While there are obvious reasons not to suggest medical procedures as integral to social transitions, I think it's important not to downplay medical, physiological transition. While your transition may be as simple as a change in pronouns, most trans people have serious cosmetic problems that require treatment. Not all cosmetic considerations are frivolous. What of those of us who are maimed? Looks are important for any career of importance, and I'm not letting my hyper-masculine characteristics stay. Why would I want to keep a blaring reminder of my own past internalized transphobia all over me? Part of transition is to get society's mitts off of my body. Part of being the real me includes changing some in body. It's not a side thing- It's integral, and your experience is an exception to the norm, far from what most people actually need.

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:26 pm While there are obvious reasons not to suggest medical procedures as integral to social transitions, I think it's important not to downplay medical, physiological transition. While your transition may be as simple as a change in pronouns, most trans people have serious cosmetic problems that require treatment. Not all cosmetic considerations are frivolous. What of those of us who are maimed? Looks are important for any career of importance, and I'm not letting my hyper-masculine characteristics stay. Why would I want to keep a blaring reminder of my own past internalized transphobia all over me? Part of transition is to get society's mitts off of my body. Part of being the real me includes changing some in body. It's not a side thing- It's integral, and your experience is an exception to the norm, far from what most people actually need.

But it doesn't change the fact that it is a prerequisite of transitioning, or of being who one is. EVEN if most trans people need it, the actual need for physical transformation still isn't, or shouldn't be, a condition needed to be considered trans or to transition. That and that alone is still due to body dysmorphia in most cases. Even in an ideal society where people don't care about the looks many a trans person would STILL feel the need for physical transformation.

Body dysmorphia is body dysmorphia it should NOT be confused as being part and parcel of being transgendered. It's not fair to say it is, and then marginalise those who are trans but who're lucky enough not to suffer such a deep degree of it.

As for those who get it as a way of "escaping" society's judgement, well that might still be important in this day and age, but were it an ideal society we live in, they might choose differently, so we can't say that physical transformation is a function of being trans, but rather a function of the way society is. As such, it STILL should not be a criteria since it's dependent on a variable function, whereas it is only logical and prudent to mark out criterias of transgenderism dependent on static functions, meaning regardless of the environment, the choice is one that still stays the same.

What I am trying to do here is NOT downplay medical and physical transition. I am trying to delineate it from transitioning and identity itself. Even if looks are important for career now, it's still dependent on a variable function of society. It can be argued that in an enlightened society, where looks no longer matter, the number of people who choose physical augumentation would quite probably go down. It makes no sense that in such a society people who don't need or want physical and medical changes they would be considered transgendered but in a less enlightened society, they suddenly would not be considered transgendered despite being the same people in both cases. There is NO reason for the criteria for being transgendered including wanting physical transformation just because society was superficial. That is a personal decision for an individual to make, and is as much an indication of being trans as wanting a boob job decides if (cis)women are women. Because if this is the case we might as well start adding new criterias based on ridiculous variables to decide identity: Men must love football to be men, white people must be racists to be white, orientals should be working in oriental takeaways to be considered oriental, tall people must all play basketball to be considered tall, black people must all have afros to be considered black, women must all love shopping to be women, short people must all be aggressive to be considered short.... can we think of anymore ridiculous variable-based examples to use as criterias of identity? My point is, even if a lot of these decisions are the norm for the majority of the identity group they're linked to, it does not make it a criteria. Neither does wanting physical or medical changes make it a criteria of being trans.

So no, I understand what you are saying. It is important yes. Here's another point to consider: I myself has always argued for a demedicalisation not only because it benefits those who don't need medicalisation, but it ALSO benefits those who do: the less demand there is for medicalisation because it isn't a "must" to be recognised for who you are, the more it is available to those who do need it due to body dysmorphia and those who really need it as a crutch for fitting into society.

I'd also like to point out one more thing: If transgenderism wasn't so medicalised, you would be getting the treatment as befits you individually, rather than what the doctors think you need based on what they were taught about gender. You would not need to strike out on your own and self-medicate and take the personal health risks that you are taking now. Because if transgenderism is demedicalised, you are being treated for what you are and need, and not being treated to a set of criteria that is the closest thing to fitting you, but doesn't actually fit. Don't you see that by delineating physical/medical and transitioning itself, it can only improve things?

Considering I've grown small B-cup breasts on a 6'2" masculine frame over the last two years, what do you think most cosmetic surgeons would say to my request for breast augmentation? I'd be willing to bet the cost of the elective surgery they'd decline to provide augmentation to me, despite my having the same desires, wants, and needs of a genetic female. Instead, they'd all strongly recommend surgery to remove the "gynecomastia" I currently experience. Equality my ridiculously tiny ass.

Caith721 (imported) wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:16 pm Considering I've grown small B-cup breasts on a 6'2" masculine frame over the last two years, what do you think most cosmetic surgeons would say to my request for breast augmentation? I'd be willing to bet the cost of the elective surgery they'd decline to provide augmentation to me, despite my having the same desires, wants, and needs of a genetic female. Instead, they'd all strongly recommend surgery to remove the "gynecomastia" I currently experience. Equality my ridiculously tiny ass.

cosmetic surgeons? aren't they willing to do whatever you want if the price is right?

a guy (true story) years ago went and got a boob job to win a bet. he wasn't trans, he was just a guy who loved a bet.

It wasn't my intention to imply physiological change="more trans". I was simply hoping you weren't holding yourself up as an ideal to shoot for, because it's not just your headspace that is ideal, but your body too. It's important to point out that dysphoria is predictable in trans people and treatment for it is medically necessary, even in a utopic society. There are too many people who think transsexualism is "not necessary" or is some sort of elective luxury. That's what I was getting at.

As for plastic surgeons, I wouldn't depend on them to be one way or another in terms of what they're willing to do. I know most plastic surgeons are profiteering weirdos, but I also know that there are plenty who take their work seriously. As for whether those who are for real respect trans people? Good question.

One thing I dislike is the cis-centric view of physical transition. It always winds up requiring vaginoplasty for trans women to get a few of their basic civil rights. Not only is this extremely classist considering the surgery costs 25k, but it's also needlessly phallocentric (no one who cares is going to see my genitals), ignores the fact that the surgery is real surgery with real risks specific to it, ignores the needs and wants of any actual trans people, and defends itself using the false backing of "biological" "sex". Yes, I put both terms in scare quotes.

When I went to a trans youth convention a year ago, there were nursing students there as one of the three groups: youth, caretakers, and nursing students. One asked of me when a trans person stopped being considered trans. I told her that a trans man is a man, the same way a black man is always a man.

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:03 pm It wasn't my intention to imply physiological change="more trans". I was simply hoping you weren't holding yourself up as an ideal to shoot for, because it's not just your headspace that is ideal, but your body too. It's important to point out that dysphoria is predictable in trans people and treatment for it is medically necessary, even in a utopic society. There are too many people who think transsexualism is "not necessary" or is some sort of elective luxury. That's what I was getting at.

As for plastic surgeons, I wouldn't depend on them to be one way or another in terms of what they're willing to do. I know most plastic surgeons are profiteering weirdos, but I also know that there are plenty who take their work seriously. As for whether those who are for real respect trans people? Good question.

One thing I dislike is the cis-centric view of physical transition. It always winds up requiring vaginoplasty for trans women to get a few of their basic civil rights. Not only is this extremely classist considering the surgery costs 25k, but it's also needlessly phallocentric (no one who cares is going to see my genitals), ignores the fact that the surgery is real surgery with real risks specific to it, ignores the needs and wants of any actual trans people, and defends itself using the false backing of "biological" "sex". Yes, I put both terms in scare quotes.

When I went to a trans youth convention a year ago, there were nursing students there as one of the three groups: youth, caretakers, and nursing students. One asked of me when a trans person stopped being considered trans. I told her that a trans man is a man, the same way a black man is always a man.

But... you don't actually know me in person, how can you be sure my body is ideal? I would obviously pick the most flattering pictures of myself to put out onto the net. I, like everybody else, trans or not, have lots of physical imperfections that I greatly dislike and that does impact my self-confidence. And yet, I would still not let anything physical define who I am. Transsexualism is what I consider a "gender-sex mismatch" so yes, it certainly isn't elective. It's a condition one is born with, and a condition that one will still have even after surgery to the nth degree. And yes, dysphoria is predicatable in trans people, but my point is that to the general public and even most people who should really know better (such as other trans people themselves, psychs who specialise in gender etc), still think that a non-dysmorphic trans person isn't trans.

Trust me, I don't completely not suffer from it, I just suffer at a lesser degree. The trade-off for this good fortune of course, is that people doubt and give me new shit to go thru. I'm not sure I wouldnt have been better off being as intensely dysmorphic as most typical trans people around. Then maybe I can also be willfully ignorant and be happy, since blessed are the ignorant(who don't give a shit if they're causing others harm, as long as they are happy hey?).

There is simply NO need to make dysmorphia a COMPULSARY criteria of being transsexual, and there is simply NO need to make physical change compulsary to be who one already is. It just places unnecessary demands on those who don't need it both physically or psychologically, and it delays those who do from getting it.

Maybe the ideal that I am trying to present myself for others to aim for, isn't actually to be trans without physical change, but to be aware that medical and physical aspects should be seen for what they are: an individual's choice? If I was a cisgendered person preaching the same message would you or others still mistake what I am saying as "trans people should ideally not undergo physical transition"? Because I think many of your cannot see past the fact that I happen to look good in a few flattering pictures online and think I am blinded to the fact that many others need the physical changes to help blend into society. Surely you don't think I am that foolish?

Even when it is necessary, it is still about the individual because it is the individual who needs it, its not a "all trans needs it" thing. As I mentioned earlier, some women might need plastic surgery desperately or risk psychological harm and a lower standard of life. Yes, it is necessary, but only to the individual right? We would not infer and say that needing plastic surgery is a criteria of being a woman.... so you know what's the point I'm trying to make with that. I'm getting tired of sounding like a broken record. So here, in the most concise way possible:

Dysmorphia =/= trans.

Physical transformation =/= trans.

the current idea that dysmorphia is a criteria of being trans because most trans people have it, is like saying that since most (if not all) strawberries are red, everything red must be a strawberry.

You aren't TS. You're TG. We use the general term "trans" to be more inclusive. I already said physical transition doesn't make one "more trans". The term TS is used specifically to talk about people who physically transition their bodies, because they have different needs and social obstacles. I don't know if maybe you're just misreading me, but I don't see how making sure you don't soft sell physical transition is the same as telling you you aren't trans.

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:25 am You aren't TS. You're TG. We use the general term "trans" to be more inclusive. I already said physical transition doesn't make one "more trans". The term TS is used specifically to talk about people who physically transition their bodies, because they have different needs and social obstacles. I don't know if maybe you're just misreading me, but I don't see how making sure you don't soft sell physical transition is the same as telling you you aren't trans.

Actually I am TS. I consider TG to be an umbrella term, while TS is someone whose physical sex and gender do not match, regardless of whether they feel the need, want, do, or do not undergo physical transition. Since the gender is the primary anchor, it is the sex which is different, hence trans-sex. Yes I know the original meaning was literally "transform sex" but as we discover new things so do the original meanings of words change. That is why transgender is now an umbrella term, that includes crossdressers and people who dress up as the opposite gender for a thrill, for escape, for a fetish. TS is no longer

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:25 am used specifically to talk about people who physically transition their bodies.

And anyway if you're talking about physical changes being a must, then where do we draw the line? Tweezing eyebrows? Makeup? Changing external appearance? Some whom you would acknowledge to be TS do not go the whole hog. And what about trans men? Many choose not to have phalloplasty but most people would generally not consider them to be not TS. Even though you can say that by not taking the final step, they have physically transitioned their bodies.

So if the final step is not a prerequisite of physical transition, why should any of the other procedures be a prerequisite? If you put in some effort to physically appear as the gender you are, doesn't that sort of count as physical transition? Afterall, bodily hair may not be naturally absent, the voice may not be naturally feminine, I can name you lots of physical aspects which would require effort to transform so that they appear feminine and which may not be any less trying than hormones or breat implants. So who decides where to draw the line?

Besides I havent ruled out having any sort of surgery. But I would rather have it done as a bonus, not a must, and with the way superficiality is ruling the world at the moment, it just feels like I'm selling out if I get anything done. But as I said, you don't know me well enough, know what I want and don't want, and know the reasons and justifications behind my choices to tell me I am not TS. You're basing it solely on the superficial knowledge of my present choices, which is leading you to the incorrect conclusion that I am not TS, whether we take into account your definition of TS, or my definition of TS.

And making sure we

Tranniful (imported) wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:25 am don't soft sell physical transition is

one thing, who's making sure that we're not overselling physical transition though? Nobody.

W

punkypink (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:08 am ho's making sure that we're not overselling physical transition though? Nobody.

Absolutely nobody. The HBIGDA (now WPATH (http://www.wpath.org/)) originally based everything on the binary of male/female, rather than allowing any intermediate portion of the full transgender spectrum we now understand. While the current WPATH standards of care are definitely more flexible, many psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, and urologists only know the older either/or. It's filled with intentional test gates and requirements still put there to protect the doctors, based on the premise the doctors know better than the patients what the patients need.

HBIGDA totally SUCKS!!! When I was young it was understood that not only was one to go through extensive psychiatric counseling (at great expense) but also that a beardless person with the "M" designation who had undersized malfunctioning "testicles" needed to recieve testosterone treatments (also at great expense) in order to rule out that they were "not wanting to be female simply because they could not be male -that with a full beard and other masculine manisfestations they would feel better about being a male". What a crock of shit!!! If the balls aren't working right and even causing major periodic hormonal imbalances and occasional hot flashes then the HELL with HBGIDA or WPATH!

So a person has to live their life in limbo always at the ready to frown, talk tough, and fight when necessary, dealing with machos. So is this type of person to be classified a "trans"?