Transexual/Transgender rights

Matt Smith:

I'm less concerned with what you think constitutes a disorder but your original statement that pierrot the clown. was 'undermining the struggle of being transgendered'. I just think it came across as seriously problematic for you, as a cis person, to call out a trans person about them 'undermining the struggle of being transgendered'. He experiences the struggle of being trans every day of his life so you, as a cis person, don't need to inform him about the struggle of being trans and say he's undermining his own cause.

As stated before, I don't think him being a trans person necessarily makes him an expert on the psychological struggles and that he channels the experience of all trans people. I'm not going to censor myself simply because he's trans, nor would I censor myself in any other debate because of a particular person's background.

Pierrot the clown never used the argument that because he's trans, he is all knowing, because it's narrow and provides no evidence or logic to support what he's saying.

Kurtni:

As stated before, I don't think him being a trans person necessarily makes him an expert on the psychological struggles and that he channels the experience of all trans people. I'm not going to censor myself simply because he's trans, nor would I censor myself in any other debate because of a particular person's background.

Well, those of us who are in favour of/advocates for (I don't believe I'm worthy of claiming the term 'ally' for myself, so I don't, but you get the idea) trans rights generally recognise that when a trans person is speaking about trans experiences, we have to stop talking and listen, because our experiences come from a place of cis privilege and any attempts to silence trans people by dictating their own experiences to them is unproductive. I believe my own opinion on trans matters is is far less valid* than that of a trans person because of my cis privilege and I apply that to other cis people too.

*In before the 'you're discriminating against cis people' argument starts because no, I'm not, I'm just aware of my own privilege and I would rather listen to a trans person talk about trans issues, rather than a cis person, because they've actually experienced it.

I don't like the incredible snobbish elitism of the assumption that if you're cis, you've been brainwashed by your "cis privilege" to the point where you can't even have an opinion about anything remotely related to transsexualism (be it even a scientifically objective one) because that opinion must absolutely be wrong. It's absurd and it makes trans people sound conceited and unwilling to get out of their little trans bubble and attempt a dialogue with the outside world. Acceptance goes both ways, in order for cis people to accept trans people, the latter have to make their experiences accessible to the first instead of holding fast to them and claiming proudly that nobody can possibly know what they're going through and any attempt cis people make to discuss it is in fact an attempt to silence trans people.

kafka.:

I don't like the incredible snobbish elitism of the assumption that if you're cis, you've been brainwashed by your "cis privilege" to the point where you can't even have an opinion about anything remotely related to transsexualism (be it even a scientifically objective one) because that opinion must absolutely be wrong. It's absurd and it makes trans people sound conceited and unwilling to get out of their little trans bubble and attempt a dialogue with the outside world. Acceptance goes both ways, in order for cis people to accept trans people, the latter have to make their experiences accessible to the first instead of holding fast to them and claiming proudly that nobody can possibly know what they're going through and any attempt cis people make to discuss it is in fact an attempt to silence trans people.

Once again you're getting offended over privilege when it's really nothing to be angry about. It's just a fact of life - what I'm saying essentially boils down to the fact that you're not trans, so you haven't got the same set of experiences as a trans person and it's our privilege that separates us. We need to recognise that. If you really, genuinely thought that you know exactly the kind of oppression and suffering trans people face on an intimate personal level then I'd be a bit concerned tbh. As it stands I'm simply saying that when trans people speak about their experiences of being trans we listen to them first because we're cis people and we don't have experiences of being trans and I think they know quite a lot more about being trans than we do. It's nothing new or radical.

Think about it - and I mean really think about it - if I said no cis people could hold an opinion on trans issues ever, then what do you think I'm doing, as a cis person, in a trans rights debate thread? Hm, so I think you're being very creative with what I actually said.

^I would agree with this if what was being debated were something concerning personal experience of being trans, but the original issue seems a bit different. It's not like pierrot the clown was offering his personal experience in order to dispute that GID is a disorder (which I don't see as a valid argument anyway). I don't see why one should change his/her opinion depending on the person they're debating with.

Xsoteria:

^I would agree with this if what was being debated were something concerning personal experience of being trans, but the original issue seems a bit different. It's not like pierrot the clown was offering his personal experience in order to dispute that GID is a disorder (which I don't see as a valid argument anyway). I don't see why one should change his/her opinion depending on the person they're debating with.

It must just be me, then, but I tend to adjust my opinions quite a lot if I think the person I'm debating with knows a lot more about the subject than me.

Well I do tend to retroactively correct myself, if the person manages to convince me I'm mistaken about something, but whether something is a disorder or not seems more like an issue a doctor should know better than me, rather than someone who suffers from the alleged disorder, with all due respect. For instance, in the issue of mental disorders per se, I would give more credit to someone who studies psychology like The Doctor, rather than someone who had personal experience with it. It's the same when girls who were pregnant come into abortion thread etc.

Kurtni:

As stated before, I don't think him being a trans person necessarily makes him an expert on the psychological struggles and that he channels the experience of all trans people.

But Matt Smith never claimed that. And truth be told, I do find it a bit insulting to be told that I’m undermining the struggles trans people go through just because I’m “confident and accepting of myself,” mostly because I don’t think you have any way to know how I feel about myself and how intense my dysphoria is. Just because I can be so open about these issues on the Internet doesn’t say anything about me offline.

Quote

I'm not going to censor myself simply because he's trans, nor would I censor myself in any other debate because of a particular person's background.

No one’s asking you to censor yourself. It’s one thing to point out that your reasoning may not make a lot of sense to someone and a completely different thing to be told to keep your thoughts to yourself.
-

kafka.:

I don't like the incredible snobbish elitism of the assumption that if you're cis, you've been brainwashed by your "cis privilege" to the point where you can't even have an opinion about anything remotely related to transsexualism (be it even a scientifically objective one) because that opinion must absolutely be wrong.

The trans community isn’t an incredibly snobbish and elitist community, and I’d like to know how you reach the conclusion that someone saying cis privilege exists makes it seem that way.

Quote

Acceptance goes both ways, in order for cis people to accept trans people, the latter have to make their experiences accessible to the first instead of holding fast to them and claiming proudly that nobody can possibly know what they're going through and any attempt cis people make to discuss it is in fact an attempt to silence trans people.

Acceptance goes both ways? Do you mean cis people need to be accepted by trans people?

I don’t really see the fair and equal exchange of ideas in what you say. What you’re saying is that trans people, the oppressed minority, have the obligation to educate cis people, the privileged majority.

Why should we make our experiences accessible? You do realize that they’re extremely personal, right? If someone chooses to do so, good for them, but it’s not our obligation. Also, cis people will never fully understand what it’s like to be trans, and why would you want to? You shouldn’t feel offended when you’re told that you really can’t place yourself in a trans person’s shoes unless you’ve been there.

Not only that, but we’re not a homogeneous group. I only know what it’s like for me to be trans, I’m in no position to dictate how other trans people should feel. I will never be able to place myself in the position of a trans woman, and I can live with that. They don’t need to describe to me how incredibly uncomfortable it is for them to have people use the word “tranny” to describe conventionally unattractive women (and try to make me live it in my own skin)for me to stop using the word.
-

Xsoteria:

Well I do tend to retroactively correct myself, if the person manages to convince me I'm mistaken about something, but whether something is a disorder or not seems more like an issue a doctor should know better than me, rather than someone who suffers from the alleged disorder, with all due respect. For instance, in the issue of mental disorders per se, I would give more credit to someone who studies psychology like The Doctor, rather than someone who had personal experience with it. It's the same when girls who were pregnant come into abortion thread etc.

I know I don’t have the credibility a psychologist or psychiatrist would have, but that doesn’t make my arguments any less valid. What makes an argument invalid is having someone prove them wrong. If it helps my cause any, the debate of whether or not GID should be classified as a mental disorder not only exists in the trans community, but in the medical one, too. There are psychologists and psychiatrists who believe it isn’t, it’s not just the paranoid trans people who don’t want to be stigmatized.

Xsoteria:

Well I do tend to retroactively correct myself, if the person manages to convince me I'm mistaken about something, but whether something is a disorder or not seems more like an issue a doctor should know better than me, rather than someone who suffers from the alleged disorder, with all due respect. For instance, in the issue of mental disorders per se, I would give more credit to someone who studies psychology like The Doctor, rather than someone who had personal experience with it. It's the same when girls who were pregnant come into abortion thread etc.

Yes, but originally, I wasn't even contributing to the mental illness discussion. It's a closed issue for me. Pierrot has 'personal experience' of being trans so that's why I was so bothered by the argument that he was 'undermining the experience of being trans', an experience that none of us, as cis people, have had experience with. I value that personal experience more than I value anything else when we're discussing the trans experience, those are just my priorities.

pierrot the clown:

I know I don’t have the credibility a psychologist or psychiatrist would have, but that doesn’t make my arguments any less valid. What makes an argument invalid is having someone prove them wrong. If it helps my cause any, the debate of whether or not GID should be classified as a mental disorder not only exists in the trans community, but in the medical one, too. There are psychologists and psychiatrists who believe it isn’t, it’s not just the paranoid trans people who don’t want to be stigmatized.

Just a wee side-note: a theory can also be considered invalid if there is no way of disproving it. It's one of the stronger arguments against Freudian theory, for example, since it is highly difficult to prove or disprove. (Although Kline did start to use emprical research into oral and anal characteristics but I haven't read enough of his work to pass a judgement.)

As for trans/cis privilidge and prejudice and all that stuff: whilst the theory underlying whether GID is psychopathological or not (there is scant evidence although I do recall some occurances of "male" brains in female rats and vice versa. I shall need to look that up. Not that this implies that it is a disorder: after all, being right or left handed has a very clear alteration in the brain and cognitive function. So, if there is more evidence for this cranial structure in trans individuals, I would suggest it's just a small human difference - like handedness - that should be let be and rejected from the DSM-V) I'm still unsure to how I feel on the topic.

I mean, I have had moments where I would have preferred being male and started looking into the surgical techniques (I was put off by the hormone injections although whether this means that my trans ideas were a flight of fancy or very strong evidence to a very bad needle phobia [which, admittedly, prevented me from becoming a "proper" doctor. You need to get immunisations for Hep and stuff and I didn't really go for that.]) but does this mean that the experiences of trans and cis people are wholly unique and incomparable? It's just a point. Humans are a highly empathetic species and the idea that no one except individuals like that could possibly understand seems to be rather like the teenage outlook on life. Whether that's due to most of us being teenagey or whatever, I'm not sure.

I mean, let's see. I'm a gay depressed quasisocialistic white overweight Scottish atheist cis female. I have a phobia of needles, am a bit of a cultural snob and university educated. I've been homeless, played the SECC and pretty much been bullied for much of my life (and still get comments from strangers who feel qualified to point out the blatently obvious statement that I am a fat pie. Although, I have to admit "Jammy Dodger Arse" is an insult that makes me laugh. Maybe I'm a bit of a masochist, I don't know.)

Therein lies the rub. I would never promote myself to be absolutely knowledgable in any of those fields. Absolute knowledge is a logical fallacy. There's far too much to know. But I simply do not buy that human misery is not transferable merely because it picks at one certain area of our identity. I feel empathy and understanding towards pretty much everyone with a mental illness because I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I feel empathy with homeless people and feel like a royal shit when I can't afford to help them. I feel empathy with people who get bullied or feel darkness because of issues with themselves that they feel are insurmountable or isolating.

I feel empathy with trans people because I do. Does that make me a bad person? Is empathy unimportant or condescending? Is me being a (somewhat) cis person mean that I couldn't possibly understand the trans situation? I just don't buy that argument. I feel that the trans issue is just like any other identity issue - religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender etc - I don't think that, unless you're someone who has been utterly untouched by darkness, despair and the unbright side of life, that it means that it's impossible to understand or make fair comment.

Having differing experiences are essentially a superfical difference. The core experiences of being "oppressed" or otherwise made to feel like shit due so a characteristic or aspect of your physical, emotional or mental state then I think that there is going to be a degree of empathy and understanding.

---

On a side note, why is this in the World Section whilst the Gay Rights thread is in the Politics section?

pierrot the clown.:

I know I don’t have the credibility a psychologist or psychiatrist would have, but that doesn’t make my arguments any less valid. What makes an argument invalid is having someone prove them wrong. If it helps my cause any, the debate of whether or not GID should be classified as a mental disorder not only exists in the trans community, but in the medical one, too. There are psychologists and psychiatrists who believe it isn’t, it’s not just the paranoid trans people who don’t want to be stigmatized.

Of course it doesn't make your argument any less valid. But it doesn't make it more valid either, because I don't think that your personal experience makes you a better judge when it comes to a medical or scientific definition of whether or not GID is a (mental disorder).

If the question had anything to do with the personal experience of being trans or the social aspects of it, I would take your word for it over anyone elses.

Still, I wouldn't really try and hide my opinion or adjust it beforehand if I were to discuss it with you personally. Which is why I said what I did. I can't know for sure, but I think that you wouldn't want that either - for people to be sort of hesitant of presenting their opinion on the issue you're intimately knowledgable about, or not to be presenting it at all, or modify it for your reading pleasure. If you are in a discussion thread you are obviously trying to discuss things, or help someone change their perspective, and I don't think you can do that if you don't even know what the person is thinking in entirety.

Xsoteria:

But it doesn't make it more valid either, because I don't think that your personal experience makes you a better judge when it comes to a medical or scientific definition of whether or not GID is a (mental disorder).

Never said it made it more valid. The point I was trying to make is, this isn't a debate between psychologists/psychiatrists and trans people. People who think it should be classified as a mental disorder don't have the entire medical community behind them.

Quote

Still, I wouldn't really try and hide my opinion or adjust it beforehand if I were to discuss it with you personally. Which is why I said what I did. I can't know for sure, but I think that you wouldn't want that either - for people to be sort of hesitant of presenting their opinion on the issue you're intimately knowledgable about, or not to be presenting it at all, or modify it for your reading pleasure. If you are in a discussion thread you are obviously trying to discuss things, or help someone change their perspective, and I don't think you can do that if you don't even know what the person is thinking in entirety.

I'm not trying to censor anyone; I come into debate threads knowing that I'll find people who disagree with me and it'd be very boring to have everyone pretend they're on my side. What I'm saying is, it doesn't help much to say that you believe psychiatrists more than you believe me when discussing mental illnesses when you're not quoting any psychiatrist or pointing out what their research has led to (something that contradicts my belief).

-

The Doctor:

Therein lies the rub. I would never promote myself to be absolutely knowledgable in any of those fields.

... and I never claimed to be entirely knowledgeable on any field, either. I brought up the fact that I'm trans just once in this thread (and had to bring it up again because other people mentioned it) precisely because I don't want to make this about anyone in specific. I don't like making things personal on debates.

Quote

I feel empathy with trans people because I do. Does that make me a bad person? Is empathy unimportant or condescending? Is me being a (somewhat) cis person mean that I couldn't possibly understand the trans situation? I just don't buy that argument. I feel that the trans issue is just like any other identity issue - religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender etc - I don't think that, unless you're someone who has been utterly untouched by darkness, despair and the unbright side of life, that it means that it's impossible to understand or make fair comment.

I'm not saying cis people can't ever understand a thing about it or can't feel empathy or some kind of connection, but that's not the same as knowing exactly how it feels. We can compare the struggles of different minorities, say, black people and gay people, and realize there are many similarities, but they're not the same thing and appropriating an experience without having lived it is not always the best idea.

^I never tried to quote any psychiatrists in order to argue against you. I just said to Matt Smith, that if I were to wage opinions as more or less believable, I would take one of a psychiatrist over other people's. I also never said that I think GID is a mental disorder. I'm aware that the entirety of the medical world does not completely agree on that issue.

I think that it is a disorder, but not a mental one. The treatmant for transexuality (if one feels it's necessary) is one that treats the body, not the mind.

pierrot the clown.:

I'm not saying cis people can't ever understand a thing about it or can't feel empathy or some kind of connection, but that's not the same as knowing exactly how it feels. We can compare the struggles of different minorities, say, black people and gay people, and realize there are many similarities, but they're not the same thing and appropriating an experience without having lived it is not always the best idea.

I was just talking in general, mostly about the notion of "cis privilige" and the stuff Meg was talking about.

In regards to your first statement aimed at me (Quoting thing is l;gedl;ijegl;iegf [technical term.]), again I was just talking generally to some themes that were cropping up. I wasn't aiming at you and if it felt like that you've taken umbridge or offence then I readily apologise. I wasn't really aiming at anyone.

The only part I was aiming at you was the little aside with the notion of theories and validity. The rest was a general statement. Really sorry if I didn't make that clear

I don't know if this has to do with the rights of trans people, but I find it incredibly frustrating when people make ignorant assumptions about them.

I mean, I've friends who are FTM and identify as gay males, but you get people who are like, Doesn't that just make you a straight tomboy?

Are you kidding me?

fool's paradise:

I mean, I've friends who are FTM and identify as gay males, but you get people who are like, Doesn't that just make you a straight tomboy?

Are you kidding me?

Is something like that said out of spite or out of general misunderstanding? Some people are quite clueless on the matter of transsexuality and transgenderism, and understandably. It's often not a very talked about thing in the greater society.

I'm not condoning what they said, but some people can say hurtful things purely out of ignorance and not knowing much about the subject matter.

I just signed a petition to overturn a law in Sweden. In Sweden, if you want to legally change your gender, the government requires you to be sterilized. I can't even stomach how sick and wrong that is. (My transgendered sister just got done baby banking.)

---

My boyfriend has no experience with trans individuals and he made a few of those comments one shouldn't make, but he only made them to me and it was out of not understanding, not trying to be mean. He was concerned at one point that my sister might regret reassignment surgery because it could be 'just a phase'. But as he's been more exposed to her and what's going on, he's come to understand more of it.

It can be very difficult to know what to say when you've grown up in a cis-world with no exposure to trans individuals. I count myself very lucky that I had, fortunately, put in 2-3 years of hardcore research before my sister came out.

So this happened:

"Sec 5.2(1)(c) of the ID screening regs of Aeronautics Act: “An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents."

In other words, a good portion of the trans community won't be allowed to fly.

I don't live in Canada, so the best I can do is sign this. I know online petitions don't mean much, but...

^I don't see the point of those regulations. I mean, what was the person who wrote that thinking? I can't bring myself to believe they intentionally sat there, with their mind pointed towards inventive ways of discrimination. It's more likely to be an oversight, and a pretty big one at that. I mean they were thinking of crossdressing airplane hijackers but not of trans people.

Come on.

^I can see how it came to be. Say you have someone named Alex Saunders. It's a woman, but that's a pretty generic name. A man steals two pieces of non-photo id, her ticket, and pretends to be her. At that point, the only things telling you it's not her, is the fact that her ID says the person's supposed to be a woman, or that the person doesn't look the right age.

It's not meant to discriminate against trans people and I can't see an airline discriminating against trans people in this way. This regulation isn't new, and there hasn't been a big hubbub about it... Can you give an instance of where a trans person was kept off an airplane because of this? It's silly and feels like people are just looking for a reason to feel discriminated against.

(Also, I think most airport regulations are stupid and designed to catch stupid people trying to board airlines illegitimately.)