Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2017-10-22 03:06 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2017-10-22 03:06 pm
[ SECRET POST #3945 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3945 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 47 secrets from Secret Submission Post #565.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-10-24 12:10 am (UTC)(link)no subject
For all of those studies, there was a change in methodology between years and cohorts. As such, we can't say how much of the increase is due to increasing numbers of trans people and how much is due to the changes in methodology pre/post.
Now curiously, in the same period we've had a growing numbers of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, without the same panic that young adults are experimenting with LGB identity. If young adults are engaging in serious examination and reflection about their relationship to gender, gender roles, and sexuality, how is that a bad thing?
What I am trying to say is that when we observe a growing number of young women deciding that they are no longer women—or, if you prefer, discovering that they have always been men—maybe this is not occasion to trot out the rainbow flag; maybe it is a hint that there is something very wrong with the way that we as a culture construct womanhood.
Most people can walk and chew gum. Similarly, most people can acknowledge that there's something wrong with the way we construct womanhood (and manhood) AND acknowledge the lived experiences of trans people.
But all of this is the same arguments we had about the subject 25 years ago.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-10-24 03:00 am (UTC)(link)>>Gee, can't you figure out how to use a simple textbox?<<
Well, I appreciated your civil tone . . .
>>For all of those studies, there was a change in methodology between years and cohorts. As such, we can't say how much of the increase is due to increasing numbers of trans people and how much is due to the changes in methodology pre/post. <<
I assume you're talking about the meta-analysis by Meerwijk and Sevelius? And yet, somehow, the authors—who were aware of the methodological limitations that you keep harping on—nonetheless concluded that the trans population had indeed increased.
>>If young adults are engaging in serious examination and reflection about their relationship to gender, gender roles, and sexuality, how is that a bad thing? <<
As my mother used to say, it's all fun and games until somebody ends up on a lifetime regimen of cross-sex hormones.
Well. She didn't exactly say that. But you get the picture.
Yes, I know that not all trans people medically transition, and experimenting with gender is probably harmless in most cases, especially for teens who passingly identify as non-binary or the like. For those teenagers who do end up going down the path of medical transition, questioning gender is not a consequence-free proposition.
>>Most people can walk and chew gum. Similarly, most people can acknowledge that there's something wrong with the way we construct womanhood (and manhood) AND acknowledge the lived experiences of trans people.<<
Oh, goodness, yet another veiled slight against my intelligence? I can't wait until the gloves come off and I'm treated to the real ad hominems.
My contention is that transgenderism is inextricably linked—symptomatically rather than causally—to the many constraints and inequalities embedded in our society's construction of manhood and womanhood. If this constitutes "invalidating the lived experience of trans people," then so be it. In the end, my opinion is the product of my lived experience.
And while we're on the topic, what does it mean to "acknowledge lived experience," and where does the obligation to do so stop? For instance, if somebody (cough, cough) claims that they are several distinct individuals inhabiting a shared body, among them an "alien slash mythological being," am I required to affirm that person in their belief? Would I be out of line if I said to Rachel Dolezal "You are white, you absurd person; accept it and move on"? When are we allowed to call BS?
>>But all of this is the same arguments we had about the subject 25 years ago.<<
I'm pretty sure the discourse surrounding (trans)gender has evolved significantly in the past quarter-century. Yes, many of the new debates are variations on an old theme, but don't pretend that all this was settled twenty-five years ago.
no subject
The question is how much and why, which can't be addressed if you're comparing numbers between cohorts with different methodologies. Especially if you're declaring that 0.6% is some sort of urgent epidemic which changes everything for millions of cis women.
> Yes, I know that not all trans people medically transition, and experimenting with gender is probably harmless in most cases, especially for teens who passingly identify as non-binary or the like. For those teenagers who do end up going down the path of medical transition, questioning gender is not a consequence-free proposition.
I thought the topic under debate was people who don't medically transition for a variety of reasons. Again, I'll point out that one doesn't get on the path through medical transition without constantly questioning (and being questioned) about whether one really needs medical transition to resolve dysphoria. It's a process that involves a much higher level of gatekeeping than most other medical processes. I tend to favor a reasonable level of evaluation before hormone treatment, along with constant check-ins. But I suspect neither of us are qualified to dictate that standard of care.
Just as a point of anecdata, my relationship with my current therapist is six months in, and we've not even started talking about a potential transition plan, although being nonbinary puts that off the usual map.
> Oh, goodness, yet another veiled slight against my intelligence? I can't wait until the gloves come off and I'm treated to the real ad hominems.
No, it's a rejection of a 40-year-old false dichotomy that supporting trans people and challenging the cultural construction of gender are competitive or mutually exclusive. It is a metaphor for exploring multiple dimensions of the problem.
> My contention is that transgenderism is inextricably linked—symptomatically rather than causally—to the many constraints and inequalities embedded in our society's construction of manhood and womanhood. If this constitutes "invalidating the lived experience of trans people," then so be it. In the end, my opinion is the product of my lived experience.
Well sure. So are the ways in which schizophrenia, depression, and PTSD are experienced cross-culturally. While we acknowledge that all of the above can be symptomatic of things like rape culture, we really don't ask survivors with PTSD to repeatedly question our own understanding of symptoms or treatment until rape culture is abolished.
At the end of the day, we're stuck with the same problem. People are expected to perform gender as men or women. Failing to perform that culturally-assigned gender results in different forms of violence. Many trans people experience significant psychological distress, from the violence, the daily work required to minimize that violence, and the simple act of putting on an act through daily life. Which I'll point out are some of the same reasons why living in the closet as LGB is, generally speaking, about as harmful to your health as chain smoking.
While we can imagine a post-gender future where those roles, the violence, and the problems of passing are nonexistent, I don't expect to live long enough to experience it. We can debate the cultural construction of gender until the cows come home. It doesn't pay my medical bills as a bi and trans survivor of rape and intimate partner violence. It doesn't make it safe for me to get through a working day unless I put on a costume and put on an act to pass.
The huge problem I have with "gender-critical" feminism is that it doesn't seem to have any kind of a praxis beyond JAQing off (just asking questions) around trans people.
> And while we're on the topic, what does it mean to "acknowledge lived experience," and where does the obligation to do so stop?
Acknowledging that a trans person 1) likely experiences dysphoria or distress 2) probably has engaged in a fair bit of reflection before identifying as trans 3) has reasonable concerns about violence or discrimination, and 4) as a right to seek support on their own terms. Beyond that, trans lives are really none of your business. If you're not involved in a therapeutic relationship with a trans person, it's not your job to evaluate them.
All of the above are substantially supported by the research regarding trans people. The slippery slope to otherkin and Dolezal can be rejected out of hand, and doesn't need to be further addressed. That said, tearing down an otherkin's self-image isn't a battle I'm interested in fighting.
> I'm pretty sure the discourse surrounding (trans)gender has evolved significantly in the past quarter-century.
Most of your arguments have not.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-10-24 09:00 am (UTC)(link)If you happen to be a lesbian, I assure you you're seeing a trans prevalence rate of much higher than 0.6%. Some communities are more immediately affected than others.
>>Well sure. So are the ways in which schizophrenia, depression, and PTSD are experienced cross-culturally. While we acknowledge that all of the above can be symptomatic of things like rape culture, we really don't ask survivors with PTSD to repeatedly question our own understanding of symptoms or treatment until rape culture is abolished.<<
But we also don't celebrate depression, schizophrenia, and PTSD as desirable outcomes.
If transition is truly the only way for someone to alleviate their psychological distress, then I take no issue with it. But I think in at least some cases, the distress experienced by transgender people is a free-floating unhappiness—perhaps originating from issues with sexuality and sex-role constraints, perhaps not—that has been channeled into the diagnosis du jour. (This is in some ways comparable to the sudden spike in DID diagnoses a few decades back.) The culturally constructed nature of transness is in some ways a moot point—if someone's in pain, they're in pain—but I take issue with narratives of transness that insist that it is an innate, inborn fixture of the self.
>>It doesn't pay my medical bills as a bi and trans survivor of rape and intimate partner violence. It doesn't make it safe for me to get through a working day unless I put on a costume and put on an act to pass.<<
And who do you think is paying my medical bills as a lesbian survivor of childhood abuse? If there is free insurance that is available only to non-trans people, nobody bothered to tell me about it. The healthcare situation in this country (I am assuming you are American) hurts all of us.
And do you think I am out of the closet at work? That I am my most authentic self at the office? Hell no. I put on makeup and do my hair and wear gender-conforming clothes. Only a few close friends at work know that I am not straight.
I'm not saying that all of this isn't unfair and awful, or that your situation isn't worse than mine, but you are not the only one who can bang the "woe is me" drum.
>>The huge problem I have with "gender-critical" feminism is that it doesn't seem to have any kind of a praxis beyond JAQing off (just asking questions) around trans people.<<
I acknowledge that this is a fair criticism. But I'll take JAQing off over the inane sanctimony of the SJWs who, at their most inanely sanctimonious, insist that biology is a cultural construct and gender an absolute truth. (Credit where credit is due: I think you take a much more thoughtful position than this.)
>>Acknowledging that a trans person 1) likely experiences dysphoria or distress 2) probably has engaged in a fair bit of reflection before identifying as trans 3) has reasonable concerns about violence or discrimination, and 4) as a right to seek support on their own terms.<<
All of this is true and fair and I won't attempt to dispute it. I'm a little bit worried about the kind of support that trans people are likely to receive; hearsay does not leave me confident that gatekeeping is as stringent as you claim or that all trans patients are encouraged to make a serious attempt at resolving gender dysphoria before resorting to SRS or HRT. But, as you say, it's none of my business.
>>The slippery slope to otherkin and Dolezal can be rejected out of hand, and doesn't need to be further addressed.<<
"Out of hand" is very much the key phrase here. A white woman claims to be black, and we can all see that this claim is not only absurd but offensive. A straight woman claims to be a gay man, and he always has been a gay man, how dare you invalidate his identity. Okay, if you say so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>Most of your arguments have not.<<
I guess I'm stuck asking the same old questions because nobody on the other side of the debate has been able to provide a satisfactory answer.
I truly don't want trans people to suffer. If transition is the best route to happiness for you or anyone else, then that route should be open. But over the past few years, I have come to strongly suspect that transgenderism—both as a personal identity and as a political/cultural movement—manufactures a fair proportion of the unhappiness that it purports to alleviate.
no subject
I'm not presenting "woe is me," I'm calling for action. Throughout this discussion you've treated the need to repeatedly ask vague questions about the depth of our self-analysis as more important than the realities of health care access, violence, discrimination, and support. There are organizations to support, community centers to build, and congresscritters to call on all of those issues. I have minimal patience for flavors of SJWism which say, "I truly don't want trans people to suffer," but do nothing but throw skepticism at our labor from the sidelines.
> I guess I'm stuck asking the same old questions because nobody on the other side of the debate has been able to provide a satisfactory answer.
You've been given extremely detailed answers. You're not satisfied because they add up to "none of your business," and you apparently don't like being told that.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-10-24 01:37 pm (UTC)(link)Mmhmm. Pure coincidence that your call to action takes the form of a recitation of personal difficulties.
>>Throughout this discussion you've treated the need to repeatedly ask vague questions about the depth of our self-analysis as more important than the realities of health care access, violence, discrimination, and support.<<
Look, we're both playing a round of "someone is wrong on the internet." Your participation in this discussion is not doing anything more to alter institutional realities than mine is.
When you say "healthcare access," I assume you mean access to HRT and SRS. It probably won't surprise you to learn that I'm not fully on board with this. I acknowledge that medical transition can alleviate severe cases of dysphoria, but then, amputating healthy limbs can alleviate severe cases of BIID.
>>There are organizations to support, community centers to build, and congresscritters to call on all of those issues.<<
Then get out and do that. Godspeed. I call my congresspeople every week; do you?
In principle, I support trans activism inasmuch as it works to protect trans people from discrimination and violence. What I don't support is relaxing gatekeeping practices, making medical transition available to minors, or encouraging disaffected young people (especially LGB youth) to seek refuge in an identity that sets them up for a lifetime battle with their own biology. Since I see no practical way to support the good without the bad, apart from lobbying for very specific legislation, I wash my hands of the whole matter.
>>You've been given extremely detailed answers. You're not satisfied because they add up to "none of your business," and you apparently don't like being told that.<<
Fair enough; I'll leave you alone to do your thing. At this point, we really are just rehashing well-worn arguments. You are familiar with my position and unpersuaded by it; I am equally familiar with yours, and equally unpersuaded. Whoever you are, wherever you are, I think your gender politics are highly fashionable, moderately harmful nonsense, but you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful person, and I hope you're doing well.
no subject
> When you say "healthcare access," I assume you mean access to HRT and SRS.
No, I mean healthcare access since trans people also face systemic discrimination in healthcare including primary care, nursing, specialized care, and long-term care. Healthcare will include treatment for dysphoria as well (if desired and needed). What that treatment might entail is none of your business, (or mine for that matter) but should be available according to best practices and standards of care.
> In principle, I support trans activism inasmuch as it works to protect trans people from discrimination and violence. What I don't support is relaxing gatekeeping practices, making medical transition available to minors, or encouraging disaffected young people (especially LGB youth) to seek refuge in an identity that sets them up for a lifetime battle with their own biology. Since I see no practical way to support the good without the bad, apart from lobbying for very specific legislation, I wash my hands of the whole matter.
First, I think you're picking three positions that are a matter of debate within the trans community. (Just to bang down the list, 1. I support a high degree of counseling before medical transition to decide whether it's really necessary. 2. I don't think minors should medically transition, and 3. I think we need feminine and butch LGB role models alongside trans role models, because that's so much easier for many people.)
Second, you don't need to agree with any of them to support:
1. anti-bullying measures in public schools
2. trans-inclusive ENDA and employment policies
3. community meeting space and counseling services
4. welcoming congregations
5. educating health care providers on LGBTQ issues
6. support for people escaping familial and intimate partner violence.
(And yes, I do work in some of those areas.)
Maybe it's because I'm past 45, but I see more trans people who identify as trans after a full lifetime of trying to make everything else available work, and I still don't buy the idea that trans is "trendy" outside of a few bubbles of minimal economic or cultural influence.
> I'm agnostic on brain sex (and, by extension, brain gender and brain sexual orientation).
I'm an open skeptic in such simplistic terms. Unless you're taking a position of religious or Cartesian dualism, everything is "brain organization" including socialization. That said, to the best of our knowledge, human beings are a bi-modal population on many measures, that's often correlated with sex (with wide variance), and not all of that variance can be attributed to socialization. Also, attempting to coerce, teach, or psychoanalyze young LGBTQ people into a gender-normative sexuality or gender-normative behavior is a proven failure that just creates neurotic LGBTQ adults.
no subject
I don't think we should celebrate dysphoria. But we do celebrate many of the factors that put one at high risk of those things due to cultural oppression, like womanhood, and visible queerness. And why not? No one else will.
I have two nephews born days apart. One, from a very young age, expressed a very strong preference for baseball, toy automobiles, and legos. The other is constantly coded as feminine, has a lifelong passion for arts, loves getting manicures, and talks about fashion.
The current state of our culture is that baseball nephew gets showered with celebration every time he takes a swing at the ball. As for art nephew, I honestly fear for his continued health and safety as he navigates Middle and High School. Those were spaces where I got bashed as queer before I even understood what that meant.
It's really unclear whether the argument on the table is that visibly queer people shouldn't be celebrated, or they should only be celebrated as long as we pass an ideological gender-critical litmus test on how we interpret our queerness.
I also find it inconsistent to say that sexual orientation is (in part) influenced by pre-lingual and possibly pre-natal biological affordances and constraints, (yes, I'm getting technical there because I do have a background in both biology and psychology and precision is important) but gender is entirely a blank slate. It is, frankly, a model that's counter-indicated by most of the evidence on developmental biology.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-10-24 01:51 pm (UTC)(link)I'm agnostic on brain sex (and, by extension, brain gender and brain sexual orientation). I assume you're familiar with Rebecca Jordan-Young, Cordelia Fine, and the other major brain sex skeptics, so I won't rehash their arguments. I do admit that there is some decent if not overwhelmingly compelling evidence for some formulations of brain organization hypothesis, although I frankly wish that there weren't. Appeals to sex-differentiated neuroanatomy can legitimize gayness and transness, but they also legitimize sex-based oppression. (See also: James Damore.)