Poor_pup_no_balls (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:56 pm I've been reading on reddit, and this surprised me, trans folks and asexuals, and non binary people angry that they want to add MtE standards of care, stating that it delegitimizes their movements. Obviously not everyone feels this way but I was still surprised and saddened.

I

JesusA (imported) wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:30 pm expect that there will be a number of

comments on the WPATH site trying to get the eunuch chapter removed. It's important for those who support having eunuchs covered to add their comments. They can certainly be comments suggesting changes and improvements, but supporting the concept of having the eunuch chapter is important if it is to be included.

Poor_pup_no_balls (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:56 pm I've been reading on reddit, and this surprised me, trans folks and asexuals, and non binary people angry that they want to add MtE standards of care, stating that it delegitimizes their movements. Obviously not everyone feels this way but I was still surprised and saddened.

I'm assuming you're talking about this Reddit thread, (https://www.reddit.com/r/Transmedical/c ... of_care_8/) yes?

As I understand it, non-binary should be as supportive of those here, as we should be of them. Both eunuch and non-binary are NEW chapters, neither is yet adopted. I saw at least two posts in there complaining about "waiting lists getting longer..." and their being upset that others don't have to wait as long for hormones, or present in their desired gender role for at least a year. Um... The hormone issue is addressed in the proposed SOC for eunuchs, and as far as a real life test, instead of bitching about it, how about they make a proposal for what would make this equitable if they view as not? I'm willing to hear them out.

The person who started that Reddit thread is terrified? Of what exactly? I'm not sure that we exist is any more or less valid than their existence. As near as I can tell in there, it's a bunch of needless whining about nothing. Our receiving validation doesn't make them less validated. This isn't a damn pie, for gosh sake!

All I'm getting out of it is that for a long time I've felt everyone seems to have this need to have a group to hate on, and for the folks in that thread it's us. Put another way, they'll demand we be supportive of them, but the folks in that thread certainly seem to have no desire to be supportive of us.

I

JesusA (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:25 pm 98600]
expect that there will be a number of

comments on the WPATH site trying to get the eunuch chapter removed. It's important for those who support having eunuchs covered to add their comments. They can certainly be comments suggesting changes and improvements, but supporting the concept of having th
[/quote]
e eunuch chapter is important if it is to be included.

And that's the one that terrifies me. After all this "Yay, there's an SOC being written for us..." and then getting crickets out of our very own community, is concerning.

Please go and make your comments as Jesus suggests. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT if the SOC for folks like us is to be adopted. Then come here and please let us know you've done so. You don't have to say what you wrote, unless you wish to, but it would be good to know folks are at least reading it.

I've answered the survey -- in firm support, naturally.

Wrt the linked reddit thread, it seems to me that they are utterly ignorant. The posters there seem to live in a very binary, very Stepford world... their awareness of eunuchs having come from two minutes on Google, perhaps a painting by Delacroix and so on. There is also sometimes a tone I detect of some trans women wishing to ontologically fix orchidectomy as feminising by definition, whereas our way within the eunuch community is to see it as neutral/ambivalent pending the definition of each individual.

It may well be (to add to what I said in the survey as I forgot to say this) that the chapter would benefit from explaining that the term eunuch is used as a reclaimed term, and that aspects of the historical past are acknowledged but not reflective of the present. The word is used because it is the word that is understood in the broadest terms by the most people in the English-speaking world.

I can understand how evoking the eunuch past could be alarming to some trans binary folk who have been under fire from transphobes who have drawn on deep-seated fears of abduction and mutilation, often racially inflected. This is mostly around the topic of gender affirming care for minors.

A way of making the point that needs to be made in a neat way might be to acknowledge that people's experiences in the past have often been non-consensual, and to assert how this supports a self-ID, individual and respectful approach to linking gender with the bodily configurations people have and desire to have. Celebration of diversity is anti-stigma, non-judgemental and non-pigeonholing.

Losethem (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:21 pm And that's the one that terrifies me. After all this "Yay, there's an SOC being written for us..." and then getting crickets out of our very own community, is concerning.

Please go and make your comments as Jesus suggests. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT if the SOC for folks like us is to be adopted. Then come here and please let us know you've done so. You don't have to say what you wrote, unless you wish to, but it would be good to know folks are at least reading it.

I posted, obviously in support.

Losethem (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:16 pm I'm assuming you're talking about this Reddit thread,

yes?

Note that transmeds are long known for their hateful and dismissive attitudes towards nonbinary people and anyone else who deviates from their narrowly gatekept view of a "real" medically-approved binary transgender person. I have also seen much hate from the terfs for our chapter. Together they have motivated me to make a submission, and I will report back if I actually do so.

I read the MtoE chapter and commented also in the affirmative. It's about time.

I made my submission on the Eunuch chapter overall:

This chapter is much appreciated and long overdue. I congratulate the authors on their comprehensive treatment of this invisible and under-served gender identity.

The term "eunuch" carries cultural and historical baggage and is used as a pejorative. Prior to contemporary understanding of nonbinary transgender identities, this community reappropriated the term "eunuch" and continues to use it. The eunuch community remains invisible and misunderstood. Nevertheless, gender-dysphoric males who seek to eliminate their sex characteristics meet any sensible definition of a transgender identity. Many eunuchs also understand their gender identity in terms of a nonbinary transgender identity, and some, including myself, have been able to access professional transgender heath care via this route. However, as noted in this chapter, eunuch is a gender identity in its own right and lack of awareness limits access to health care and leads to harm and legal consequences. For example, this court case from Queensland reported by Australia's national broadcaster in July 2021:

"Brisbane man who filmed himself performing 'backyard' castrations gets suspended sentence"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-16/ ... /100298996

Of particular note: "Judge Jones told the court the two men involved had provided "positive" victim impact statements, with one saying the procedure had been a "great benefit to his health and wellbeing". Judge Jones read victim impact statements to the court. "I am eternally grateful to Ryan for enabling me to enjoy life," he read. Judge Jones said the younger man had wanted all of his sexual organs removed ever since he was a child because he "wanted to be a eunuch"."

This chapter aims to reduce the harm suffered by desperate gender dysphoric eunuch-identified people who have not been able to access professional transgender heath care. I thank the authors and commend this chapter to the WPATH membership.

There are only four days left to make comments on the chapter. I hope that more EA members have made comments than have posted here. There are attempts both on Reddit and Twitter to push people to make negative comment in an attempt to get the eunuch chapter removed from the Standards of Care. If you want the chapter to appear, make your support known.

I have written, and encouraged others to write. I am not surprised to read of a negative effort. Only our own actions can encourage a positive outcome.