Non-gendered kids

[Joker]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

That's a real question.  But I think the answer is because therapy for gender dysphoria simply doesn't work in the majority of the cases.  It's not like that's a novel thought or that many trans people haven't sought out therapy prior to transitioning.  It just doesn't work.  And transitioning does.  So that became the standard of care, on the basis of what works.  

Every single trans person I have known in real life's life improved exponentially after transition.  They became so much happier and healthier.  I can't even describe how much of a difference it made for them.  

So on the basis of that, it seems a reasonable standard of care.  

Yes, my son was in therapy for years and we tried many different ones. At one point he was taking 8 pills a day just to get out of bed and barely function. Since he came out to us and started transitioning, he takes no more pills and is living like a normal college kid. The other day he spontaneously said he was really happy. I went to the bathroom and cried because there were so many times I wasn't even sure he would still be here at this age and I definitely didn't think he'd be thriving at college.

[Terabith]

Yeah, funding of scientific research and publishing issues are issues across all branches of science.  

[LMD]

The problem(s) with the kids and puberty blockers issue is that the numbers show that the majority desist (many becoming happy gay/lesbian) if they are allowed to go through natal puberty. The numbers also show that a large majority (100% in some clinics!) of kids who go on blockers, go on to cross sex hormone therapy. When we are seeing a 4000% increase in referrals to gender clinics, we owe it to those kids - both the 'true' trans and the dysphoric desistors to be cautious and to have these conversations.

Adult transitioners are looking back with the benefit of a brain that has been through it's natural puberty, we have no idea what skipping puberty and trying to induce an opposite sex puberty will have on the brain. None. With all the recent research into brain plasticity, and studies that show post transition suicide rates don't generally improve, throwing the (considerable) resources behind improving therapies for these kids, until they have the brain maturity to be able to consent, seems the wisest course of action.

There are also many female detransitioners who speak of a feminist understanding of gender vs sex being instrumental in their recovery. So I think of them and try to kindly continue to ask pertinent questions.

[EmseB]

By the way, I'm assuming this (questioning the underlying assumption that transistion, especially for kids, and especially major surgery) is the best course of action is where some posters may part ways with me. But I just can't let it lie thay $50k worth of painful surgery to make one's face pass or blocking puberty is the healthy option.

[Terabith]

But nobody here is talking about transitioning or major surgery for kids.  I certainly don't think that it would be ethical to do so.  I don't know of any clinic that does.  And I do think these are issues worth talking about, but I think that adult trans people are the ones who deserve to have more seats at the table, since they are the ones with lived experience.  

But I see a difference between surgery and blockers for minors.  I just do.  

[poppy]

47 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

These are not posts about your friend. They are posts about an ideology. 

 In any case, you are very selective in your reading.

If you were to go through my posts you would see that I have been careful to talk about dysphoria being real, treatment being neccessary for many of those with dysphoria, and that the dysphoric who transition due to their dysphoria should have the same human rights as the rest of us. That is not disturbing.

You are disturbed that plenty of people do not believe the same way you do about gender. We don't believe 'woman' is a social contruct, we don't believe in cis privilege, we don't believe that women are oppressed on the basis of gender (gender's the tool! not the cause!), we don't believe there is evidence for 1. innate gender identity and 2. that this should take precedence over sex at all tmes.

We do believe that sex is innate, forms a distinct and useful category. that girls and women have experiences that are, for the most part, very different to that of transwomen, and that the needs of the two groups are not the same. 

You are upset that some people are not full on social constructionists, basically., and that we don't really want laws written on that basis.

And that's very unreasonable. 

 

 

So first  you note there is a distance between ‘they are all liars or delused’  ’ and ‘full on social comstruction’. Then you say I’m  unreasonable for not being thrilled that many, many posters celebrate the ‘all liars or deluded’ position?   

But use the collective ‘we’ so... do you really think every poster agrees unconditionally with you ? Or any other specific poster? 

I suspect that is not the case and there actually is quite a spectrum.  You aren’t on the extreme and honestly, I’d bet I’m not either.

[moonflower]

If there's no evidence for innate gender identity separate of that which arises naturally (or is socially imposed) from sex, then what can you call a person who believes that they have an innate gender identity separate of sex (in fact, in opposition to sex) except either wrong (deluded is just an unkind word for wrong, here) or a liar?  I'm sure most cases are the former because it's not really, on the whole, all that advantageous to try to live as a sex that you are not.

I can accept that people feel compelled to live with the social markers and secondary sex characteristics of the sex they are not without agreeing that that compulsion is rational, sane, based in something objective that I must accept as valid, etc.

[LMD]

13 minutes ago, Terabith said:

But nobody here is talking about transitioning or major surgery for kids.  I certainly don't think that it would be ethical to do so.  I don't know of any clinic that does.  And I do think these are issues worth talking about, but I think that adult trans people are the ones who deserve to have more seats at the table, since they are the ones with lived experience.  

But I see a difference between surgery and blockers for minors.  I just do.  

 

There are clinics and surgeons in the US doing mastectomies on young teens.

The adults of course should have a seat at the table, and their biases should also be noted. The doctors should make evidence based decisions.

 

[Terabith]

I guess it also makes a difference how the child presents.  If I had a young child who was just gender nonconforming without verbally expressing discomfort, then I would leave things alone.  Certainly all genders can express in many different ways.  Nobody has to be manly or overtly feminine.  And I'd probably just not make a big deal about a very young child verbally expressing discomfort or desire in a transitory way.  

But if a pre-pubertal child was both gender nonconforming and verbally very persistent and consistent and adamant about their gender over a long period of time, that seems like a very different scenario than a kid who is just gender nonconforming.  Just like most things, intensity is the key, especially if it was continuing past the preschool ages and into age 8 or 10 or so.  

I certainly wouldn't put the first child on puberty blockers, but it's something I would seriously consider for the second child.  

[EmseB]

39 minutes ago, Terabith said:

But nobody here is talking about transitioning or major surgery for kids.  I certainly don't think that it would be ethical to do so.  I don't know of any clinic that does.  And I do think these are issues worth talking about, but I think that adult trans people are the ones who deserve to have more seats at the table, since they are the ones with lived experience.  

But I see a difference between surgery and blockers for minors.  I just do.  

Of course there's a difference. But I cannot imagine how blocking puberty is not a huge major deal physically, mentally, emotionally, and in ways we don't even understand. And it is already such a volatile time in a person's life. I disagree that we can just stop it without dire consequences or fundamentally changing who a person is (a person who is probably already battling some serious, serious issues)  even if we let it start again later.

[Ravin]

6 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Gender stereotypes are not the main reason that women as a group find themselves in a less powerful position than men in many cases.  Their reproductive role is the reason.  Often directly - if you have the potentiality of being pregnant, likely will be every year through your fertile years so long as you are sexually active, that is just a huge impact on the possibilities for your life and what you can do with it.    Even now when we can, at least for the present, keep families to one or two children, differences related directly to childbirth and childrearing comprise a lot of the political and social issues for women.

But in so far as gender roles exist and have existed, they almost all - I'd say all actually except I'm sure there must be an exception - come out of reproductive role.  Some of them are not really functional and can be overcome, but a fair number probably can't, as they are simply the way reproductive roles interact with culture.

 

First, pregnancy every year absent availability of birth control is not a given as a biological norm for human females. When it's seen, it's usually the result of premature weaning and/or artificial feeding of infants, which are socioculturally mediated behaviors, not biology. 

Second, even you are putting assumptions of difference on women which are not actually biologically necessary differences. Most notably: child rearing. Assuming that breastfeeding is recognized as the default for feeding infants and toddlers, the reality is that sharing all the child care duties except feeding them with other adult caregivers (father, aunts/uncles, babysitters, etc.) is preferable to piling all of it on the mother alone 24/7/365. And once a child is weaned, there is exactly zero biological reason why a mother would have to be the primary caregiver for said child over the father or other trusted adult caregivers. Through much of history, of course, that was the default because usually one pregnancy would follow another, and some kinds of work are easier to get done with a baby strapped on your back than others, including keeping an eye on small children, so that's more likely to be women's work. However, in the modern context, there is no good reason why 95% of the crap that gets thrown on women (and ditto most of the crap that gets thrown on men) in the name of "gender roles" is biologically necessary, especially in a culture where we DO have birth control, and are moving towards the expectation of gender parity in more and more aspects of society.  

[Terabith]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Of course there's a difference. But I cannot imagine how blocking puberty is not a huge major deal physically, mentally, emotionally, and in ways we don't even understand. And it is already such a volatile time in a person's life. I disagree that we can just stop it without dire consequences or fundamentally changing who a person is (a person who is probably already battling some serious, serious issues)  even if we let it start again later.

But you're okay with blocking puberty in the case of precocious puberty?

[Terabith]

I think there's also a difference between DSM IV, which to a large degree subsumed GNC kids and trans kids and DSM V, which separates those groups out, and that studies are getting better at distinguishing between the two groups.  This article seems to have some relevant information.  https://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2015to2019/2016-transsexualism.html?fbclid=IwAR1EQ5R9ESVztNEvwnnmqm7-aI2uHE3MdAKvAWes21LnxslYzvokErp_yvU

[EmseB]

9 minutes ago, Terabith said:

But you're okay with blocking puberty in the case of precocious puberty?

It would depend on the case. I think precocious puberty (and delaying puberty to when it's medically, socially, physically more "normal") is a totally different thing than blocking a body process that is occurring normally in an individual who is already experiencing distress about their body. If I had to make the choice I would be scared to death of ruining future fertility or creating a mess of hormones in the other side of choosing to block. I would have a very difficult time deciding.

But also, late onset puberty doesn't exactly make life a picnic through jr high or high school either. And with social pressures can really make one question what it means to be one sex or another. So I can't see how that would even help.

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Terabith said:

I think the issue with gender dysphoria is that once you've gone through puberty of your biological sex, "passing" as a member of the sex that you identify with becomes much more challenging.  So it becomes much harder to wait and see, because waiting and seeing and letting nature do its work has real, life long repercussions.  If you let a kid just be who they are and put them on puberty blockers, I think most people, even trans advocates, are okay with that.  But I understand where people are hesitant to just wait and see, when puberty is going to exacerbate the issue for many of the kids who do not just outgrow it, and you can't tell in advance who that will be. 

 

Well, that is the argument.  The difficulty is that there is some reason to think that puberty is actually one of the things that clears up these feelings in kids as they go through puberty and their bodies are exposed to sex hormones and the brain matures. If that is true, puberty blockers are just preventing that, which means a lifetime of medicalization for the kids.  

Apart from the fact that long term effects are still unknown - though there have been serious problems with people taking these drugs for other reasons, the idea that they are benign just isn't the case  - the drugs cause problems beyond that.  Kids that take blockers and then start cross-sex hormones will be infertile, permanently, and it also often seems to negatively affect sexual function.  So - you have an adult that "passes" but is affected in other less visible ways that are very much at the root of the sexed body.

All of those are pretty significant things to ask someone who isn't even old enough to marry legally and cannot know what it means to be a sexual adult - because by the time they are sexually maturing it is done.

[Terabith]

Just now, EmseB said:

It would depend on the case. I think precocious puberty (and delaying puberty to when it's medically, socially, physically more "normal") is a totally different thing than blocking a body process that is occurring normally in an individual who is already experiencing distress about their body. If I had to make the choice I would be scared to death of ruining future fertility or creating a mess of hormones in the other side of choosing to block. I would have a very difficult time deciding.

But also, late onset puberty doesn't exactly make life a picnic through jr high or high school either. And with social pressures can really make one question what it means to be one sex or another. So I can't see how that would even help.

The science is pretty clear that precocious puberty is worse on girls and delayed puberty is worse on boys.  

[Ravin]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I am pretty sure somewhere I saw a study that said transition doesn't have a long term effect on suicidality ? (It does have a positive effect short to mid term)

 That isn't to say that transition isn't a healthy choice for some people. It absolutely is. Is it good for everyone with gender incongruent feelings ? I think the jury is still out on that one. It's definitely not good for people who would otherwise have resolved their dysphoria, if left to progress through a natural puberty, by adulthood. 

I don't disagree that transition is a reasonable standard of care for adults, or nearly adults. Especially when those people have been through a diagnostic process, and received therapy, and are giving consent as fully informed as science and medical research permits. We don't have a lot to offer people otherwise. 

 

The biggest suicidality risk factors for trans people are lack of social acceptance and support.

Quote

Large effect sizes were observed for this controlled analysis of intervenable factors, suggesting that interventions to increase social inclusion and access to medical transition, and to reduce transphobia, have the potential to contribute to substantial reductions in the extremely high prevalences of suicide ideation and attempts within trans populations. Such interventions at the population level may require policy change.

Conclusions from this study:  https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2

Quote

Medical, mental health, and social service providers should address depression, substance abuse, and forced sex in an attempt to reduce suicidal behaviors among transgender persons. In addition, increasing societal acceptance of the transgender community and decreasing gender-based prejudice may help prevent suicide in this highly stigmatized population.

From the abstract of this study: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v51n03_04

This study identifies stigma, both internalized and societal, as significant risk factors for suicide in transgender adults: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08964289.2015.1028322

This study shows that gender affirmation results in lower suicidality in transgender women: http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2016-21290-001

Quote

Self-esteem at the individual level, healthy relationships with parents and peers at the relationship-level, and gay-straight alliances at the community level emerged as protective factors across multiple studies. 

From this review regarding protective factors against suicide for transgender and gender variant youth: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10935-018-0508-9

The uptake: even if the resulting suicide rate among transgender people is still higher post-transition than pre-transition, identified factors that contribute to that have a lot to do with social stigma, lack of acceptance and social support, and experiencing violence, discrimination, etc. I volunteered on the trans helpline for a while, and callers generally weren't people who had secure employment, medical care for transition, supportive families, etc. They were homeless, they were kids living in fear of what their parents would do to them, they were people who had made the leap and lost whatever they'd achieved in life before transition, or they were contemplating transition and terrified of what they might lose. 

I think as society makes more room for gender nonconforming people, and for people who take a stand and live outside the binary, then there might not be as many people who choose a binary transition. The youth today are moving in that direction, from what I've seen, in a larger way than the older generations can even fathom. Fifty years from now, binary transition might be something of an outmoded solution. But we don't live in that world now. We live in a world that expects everyone to conform to the binary, and for some people who might be happier in the middle, transitioning to the other end of the binary is the less painful option vs. attempting radical acceptance of their true selves in a world with no place for them to fit (just as staying put might be the less painful option for others). 

[Scarlett]

I keep reading along.  This is all very disturbing to me.  Although I hesitate to even comment when I know several here have children with this disorder, I keep coming back to the point that it is indeed a disorder.  These kids, young adults are clearly suffering from a mental illness.....whose idea was it, in the beginning to help them mutilate their bodies as a solution? 

My sister....a petite, thin adorable woman......got a boob job that frankly made her look like a cartoon.  I am sad for her that she thought she needed that to feel better about herself.  10years later, she had a breast reduction almost back to what she was before. 

I am sad!  It devastates me that anyone feels so bad about their physical bodies that they would rather die than continue.   Surly there is a less radical solution.  I don’t get the sense that there is a lot of professional effort into other solutions....I seems the political wind is focusing on making the rest of the world accept this madness as the answer.  

And I apologize very sincerely if I hurt any of you with my thoughts.  

[Terabith]

Of course we should accept people, no matter how gender nonconforming they are!  Absolutely!  

 

[Bluegoat]

36 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

First, pregnancy every year absent availability of birth control is not a given as a biological norm for human females. When it's seen, it's usually the result of premature weaning and/or artificial feeding of infants, which are socioculturally mediated behaviors, not biology. 

Second, even you are putting assumptions of difference on women which are not actually biologically necessary differences. Most notably: child rearing. Assuming that breastfeeding is recognized as the default for feeding infants and toddlers, the reality is that sharing all the child care duties except feeding them with other adult caregivers (father, aunts/uncles, babysitters, etc.) is preferable to piling all of it on the mother alone 24/7/365. And once a child is weaned, there is exactly zero biological reason why a mother would have to be the primary caregiver for said child over the father or other trusted adult caregivers. Through much of history, of course, that was the default because usually one pregnancy would follow another, and some kinds of work are easier to get done with a baby strapped on your back than others, including keeping an eye on small children, so that's more likely to be women's work. However, in the modern context, there is no good reason why 95% of the crap that gets thrown on women (and ditto most of the crap that gets thrown on men) in the name of "gender roles" is biologically necessary, especially in a culture where we DO have birth control, and are moving towards the expectation of gender parity in more and more aspects of society.  

 

I think this misses the point, which is that through all of history, until about 1960 - and still in many places, reproductive capacity was the thing that affected a person's life probably more than almost any other fact.   It's such an overwhelming fact for about half the population, and so important to the functioning of the population as a whole, that it has shaped the form of every culture though all history almost more than any other factor.  Even women historically who avoided childbearing by avoiding sexual activity or by being barren had their lives shaped in a deep way by their reproductive status.  

And it could be that way again in a heartbeat, and even with our technological capacities I think it affects us now far more than many people realize.  But when women need or want to organize themselves as women - for reasons of political action, or privacy, or mentorship, or whatever, that is the link between them.  Not the particular form of their gender expression, like wearing pink or working in healthcare or whatever.  Those may be groups with other things in common, and nothing is stopping them from getting together.  But what are women supposed to do when they want to talk about themselves - call themselves the uterus-people?  

The idea that women's mutual interest is only tangentially related to their sex and reproductive role is completely incredible to me, and I think that's the kind of idea that is really causing people who previously were more supportive to raise their eyebrows and think again.

[Bluegoat]

52 minutes ago, Terabith said:

But you're okay with blocking puberty in the case of precocious puberty?

 

I was under the impression that the use of puberty blockers even for this is coming under more scrutiny with some of the new research on the cognitive effects.

[bolt.]

10 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I keep reading along.  This is all very disturbing to me.  Although I hesitate to even comment when I know several here have children with this disorder, I keep coming back to the point that it is indeed a disorder.  These kids, young adults are clearly suffering from a mental illness.....whose idea was it, in the beginning to help them mutilate their bodies as a solution? 

My sister....a petite, thin adorable woman......got a boob job that frankly made her look like a cartoon.  I am sad for her that she thought she needed that to feel better about herself.  10years later, she had a breast reduction almost back to what she was before. 

I am sad!  It devastates me that anyone feels so bad about their physical bodies that they would rather die than continue.   Surly there is a less radical solution.  I don’t get the sense that there is a lot of professional effort into other solutions....I seems the political wind is focusing on making the rest of the world accept this madness as the answer.  

And I apologize very sincerely if I hurt any of you with my thoughts.  

Calling more people “they” and promoting all other possible approaches to being a society that is less forwardly, adamantly relentless about binary genders (mandatory public information and the details of passing as ‘one gender or or the other’) — Scarlett, that *IS* the less radical component of the ‘solution’.

If people could just be strangely clothed (without it being perceived as strange) and vaguely described (without “they” being a statement of gender denial or secrecy) — they probably wouldn’t experience such a deep need to drastically change their bodies. (At least not to do it ‘to fit in’ and/or avoid stigma, risk, or mistreatment. There may be other reasons.)

Edited November 1, 2018 by bolt.

[Ravin]

Here, read this. She addresses many of the issues we've been talking about more eloquently than I can, and the article gets to the heart of what we've been debating here, which comes down to the question of children and gender: https://medium.com/@juliaserano/detransition-desistance-and-disinformation-a-guide-for-understanding-transgender-children-993b7342946e

[Pen]

@Janie Grace  what has developed about the coming (or perhaps already past?) visit?  I wonder if your niece or nibbling has her or their own druthers about this already?  Names, clothes...   a lot of 3 year old I have known are / were already pretty aware of he/she and have clothes and color preferences. 

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, bolt. said:

Calling more people “they” and promoting all other possible approaches to being a society that is less forwardky, adamantly and relentless about binary genders (mandatory public information and the details of passing as ‘one gender or or the other’) — Scarlett, that *IS* the less radical component of the ‘solution’.

If people could just be strangely clothed (without it being perceived as strange) and vaguely described (without “they” being a statement of gender denial or secrecy) — they probably wouldn’t experience such a deep need to drastically change their bodies. (At least not to do it ‘to fit in’ and/or avoid stigma, risk, or mistreatment. There may be other reasons.)

Well maybe.  But even that is very radical. Why not focus on treatment for the mental illness. 

[Bluegoat]

In any case, I would really want to point out here, again that sex dysphoria really has very little to do with gender theory of the kind that seemed to be influencing the parents n the OP, or that is the basis for changes in legislation and such.  

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I think, Scarlett, that 'transgender' is not defined as a mental disorder, but a sexual health disorder ? People here more knowledgeable than me can comment on that.

I also think it's true that it may not be a mental illness. It could be more akin to autism, which has a neurological basis, but isn't actually a mental health issue.

Anyway, that's my understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected by the trans people here on where the definitions are atm.

IMO the social madness is NOT the dysphoric people who transition to treat their dysphoria, but some of the more - trying to think of the best word here - unproven ? theories around gender, with the theories driving law. There are a lot of people (not often the dysphoric people!) making money out of this too. It's a business for many.

 

 

Ok, so not a mental illness......but it still seems like insanity to solve autism with mutilation of the body.  

 

 

[Terabith]

15 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I think, Scarlett, that 'transgender' is not defined as a mental disorder, but a sexual health disorder ? People here more knowledgeable than me can comment on that.

I also think it's true that it may not be a mental illness. It could be more akin to autism, which has a neurological basis, but isn't actually a mental health issue.

Anyway, that's my understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected by the trans people here on where the definitions are atm.

IMO the social madness is NOT the dysphoric people who transition to treat their dysphoria, but some of the more - trying to think of the best word here - unproven ? theories around gender, with the theories driving law. There are a lot of people (not often the dysphoric people!) making money out of this too. It's a business for many.

 

 

Much like autism, it is in the DSM and thus defined as mental illness, but much like autism, there’s significant evidence of neurological difference in terms of brain structures and what not. 

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

I agree it seems that way.

The way I conceptualise it is as distress. And other posters are right; for the person who has experienced life long incongruence and is now an adult, and still an absolutely distressed adult, there just aren't all that many treatment options (not because no other options can possibly exist, but because activists basically demand that we don't do the research on alternatives - academics in this area have real problems funding research into things like detransition, and alternative ways people deal with their dysphoria.) Transition is one of the few established and researched treatments for that particular distress. 

It's not the only distressing condition out there, but it's one of the few that focuses on sexed characteristics (there are others, mostly culture bound). And unfortunately, it's 'easier' to treat the body than the brain. 

I do think we will one day look back on such treatment as barbarous.  Either because we've solved the environmental factors that might contribute, or because we have new, more subtle medical treatments, or because we've learned something we don't know yet that leads us down less drastic paths of distress-solving. I hope so, anyway,

Thank you. You are the most well balanced and reasonable voice in this even if I don’t 100% agree with all you say.  I pray for a solution.  It just breaks my heart.  

[Terabith]

16 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

TMI but at the moment I'm experiencing a lot of distress about my boobs. I have a big bust which has gotten bigger with weight gain, and although it causes some physical (manageable) discomfort, it causes more social and psychological discomfort than anything else. I don't like that people look at my boobs, I don't like that I can't hide my femaleness ever, i don't like how matronly I feel, I hate that clothes sit wrong, I hate that they are still there when I have no purpose for them. I am daily uncomfortable at being so obviously breasted. I think about it quite a few times per day. i don't like looking in the mirror.

I could get breast reduction surgery. Or i could practice radical acceptance of my body, recognising that there are some cognitive distortions, social problems and age denial going on for me. Radical acceptance is a core DBT skill and I think it's worth promoting and practicing. 

Rather off topic, but as awesome as radical acceptance is (and it is!), breast reductions are amazing!  I had 7 lbs removed from my left breast and either 4 or 5 lbs (can't remember which) from my right breast sixish years ago, and it was AWESOME!   It has dramatically improved my back problems, and it has made me feel better about myself.  The weight of my boobs was causing pretty major structural harm to my back, and while the reduction can't reverse the damage from all the decades of their weight, it kept them from getting worse and has provided some relief.  I recommend them.  (And radical acceptance, but in some cases along with reduction surgery.)  

[EmseB]

On 10/29/2018 at 2:30 PM, katilac said:

 

And I vehemently disagree that offering the Prince of Hell a cold drink is deferring to evil (good think I'm not easily offended, lawd). You've never been polite to someone in your home even though you think they are racist? You've never been polite to someone in your home even though you think their politics are not only wrong-headed but actively harmful? What do you do, what would you do, if someone showed up with such a guest to a casual gathering at your home? Being rude to people is not going to change their mind. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.

There's a joke in their somewhere about driving out thirst in the prince of darkness, but I don't have time to make it. 

 

 

3

I know you let this lie and probably had no desire to come back to my response, but I just realized that you changed your forum byline because of my post...it made me chuckle way more than I probably should have, but I am easily amused. I feel honored!  One good thing to come out of this thread at least. ? ? 

[Bluegoat]

15 hours ago, StellaM said:

It's not something I could get as a public patient, and I could never afford to pay, so radical acceptance it is. In any case, it's the psych and social stuff that's more distressing than the physical.

 

I am surprised, breast reductions are considered a health issue here if there are significant back or other problems associated with them.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I am surprised, breast reductions are considered a health issue here if there are significant back or other problems associated with them.

Yes this is what I was thinking too.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

Yep. I don't have that. 

No-one is gonna put me on a surgery list because I don't like the way men leer. 

Surgery is not always the answer, in any case.

I had a lot of pressure as a kid to get my ears pinned - not from my parents, thankfully, and even at 10 I was like 'the problem isn't me! My ears are fine! The problem is people who can't handle a bit of ear variation!' So yeah, that's where I come from re cosmetic surgery.

 

 

Ah, yeah, if it's really just cosmetic that's not quite the same.

[moonflower]

I had to look up ear pinning, had no idea that was even a thing.

I also think cosmetic surgery is kind of beyond the pale unless it is causing significant distress, but I guess in the US we do a lot of it, even to our kids (see braces/extractions for straight teeth)

[Bluegoat]

46 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, there are definitely some cultural ideas at play when people are all ' cosmetic surgery!'. No thanks, I'll save surgery risks for actual health needs.

(But also, thank goodness someone else out there has major issues with it! To say you are anti cosmetic surgery (not reconstructive surgery, obv) is possibly even more taboo than the other thing!)

 

I feel like there has been a sea change in people's attitudes on this in my lifetime - even since I've been an adult.

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

In which direction ? 

 

When I was younger most people only were really for it in more extreme circumstances.  Now it seems people are far more blasé about it.  

Edited November 3, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

Actually, blasé isn't the word.  They think it's a pretty good idea to do what you need to to feel good about yourself.  Less sense that working to self-acceptance might be better.

[Bluegoat]

Read this - it made me think a little of this thread:

https://theconversation.com/not-just-about-sex-throughout-our-bodies-thousands-of-genes-act-differently-in-men-and-women-86613

[maize]

On 11/2/2018 at 9:05 PM, Bluegoat said:

Read this - it made me think a little of this thread:

https://theconversation.com/not-just-about-sex-throughout-our-bodies-thousands-of-genes-act-differently-in-men-and-women-86613

Thanks for sharing. 

If 99.9% of the human genome is shared among individuals, but as many as 1/3 of genes are expressed differently in males and females...well, that's a pretty significant difference.

Edited November 4, 2018 by maize

[maize]

I found myself thinking about this thread as I sat through many hours of a martial arts tournament this weekend. The competitions I was watching (traditional and creative forms/katas) were about as gender neutral in presentation as you can get. Everyone wore the same unisex clothing styles, males and females competed together with the same moves and weapons, there were males with long hair and females with mostly shaved heads and socially normed gender markers were almost entirely absent.

And the very first thing my brain did was classify each person on the mats as male or female. I didn't have to label them with "he" or "she" or any other gendered term--I was just aware and found myself incapable of turning that awareness off. 

My interpretation is that classifying other humans as male or female is a fundamental brain function and not something that we are ever going to turn off by switching to nongendered pronouns or clothes or anything else.

 

[Paige]

1 hour ago, maize said:

 

My interpretation is that classifying other humans as male or female is a fundamental brain function and not something that we are ever going to turn off by switching to nongendered pronouns or clothes or anything else.

 

Why would you assume that instead of assuming it was something that you were taught to do and is a powerful norm within your/our culture? We really aren't very good at it either. We think it's easy  but anyone who has the slightest deviation from cultural gender norms will get misidentified regularly. 

My poor DS is gender conforming but had long hair and was very "pretty" when he was younger. He accidentally competed as a girl in a martial arts tournament once. He didn't realize what was going on until the event started and was too shy to speak up when he realized he'd been sorted wrong. It really made no difference. I don't think his sex gave him any sort of advantage at that age and I can't recall where he placed. 

Boy clothes, boy walk, boy attitude, boy scruffy hair, but long hair? He's called a girl.

Girl clothes, girl walk, girl attitude, bows in the hair, but short hair? She's called a boy. 

If our lives depended on identifying sex easily we'd all be dead. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, maize said:

I found myself thinking about this thread as I sat through many hours of a martial arts tournament this weekend. The competitions I was watching (traditional and creative forms/katas) were about as gender neutral in presentation as you can get. Everyone wore the same unisex clothing styles, males and females competed together with the same moves and weapons, there were males with long hair and females with mostly shaved heads and socially normed gender markers were almost entirely absent.

And the very first thing my brain did was classify each person on the mats as male or female. I didn't have to label them with "he" or "she" or any other gendered term--I was just aware and found myself incapable of turning that awareness off. 

My interpretation is that classifying other humans as male or female is a fundamental brain function and not something that we are ever going to turn off by switching to nongendered pronouns or clothes or anything else.

 

I agree.

[LMD]

It can be difficult to tell in prepubescent children.

It is very easy to tell most of the time post puberty. Especially men.

I've personally had the 'uncanny valley' experience with a well passing transwoman irl, lovely person, passed as well as any could hope, dinged at least 3 people's radars on first meeting. That's not meant to imply anything bad about them as a person, it just is.

[maize]

8 hours ago, Paige said:

Why would you assume that instead of assuming it was something that you were taught to do and is a powerful norm within your/our culture? We really aren't very good at it either. We think it's easy  but anyone who has the slightest deviation from cultural gender norms will get misidentified regularly. 

My poor DS is gender conforming but had long hair and was very "pretty" when he was younger. He accidentally competed as a girl in a martial arts tournament once. He didn't realize what was going on until the event started and was too shy to speak up when he realized he'd been sorted wrong. It really made no difference. I don't think his sex gave him any sort of advantage at that age and I can't recall where he placed. 

Boy clothes, boy walk, boy attitude, boy scruffy hair, but long hair? He's called a girl.

Girl clothes, girl walk, girl attitude, bows in the hair, but short hair? She's called a boy. 

If our lives depended on identifying sex easily we'd all be dead. 

With adults (which is where our lives may depend on it at times) we'd be right the vast majority of the time though we might occasionally be fooled by someone intentionally using body modification and gendered clothing to try to pass as the opposite sex. I agree that pre-pubescent kids can be mistaken based on cultural cues. I have a suspicion that cultural cues develop to make it easier to meet our (non cultural) need to classify.

The comps I was watching were ages 14+ and it really was pretty obvious. No girl clothes, no girl walk, no girl hair, no girl attitude--female was still female (darn awesome female too, y'all should have seen the double sword form!)

Edited November 4, 2018 by maize

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, Paige said:

Why would you assume that instead of assuming it was something that you were taught to do and is a powerful norm within your/our culture? We really aren't very good at it either. We think it's easy  but anyone who has the slightest deviation from cultural gender norms will get misidentified regularly. 

My poor DS is gender conforming but had long hair and was very "pretty" when he was younger. He accidentally competed as a girl in a martial arts tournament once. He didn't realize what was going on until the event started and was too shy to speak up when he realized he'd been sorted wrong. It really made no difference. I don't think his sex gave him any sort of advantage at that age and I can't recall where he placed. 

Boy clothes, boy walk, boy attitude, boy scruffy hair, but long hair? He's called a girl.

Girl clothes, girl walk, girl attitude, bows in the hair, but short hair? She's called a boy. 

If our lives depended on identifying sex easily we'd all be dead. 

 

Because classifiying is one of the first pattern skills humans develop. Infants/toddlers do it. That's a cat. That's a dog. That's a mom. That's a dad. Bird, fish, tree, flower, day, night, boy, girl...

Even the very young instinctively do this without any negative connotation.  It simply is for them.  And they usually don't associate it with trappings.  Such as boys wear jeans and play with trucks vs girls wear pink and play with dolls.  Other people add those issues.  (Which I don't agree with.) But that there are boys and there are girls? That's basic development from a very very young age.

[maize]

4 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Because classifiying is one of the first pattern skills humans develop. Infants/toddlers do it. That's a cat. That's a dog. That's a mom. That's a dad. Bird, fish, tree, flower, day, night, boy, girl...

Even the very young instinctively do this without any negative connotation.  It simply is for them.  And they usually don't associate it with trappings.  Such as boys wear jeans and play with trucks vs girls wear pink and play with dolls.  Other people add those issues.  (Which I don't agree with.) But that there are boys and there are girls? That's basic development from a very very young age.

 

I've been quite amazed by baby/toddler classification ability. Things like being able to identify dogs as dogs even though breeds vary so enormously in appearance. Somehow they are parsing out "doggish" characteristics and applying them pretty broadly. I remember my oldest on walks around the neighborhood was always pointing out the cats and dogs: "a meow!" ..."a woof!"

[Bluegoat]

4 hours ago, maize said:

 

I've been quite amazed by baby/toddler classification ability. Things like being able to identify dogs as dogs even though breeds vary so enormously in appearance. Somehow they are parsing out "doggish" characteristics and applying them pretty broadly. I remember my oldest on walks around the neighborhood was always pointing out the cats and dogs: "a meow!" ..."a woof!"

 

And it's also interesting and sometimes funny how they make errors and keep refining and refining these classifications.  I think this is largely behind the tendency of quite young children to want to be very strict at time with things like gender classifications - it's part of how the brain allows them to make and use these classifications, and weed them out when they don't work, too.

It's this ability to classify that allows us to think logically and discursively, and have language.  In a way all language is creating categories that are imperfect, they aren't untrue, but they draw a line which often could be drawn elsewhere.  It's like when we decide to draw a line around a "species" and talk about different forms across time in that species evolution.  Of course there isn't really a moment where there is some complete break, it is a continuum across time - but for our purposes we name a series of discrete points in time.  

Without classification there would be no language.

 

[Bluegoat]

6 hours ago, Paige said:

Why would you assume that instead of assuming it was something that you were taught to do and is a powerful norm within your/our culture? We really aren't very good at it either. We think it's easy  but anyone who has the slightest deviation from cultural gender norms will get misidentified regularly. 

My poor DS is gender conforming but had long hair and was very "pretty" when he was younger. He accidentally competed as a girl in a martial arts tournament once. He didn't realize what was going on until the event started and was too shy to speak up when he realized he'd been sorted wrong. It really made no difference. I don't think his sex gave him any sort of advantage at that age and I can't recall where he placed. 

Boy clothes, boy walk, boy attitude, boy scruffy hair, but long hair? He's called a girl.

Girl clothes, girl walk, girl attitude, bows in the hair, but short hair? She's called a boy. 

If our lives depended on identifying sex easily we'd all be dead. 

 

Given that many (all?) other mammal species seem to have this ability, it seems unlikely it is just cultural.  At least some of our secondary sexual characteristics seem to have differentiation as their purpose - there is no reason men need hairier faces than women.  

Mistakes on occasion seem to make it more obvious to me how often we get it right, I don't think it is the slightest difference where we get it wrong. In a child with no secondary sexual characteristics, or someone more naturally androgynous in their figure, and if they are giving the cultural signals for the other sex, sure, you might make an error.  Maybe.  There are a heck of a lot of people who choose to present according to the norms of the other sex who are not misidentified.  

[Tanaqui]

Quote

We can't think our way out of the fact we are mammals, who reproduce sexually. Of course it's going to be useful to us to categorise by sex! That's how the species survives.

 

Many animals which reproduce sexually - including many mammals! - have little to no sexual dimorphism. You simply can't tell males and females apart at a glance. Humans have some sexual dimorphism, but, frankly, not very much once you strip away culture. (And I must say, this is a very odd argument to hear from somebody who isn't heterosexual... or am I confusing you with somebody else?)