender/transsexual testimonials

If this is in reference to “practicing” and “acting”, the funny thing is, it’s the native speakers of the same language who have different opinions of the meaning of the word. Not saying that’s a bad thing. Dictionaries can be updated. Meanings change over time, and for a writer it’s both important and interesting to observe such changes.

 

I, personally, lost all respect for Miriam Webster when they decided to include "irregardless" as a word, which it is not. Listing it as "nonstandard or humorous usage" only compounds the crime, in my book.

 

Are you cool with 'inflammable' and 'flammable'? Should we take 'inflammable' out of the dictionary as it doesn't make sense?

 

I thought 'inflammable' meant literally 'cannot be lit on fire'. It does make sense, no?

 

Unfortunately, and illogically, it means the opposite. It means easily set on fire.

 

So let me get this straight.

'inflammable' means it's easily set on fire.

'flammable' means it's easily set on fire.

...OK, take 'inflammable' out of the dictionary. >:[

 

Agreed. But let's not take this too far afield.

 

Agreed.

So.....

 

I think we already have...

 

Guys, you can't be born in the wrong body because you are your body... There's a real mental condition where the person believes themselves to be a corpse....that doesn't make that individual actually a corpse. You guys want to know what a real women is...go take a biology class. Plus if there's no such thing as a real woman, then how can anyone know that's what they want to be? Sorry but this argument is so unscientific, plus, I can already see the masses ganging up on me for holding a different view....so....bye!

 

But can a person be born with a woman's mind but a man's body? Say a person with an Xyy chromosome?

 

That's not a settled question, lewdog. There are no scientifically satisfying answers to these issues at this time. Current theories around gender and sexuality were developed and promulgated out of political necessity. Gender and sexuality studies classes in colleges are designed to train activists, not foster intellectual critique. That chart that person posted should tell you what the mindset is, the scientific explanation for their theory is that "it's what you feel in your heart".

The important thing right now is the political struggle. Do you think trans people should be persecuted? Do you think they should be helped to do whatever it is they need to do to be happy? That is the important question at this time.

 

You didn't watch the Upworthy.com video, did you?

 

This seems somewhat inconsistent with your view in the beauty/racism thread. There, you seemed to feel that women were in some part defined by things that a woman has to actively do--smooth skin, shiny hair, the clopping strutting high-heels walk, the killer outfit...

I understand that these things are more often done by people who are biologically female than people who are biologically male, but none of them are natural. Their association with people who are biologically female is a societal construct, not a natural one.

Which is where I acknowledge that I don't have a gut understanding of being transgender, because I'm not clear about how much of it is about the societal definition of male or female. I recently posted on a feminist beauty blog that I see dressing up in girly clothes as wearing a costume, playing a role--I see it as myself "playing" a woman, even though I am biologically a woman and identify as a woman.

Where does the role give way to the core identity? Is it different for every person? If we had no gender-based societal expectations whatsoever, if a man wearing bright red high heels and pearls didn't attract a second glance except maybe to admire his taste in shoes, would that have any affect whatsoever on the size of the transgender population?

 

The way I see it (I may be wrong), even if all high heels, dresses, makeup etc. vanished from the world, transgender people would still exist. Even if the women born into male bodies had to wear manly clothes, keep their hair short, grow beards, and break rocks and wrestle bulls for a living, it wouldn't change what they are inside.

And no, this isn't something scientific that can be measured with statistics and data to show how feminine a biologically male person feels inside their minds or vice versa. Then again, who here truly, honestly believes we are so advanced scientifically, that no new discoveries or advances will be made, that what can't be explained with science now, will never be explained with anything besides "what you feel in your heart"?

And there's another thing: how does this differ from things like, say, love? Or matters of taste (e.g. a taste in sexual partners)? Sure, some aspects can be explained (like the urge to reproduce etc), but there are and probably always will be parts of these issues that will go beyond things that can be measured, calculated, and filed into neat boxes.
How is it logical for two guys to fall in love in a scarcely populated, predominantly female area?
How is it logical for a lesbian couple not to want their own or adopted children?
How is it logical for a guy to be attracted to small, skinny, small-breasted, and narrow-hipped girls when their physiques alone show that the chances of having a difficult childbirth are higher than with more robust women with wide hips?

 

'Practicing' makes me cringe every time. 'Participating in the lifestyle' ugh

Here's one advice, if any of those words end up in your actual story OP, you will not convince anyone at all, except very few old fashioned people. This thread is a good example - people don't care about anything you wrote, except those few words. And rightly so. Try going to some general forums and ask there, or ask in LGBT forums/facebook groups/somewhere.

 

I don't think anyone here said that these questions are unanswerable, just that we don't have all the answers yet.

For the time being, this line may be the best thing for the trans rights movement to use in current trans-hostile conditions. I am reminded of the political necessity that lead the gay/lesbian movement to take up the line that homosexuality (and by that token, heterosexuality) were human categories and adopting the principles of sexual sectarianism in order to make their movement more equivalent to the black civil rights struggle. All quibbles aside, it worked pretty well and they have achieved enormous successes and generally positive outcomes.

 

I don't like the idea of people talking about trans* people as hypotheticals, or intrigue-items to be discussed as if "they" aren't in close enough proximity to be offended by such conversations. It's already been suggested in this thread that if people are interested in learning more about the trans* experience, to seek out particular resources and literature.

I guess this rant is mostly directed at 123.

Another offensive thing is talking about the "science" and "biology" of the matter. Homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder from the DSM not because of research, but because of real people who live real lives in the real world being outraged. There's no amount of science that will convince bigoted/ignorant/confused people that trans* people are valid human beings. You first define an identity or experience or behavior as problematic, then you look at the brain scans, then you point to the correlates, and you say "aha, there's a neurological cause to the problem." In 20 years there could be a plethora of "research" on trans* brains showing how this and that part are bigger or smaller or more or less active, then you'd say "of course there's a problem, and now we can fix it," and you would "treat" the brain problem with drugs and surgeries and all kinds of shit. Without the gay rights movement, this is how homosexuality would have continued to be framed. It was a sociocultural problem, not a biological or behavioral problem. It's similar with trans* folks. They're FOLKS like everyone else, and how they experience being human is different from how cisgender people experience being human, but it's not a problem in the sense that it's BAD and needs to be fixed for the sake of the comfort of an oppressive, transphobic culture. That's just stupid.

 

Just a fun hypothetical. If these causes were discovered and it was possible to turn off the feelings that make trans people trans, would the trans person have an obligation to continue being trans or could they choose to be happy in their assigned gender?

I'm hoping that in the future people will be able to more thoroughly modify their bodies in ways that suit their preferences and desires and that they won't be held under a moral obligation to be some predetermined "true" version of themselves.

 

Speaking as someone one has bipolar and ended up having to see to my own treatment regime... I wouldn't hold my breath. There are so many variables.

 

You are aware, of course, that people undergo surgery and take drugs right now to resolve their gender dysphoria?

 

@Tiradentes Is that not kinda stating the obvious?

I don't think that is the kind of treatment @lewislewis is referring to.

To the best of my knowledge dysphoria is treated with counselling, hormone treatment, hair removal and if necessary, surgery.

To the best of my knowledge, brain surgery doesn't come into it. That is why I likened the situation to my own experience of having a dodgy brain.

 

An obligation imposed by whom?

Also, your hypothetical about "turn(ing) off the feelings that make trans people trans" strikes me as imposing some kind of medical/pharmaceutical regime to block someone's legitimate emotional reactions to their physical state. This has already been done, starting with the use of electro-shock therapy (back in the 1950s) and continuing today in some quarters by using various aversive therapies (e.g. nausea-inducing drugs) to encourage negative emotional responses to previously pleasing stimuli. It's called reparative therapy. It is considered unethical by the medical establishment but is embraced in certain fundamentalist circles.

 

The reasons that conversion therapy is unethical is because it doesn't work and causes suffering for the patient and family. If it did work then licensed therapists would certainly practice it. You (and others here) are conflating transsexualism with homosexuality. While they are related subjects, let's not pretend that they are equivalent in their impact on everyone involved.

@obsidian_cicatrix I don't believe it's stating the obvious for lewislewis, he seems to think that the transsexual experience right now doesn't involve years of (legitimate) therapy, surgery, and drugs. Can you clarify how bipolar disorder is relevant? As far as I know that illness isn't treatable with surgery.

For what it's worth, I am epileptic and brain surgery has been brought up to me more than once by my neurologists. Since my medication is both effective and lacking in side effects I see no reason to go under the knife. If, however, that changes and my options are either surgery or some lobotomy drug like clonazepam, I might opt for the former.

 

Response taken to pm.