Transgenderism is Bunk

[adrshepard]

This is just an article that got me thinking about it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health news/8454002/Puberty-blocker-for-childre n-considering-sex-change.html

I have never understood the fundamental premise of transgenderism. As listed on Wikipedia, the international criteria for Gender Identity Disorder (GID) are:
1. The desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment
2. The transsexual identity has been present persistently for at least two years
3. The disorder is not a symptom of another mental disorder or a chromosomal abnormality

To me, this translates to, "Anyone who can't get it through his thick skull that traditional gender roles are not set in stone."
The paradox is that transgender people supposedly feel so isolated by their failure to adhere to traditional gender roles that they identify themselves as something inbetween, a "gender-neutral" or the like, which isolates them even more. Can anyone honestly say they think someone who claims to be "gender neutral," or even more extreme, someone who gets surgery to be a transsexual, is more "normal" than a guy who happens to be sensitive and emotional or woman who, I don't know, likes cars, guns, and the color blue?

What's even more ironic is that this transgenderism seems to spring up in the cultures with the most tolerance of atypical gender traits. I mean, where are all the transgender Islamists and Chinese? Do they have a transgender underground or something?

[Camarohusky]

You ask if transgenderism is normal. Well, knowing numerous transgender people I can pretty much say there is a consensus that normality isn't necessarily their end goal. Their goal is to achieve physically what they feel emotionally, and the route through which that happens takes them down a quite unique and abnormal path.

Second, perhaps the reason you see less transgender people in socially repressive states is because they are not allowed to act physically what they feel mentally. Exactly the same way that in religiously repressive states you do not find too much religious diversity.

[Elfer]

At 4/16/11 11:05 AM, adrshepard wrote: 1. The desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment
To me, this translates to, "Anyone who can't get it through his thick skull that traditional gender roles are not set in stone."

But you're totally ignoring the physical congruency part. A transgender isn't necessarily just a guy who wants to be girly, it could be a guy who wants to be a girl. I think you're really oversimplifying the issue. Maybe you should consider talking to, I don't know, people who actually self-identify as transgender?

I think most people would agree that a lot of traditional gender roles could be broken without it being considered transgenderism.

What's even more ironic is that this transgenderism seems to spring up in the cultures with the most tolerance of atypical gender traits. I mean, where are all the transgender Islamists and Chinese? Do they have a transgender underground or something?

Probably, yes. If you're living in a culture where there are severe repercussions for exhibiting atypical gender traits, you might not want to be too vocal about it.

On the other hand, if you're in a cultural pocket where transgenderism is actually trendy, you'll tend to get some overreporting, i.e. people identifying as transgender simply because they don't agree with traditional gender roles.

[adrshepard]

I was being facetious about the whole Muslim transgender thing, but I guess I didn't make it clear.

At 4/16/11 11:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: ...physically what they feel emotionally, and the route through which that happens takes them down a quite unique and abnormal path.

Yes, but what does it mean to "feel" like the opposite sex? There are two definitions of gender at play: social conventions that can be broken, and anatomy differences which are defined. If my desire to be a woman has nothing to do with social conventions then what's behind that desire at all? Discomfort over having or not having certain sex organs? Does that turn taking a piss into a depressing event for the transgender crowd?

At 4/16/11 12:15 PM, Elfer wrote: Maybe you should consider talking to, I don't know, people who actually self-identify as transgender?

What, and get transgender cooties all over me?
I'll stick to the sterility of internet conversations, thank you very much.

[Ravariel]

At 4/16/11 01:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yes, but what does it mean to "feel" like the opposite sex? There are two definitions of gender at play: social conventions that can be broken, and anatomy differences which are defined. If my desire to be a woman has nothing to do with social conventions then what's behind that desire at all? Discomfort over having or not having certain sex organs? Does that turn taking a piss into a depressing event for the transgender crowd?

The comment that made it click for me was on another online community. The transgender girl (MtF) said that it was more than just being uncomfortable with the appearance of one's body, but a significant and pervasive level of cognitive dissonance between what she believed herself to be and the anatomy she had. No man, gay or straight, that I know of has ever had the honest desire, almost need, to carry a child. She did. Even though her surgery made her outwardly female, this is something that could not be given, and is still a source of discomfort for her.

I mean, imagine if tomorrow you woke up in a woman's body. Past the initial fun of playing with all your new parts and getting used to the new distribution of weight and muscle, how would you feel? In your mind you are you, male and of whatever orientation you might be. But now you need to live in a woman's body as your own. Would that not be pretty uncomfortable after a while. I consider myself pretty damn chill for the most part. There are very few things I can imagine that would really bother me, but having the wrong body is probably on that list.

[adrshepard]

At 4/16/11 06:04 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/16/11 01:03 PM, adrshepard wrote:

The transgender girl (MtF) said that it was more than just being uncomfortable with the appearance of one's body, but a significant and pervasive level of cognitive dissonance between what she believed herself to be and the anatomy she had.

What was the basis for believing herself to be the opposite sex? What did she feel, and how did she know gender lay at the source? My biggest issue is this: If you take away the biological gender indicators and take away the social gender traits, what's left? Some vague feeling that's asymptomatic of all other psychological ailments?

But now you need to live in a woman's body as your own. Would that not be pretty uncomfortable after a while?

I don't know. What would I have left behind in my old body that made me comfortable as a man but which I would lack as a woman? I can't think of anything, nor am I consciously aware of anything besides my own anatomy that would define me as a male.

[Camarohusky]

So to boil this thread down, this has ZERO to do with transgender people, rather with the social construction and expectations of gender?

[adrshepard]

At 4/16/11 07:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So to boil this thread down, this has ZERO to do with transgender people, rather with the social construction and expectations of gender?

No, it has to do with why some people consider themselves to be transgender and how they could come to that decision. If what I've read so far is true, social gender roles may have little or nothing to do with it, unlike what I proposed in the opening post.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/16/11 07:29 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, it has to do with why some people consider themselves to be transgender and how they could come to that decision.

But you are saying that any identification based on social gender constructs is fake as social constructs are not real. That has nothing to do with transgenderism as a specific thing, but with the social idea of gender identity.

If what I've read so far is true, social gender roles may have little or nothing to do with it, unlike what I proposed in the opening post.

That's not true either. All the example above was that the social identification isn't the only source of transgenderism, but with the numerous trans people I have met it's the social identification. It's not just a strong adoption of the opposite sex's identity in what we would cionsider to be butch for women and flaming for men, yet with a strong identity of their biological sex. Being butch is rooted in being a woman, and being flamingly gay is still rooted in ebing a man. transgenderism is a wholistic adoption of the opposite sex. This is mostly social, as other than a few cosmetic differences, being an innie in the sex dept., and carrying children, women aren't much differen than men.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 4/16/11 11:05 AM, adrshepard wrote: I have never understood the fundamental premise of transgenderism.
[...]
To me, this translates to, "Anyone who can't get it through his thick skull that traditional gender roles are not set in stone."

it's a psychiatric condition.

inside their thick skulls is where the entire conflict takes place.

What's even more ironic is that this transgenderism seems to spring up in the cultures with the most tolerance of atypical gender traits.

that's not irony, Alanis.

At 4/16/11 07:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: My biggest issue is this: If you take away the biological gender indicators and take away the social gender traits, what's left? Some vague feeling that's asymptomatic of all other psychological ailments?

why would you seek to exclude "biological gender indicators" and "social gender traits" anyway? isn't that like trying to figure out something entirely apart from the context in which it always appears?

and when you say "some vague feeling" it sounds like you're trying to downplay the entire psychological aspect of their condition. do you consider your own sexual preference to be just some vague feeling? probably not. so it seems kind of silly to suggest that the way these people perceive their very own sexual identity could be chalked-up to just some vague feeling. if you have a person whose internal inclinations are so strong that they would seriously consider and undergo hormone therapy and elective surgery -- on their genitals of all things -- then it seems rrrrrrreeeeaaalllly backwards to characterize that sort of inclination as being 'vague' in any way. it looks pretty focused if you ask me.

[Ravariel]

At 4/16/11 07:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: What was the basis for believing herself to be the opposite sex? What did she feel, and how did she know gender lay at the source? My biggest issue is this: If you take away the biological gender indicators and take away the social gender traits, what's left? Some vague feeling that's asymptomatic of all other psychological ailments?

What do you mean "basis?" What is the basis for you to feel male? Also, why would you take away either the biological or social aspects of gender identity at all? Both are present and interacting constantly to hold up a person's gender identity.

I don't know. What would I have left behind in my old body that made me comfortable as a man but which I would lack as a woman? I can't think of anything, nor am I consciously aware of anything besides my own anatomy that would define me as a male.

Really? Then I would suggest taking a few psychology, anthropology and sociology courses... not necessarily focused on gender issues, but those would work, too. I mean, have you never felt cognitive dissonance? We use the sum total of our experience to build our identity. How creepy would it be for everyone to call you "she" or "her"? Or to have to deal with the social politics that exist between members of the female gender?

And physically, especially sexually when relating to whatever gender you feel your attraction, can you even understand what it is like to be in the female position (lolpun)? Can you understand the desire to take a person inside yourself? Can you understand the feeling of wishing to carry and give birth to a child? Because all of this, and much more, are aspects of the female identity that you would have to deal with in a woman's body. That is what GDD is.

[Elfer]

At 4/16/11 01:03 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 4/16/11 12:15 PM, Elfer wrote: Maybe you should consider talking to, I don't know, people who actually self-identify as transgender?

What, and get transgender cooties all over me?
I'll stick to the sterility of internet conversations, thank you very much.

But transgenders are allowed to have internet connections now. Don't you read the papers?

[Earfetish]

If you had any other form of body image issue that required life-altering surgery, people would call it a mental illness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmor phic_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Integr ity_Identity_Disorder

If you really felt like you were a man with one arm, trapped inside a man with two arm's body, as people actually do, then we'd think you were mad. Why are the genitals different?

It's fine if they want to have gender realignment surgery or whatever but I will never be able to view it as normal and the transgendered person as totally mentally stable.

could a mod delete necronympho's previous post plz it's my gf's account

[adrshepard]

At 4/16/11 07:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

That's not true either. All the example above was that the social identification isn't the only source of transgenderism, but with the numerous trans people I have met it's the social identification.

You said that being "normal" wasn't the goal of those people. Switching your gender so your inherent characteristics match up to social standards sounds like an effort to be more normal, which makes it a choice rather than a psychological or medical condition. I'm more interested in those who say they are are actually a different sex and how they define it if not by social norms or sex organs.

It's not just a strong adoption of the opposite sex's identity in what we would cionsider to be butch for women and flaming for men, yet with a strong identity of their biological sex. Being butch is rooted in being a woman, and being flamingly gay is still rooted in ebing a man. transgenderism is a wholistic adoption of the opposite sex.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I agree that biological differences and their implications strongly influence social gender roles, but those aren't inviolable.

At 4/17/11 02:50 AM, Ravariel wrote:

What do you mean "basis?" What is the basis for you to feel male? Also, why would you take away either the biological or social aspects of gender identity at all? Both are present and interacting constantly to hold up a person's gender identity.

I don't feel male. I am male. That's my entire point. There's no particular feeling or inner sensitivity that I can look at to determine my gender.

Really?...We use the sum total of our experience to build our identity. How creepy would it be for everyone to call you "she" or "her"?

But in that case it's my past experience as a man that's causing the issue. I don't see the parallel for transgendered people because they don't haven't been of the opposite sex before.

And physically, especially sexually when relating to whatever gender you feel your attraction, can you even understand what it is like to be in the female position (lolpun)? Can you understand the desire to take a person inside yourself? Can you understand the feeling of wishing to carry and give birth to a child?

Those are all biological instincts hard-coded into our DNA. If a man were to experience those urges (specifically the child-rearing one), I'd think it had to do with a hormonal or chemical fluke in his genes or something. That wouldn't be enough to call him transgender, according to the third part of the definition I referenced in my first post.

At 4/16/11 07:59 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

why would you seek to exclude "biological gender indicators" and "social gender traits" anyway? isn't that like trying to figure out something entirely apart from the context in which it always appears?

No, because I'm looking for the thing transgenders reference that outweighs the biological and social elements and tells them they "are" a certain sex. I don't think a man who claims to be a woman because he likes womanly things and acts in a womanly way could be considered a transgendered person. The comments I'm reading on the story I linked to suggest there's more to it than that.

and when you say "some vague feeling" it sounds like you're trying to downplay the entire psychological aspect of their condition. do you consider your own sexual preference to be just some vague feeling?

Of course not. My sexual preference emerges through a biological response to stimuli. It is very real and identifiable.
That's another problem; I've never heard a compelling analogy of how transgendered people apparently feel.

[Earfetish]

like they've probably got just the same fucking brains and hormones as me. How is it not a mental disorder?

Some people think my views are offensive but I just don't fucking get it. Wear women's clothes all you like, but you kind of cross a line when you are certain you were born with the wrong genitals and in the wrong body. It's delusional, it's like a disordered mind. I might be ignorant, I dunno. I've read webpages and shit, but never met one for long enough to remember them.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/17/11 02:42 PM, adrshepard wrote: You said that being "normal" wasn't the goal of those people. Switching your gender so your inherent characteristics match up to social standards sounds like an effort to be more normal, which makes it a choice rather than a psychological or medical condition. I'm more interested in those who say they are are actually a different sex and how they define it if not by social norms or sex organs.

but the issue does seem to be the fact that they would feel more normalised if they were of another gender and fulfilling that role by either taking on the other gender's social characteristics and sometimes organs. generally, feeling unable to be comfortable with what roles and self image you were originally raised to identify with is a serious psychiatric condition.

or inability of the social to adequately integrate its members with regards to sex and gender identity and roles! screw you psychology; we takin over.

[Elfer]

Guys, the difference between a disorder and atypical behaviour is pretty much political. Arguing over that just distracts from the issue of whether or not transgenderism extend beyond rejection of typical gender roles, which was the original point of the topic.

The issue of whether or not something is "normal" or "natural" behavior is moot, as are all ham-fisted attempts to justify or reject behaviour based on biological principles. The fact is, the human brain was simply not grown in the kind of social environment that we live in today. Human life a mere five thousand years ago would be indescribably different from today. Are you in any way surprised to see that the human psyche is a little more prone to glitches in this environment?

As for never having heard a compelling analogy of how transgendered people feel, that's likely due to the fact that our language is not equipped to describe experiences for which there is little other reference. For reference, go ask someone who's used psychedelic drugs to give you an accurate understanding of their experience, and see how well they do.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 4/17/11 11:51 PM, Elfer wrote: Human life a mere five thousand years ago would be indescribably different from today.

i dunno, i think archaeologists might disagree with that.

Are you in any way surprised to see that the human psyche is a little more prone to glitches in this environment?

it almost sounds like you're suggesting that the psychological properties attributed to G.I.D. (and presumably other disor--errr, "glitches") couldn't have existed until the modern era.

[Elfer]

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that making an argument along the lines of "This behaviour doesn't make sense from an evolutionary biology standpoint!" is super flawed, because society has evolved a LOT faster than our brains have.

Not to mention that it's pretty presumptuous to say "This behaviour is hard-coded into our DNA and that behaviour isn't," seeing as there are perhaps several thousand steps between our DNA and our ultimate macroscopic actions.

[adrshepard]

At 4/18/11 12:00 PM, Elfer wrote: Not to mention that it's pretty presumptuous to say "This behaviour is hard-coded into our DNA and that behaviour isn't," seeing as there are perhaps several thousand steps between our DNA and our ultimate macroscopic actions.

I don't think so. It's not presumptious at all to say there's a vastly greater biological connection with male arousal over large breasts than using a knife and fork to eat dinner. Nothing's immutable, even genetic dispositions, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss them entirely.

[WolvenBear]

So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?

[Camarohusky]

At 4/19/11 04:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?

Because it's not a disease.

[Elfer]

At 4/19/11 04:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?

Uhh, because LGBT types tend to throw totally sweet dance parties???

[SolInvictus]

At 4/19/11 11:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/19/11 04:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?

Because it's not a disease.

are we considering those who attempt to actively take on the role of the opposite gender? they are in effect attempting to remedy what they see as a disorder, a mismatch between mind and body.

unless we're differentiating disease and disorder.

[camobch0]

I kind of identify as transgender, and a couple of people I know do as well. It's not bunk. You wouldn't know unless you felt as a transgender as well.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/19/11 12:59 PM, SolInvictus wrote: are we considering those who attempt to actively take on the role of the opposite gender? they are in effect attempting to remedy what they see as a disorder, a mismatch between mind and body.

The issue here is perspective. Transgenderism is not a disorder. Just because many believe they are in the wrong body and that thier incorrect physical is a disorder, does not make the concept a disorder. It is no different than disliking a part of your body. how many women hate their nose? How many people hate the size of their ears? How many men hate the size of their penis? If transgenderism is a disorder, then we should consider ANY view that a part of a person's body doesn't fit them as a disorder.

[WolvenBear]

At 4/19/11 11:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/19/11 04:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?

Because it's not a disease.

Well, yes, it actually is.

It is a mental disorder that one is not who they are. It requires mutilating one's body. Much like people who feel they were only supposed to be born with one leg are sick...so are these guys.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/19/11 04:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It is no different than disliking a part of your body.

didn't someone post a link about that and how it was a disorder a little earlier on?
now to keep this clear, i'm not arguing that they need therapy or some other means of forcing an identity they don't want on them, rather that they be given the ability to take on the roles and characteristics they feel are natural to them.

i.e. homosexuality isn't a problem if an individual is able to act and feel appropriate in the manner they feel they should be.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/19/11 07:20 PM, SolInvictus wrote: now to keep this clear, i'm not arguing that they need therapy or some other means of forcing an identity they don't want on them, rather that they be given the ability to take on the roles and characteristics they feel are natural to them.

I don't see how the characterization of transgenderism as a disorder or a disease helps with this at all. Disorders and diseases are problems with the body that we seek to cure or to remedy. Transgenderism is not something that we should seek to cure as there is no problem.

[Elfer]

At 4/19/11 07:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't see how the characterization of transgenderism as a disorder or a disease helps with this at all. Disorders and diseases are problems with the body that we seek to cure or to remedy. Transgenderism is not something that we should seek to cure as there is no problem.

At first I wrote a rambling post about how there is an argument that could be made against that, because the same logic usually doesn't hold true in other contexts, but I realized it's beside the point and I really just wanted to come around to a main point:

Even if transgenderism was a disorder in the technical sense, there currently exists no treatment or therapy that could really be said to improve the quality of life of a transgendered person, over simply living life with their own gender identity.

Furthermore, the existence of transgenderism does no harm to society at large. "Treating it as a disease" would do no good at best, and at worst, would probably ruin a lot of people's lives.