article by trans woman concerned about peer pressure to be trans

[goldberry]

It seems like conversion therapy is being used as far too broad an umbrella.  After all, much of therapy is challenging conclusions you have reached and how you reached them.  Does it mean your conclusions are wrong?  No.  It means that there is value in assessing the process you used to reach them and what factors played into it.   There was a female friend of mine who came out of an abusive relationship with a man and came out as a lesbian.  Her therapist helped her work through some of her issues as far as was she really a lesbian or was she making certain assumptions about female vs male relationships.  Totally different than "being a lesbian is bad".

I understand Joker's concern though that it could easily be *used* as conversion therapy.  But it seems it's a line that needs to be walked rather than avoided entirely.,

Edited January 9, 2022 by goldberry
changed some unthoughtful wording

[LMD]

I'm in Australia. Our laws specifically mention psychotherapy. And yes, the issue is that gender identity has been tacked on to lgb conversion therapy with no nuance. 

[KSera]

34 minutes ago, LMD said:

I'm in Australia. Our laws specifically mention psychotherapy. And yes, the issue is that gender identity has been tacked on to lgb conversion therapy with no nuance. 

What stands out in some of the bills banning it to me is the circular nature of not allowing therapy for gender identity issues because it is not a disorder, while at the same time, very medically intensive, insurance covered treatments are seen as the indicated "fix". Those things seem at odds with eachother to me. If we could agree it's not a disorder and therefore doesn't require "fixing" through surgery or medications, then that would make more sense. If it does sometimes require medical treatment to "fix" then I don't see why talk therapy might not instead be an opted for "fix" for some people. Why would surgery and hormones be the only way allowed to treat it? It makes no sense.

[Melissa Louise]

9 hours ago, regentrude said:

That is why I put my disclaimer that I am aware of that fact; However, several friends in the LGBTQ community ( and articles/websites of advocacy organizations) have assured me that an implicit connection is understood.

Is it possible that culturally things are perhaps different where you are? (I recall us disagreeing before about the use of the term "queer" which for many  folx here is their preferred umbrella term for self-labeling, while you understood it in its derogatory meaning). 

Homophobia exists in queer communities just as it does in any other kind of community. Pronouns signal a particular world view that may or may not also exist alongside homophobia. 

Yes, an urban experience is possibly different to a less urban one. Qu*** is a word I have been asked not to use by gay and lesbian people, including my dd. So I don't. Reclaimed slurs are particularly not for straight people to adopt, imo. 

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

What stands out in some of the bills banning it to me is the circular nature of not allowing therapy for gender identity issues because it is not a disorder, while at the same time, very medically intensive, insurance covered treatments are seen as the indicated "fix". Those things seem at odds with eachother to me. If we could agree it's not a disorder and therefore doesn't require "fixing" through surgery or medications, then that would make more sense. If it does sometimes require medical treatment to "fix" then I don't see why talk therapy might not instead be an opted for "fix" for some people. Why would surgery and hormones be the only way allowed to treat it? It makes no sense.

I find a lot of ableism in the idea that gender dysphoria is not a psychological or neurological disorder, when it clearly is one or the other - the misperception of sex resides in the brain/mind. 

It is not shameful to have a psychological or neurological condition. 

However, I think discussion of what GD is or isn't, and pronouns blah blah get a long way from the article in which a trans person with considerable expertise in the field is blowing the whistle on child/teen transition. 

I may doubt her motives; nevertheless, she's speaking out, and it would be good if people who are reflexively pro transition for children and teens explored what she ( and other gender clinicians making the same points) have to say. 

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yes, an urban experience is possibly different to a less urban one. Qu*** is a word I have been asked not to use by gay and lesbian people, including my dd. So I don't. Reclaimed slurs are particularly not for straight people to adopt, imo. 

I think this one is tricky because LGBT people are all over the place in their feelings about the word. I think your last sentence is good advice, and also think gay, lesbian and transgender people shouldn't feel free to use them for others without knowing that's how someone identifies. My gay, trans kid has had the experience of another trans person frequently calling them a different gay slur (f**) which was very unappreciated, but they felt like they were expected to just take it because it was coming from another trans person. That's not okay either. It can be a toxic place out there 😢.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, KSera said:

I think this one is tricky because LGBT people are all over the place in their feelings about the word. I think your last sentence is good advice, and also think gay, lesbian and transgender people shouldn't feel free to use them for others without knowing that's how someone identifies. My gay, trans kid has had the experience of another trans person frequently calling them a different gay slur (f**) which was very unappreciated, but they felt like they were expected to just take it because it was coming from another trans person. That's not okay either. It can be a toxic place out there 😢.

Yeah, that f word is not ok to use against anyone, gay, straight or trans. 

Reclaimed slurs are for the person to use about themselves, not others ( and even then, like all practices, it can be critiqued). 

[regentrude]

32 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yes, an urban experience is possibly different to a less urban one. Qu*** is a word I have been asked not to use by gay and lesbian people, including my dd. So I don't. Reclaimed slurs are particularly not for straight people to adopt, imo. 

I'm throwing up my hands. Apparently there is no way to please everybody. If I host a featured artist who sends me a bio labeling themselves as "non-binary queer" and to whom I know it is very important that they are introduced as such, how is it possibly my place to criticize the way they want to self-identify? I will refer to them in exactly the way they ask me to. Me, as a straight person, telling them that I think their way of self-labeling is wrong would feel highly inappropriate.
(ETA: This is not a made-up hypothetical case; this person was the last feature in my event series before Covid)

Edited January 9, 2022 by regentrude

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I'm throwing up my hands. Apparently there is no way to please everybody. If I host a featured artist who sends me a bio labeling themselves as "non-binary queer" and to whom I know it is very important that they are introduced as such, how is it possibly my place to criticize the way they want to self-identify? I will refer to them in exactly the way they ask me to. Me, as a straight person, telling them that I think their way of self-labeling is wrong would feel highly inappropriate.
(ETA: This is not a made-up hypothetical case; this person was the last feature in my event series before Covid)

I think you introduce people the way they want to be introduced, unless there is something clearly problematic with it (I expect most people have a line--I could not bring myself to introduce someone using the n-word for example, even if that was their preference). The example above doesn't ring any problematic bells for me in the same way, but the queer part might feel awkward for me out loud, because it does feel like a self label and not something for someone else to use. I don't know that it would actually end up necessary for someone else to actually refer to them with that label, though. Hard for me to think of context that would require it.

[Frances]

26 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I'm throwing up my hands. Apparently there is no way to please everybody. If I host a featured artist who sends me a bio labeling themselves as "non-binary queer" and to whom I know it is very important that they are introduced as such, how is it possibly my place to criticize the way they want to self-identify? I will refer to them in exactly the way they ask me to. Me, as a straight person, telling them that I think their way of self-labeling is wrong would feel highly inappropriate.
(ETA: This is not a made-up hypothetical case; this person was the last feature in my event series before Covid)

But in some sense, this is nothing new. It seems like we’ve gone through and continue to go through the same thing for people of different races or with different abilities, etc. Realistically, because people are so diverse, even though they may share one characteristics in common, they are not all likely going to agree on preferred terminology. And as the LGTBQ umbrella just seems to keep expanding, it would seem to be especially true for this.

I guess ultimately all we can do is  continue to listen and learn and when possible, honor the wishes of those in our lives who share them. In the case you are describing, it definitely seems like you did the right thing. If someone wants to be offended by how another adult wants to be described, then there’s is likely no ever pleasing them. No one person owns any of these terms.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Frances

[LMD]

I personally don't care if others want to share pronouns in emails/profiles but I won't. I have my reasons, you can assume my reasons are bigotry if you want. Or you can be curious or gracious.

[MEmama]

20 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I'm throwing up my hands. Apparently there is no way to please everybody. If I host a featured artist who sends me a bio labeling themselves as "non-binary queer" and to whom I know it is very important that they are introduced as such, how is it possibly my place to criticize the way they want to self-identify? I will refer to them in exactly the way they ask me to. Me, as a straight person, telling them that I think their way of self-labeling is wrong would feel highly inappropriate.
(ETA: This is not a made-up hypothetical case; this person was the last feature in my event series before Covid)

Please don’t throw up your hands. You are the epitome of kind, considerate and respectful. Please keep doing what you do. 🙂 

Unrelated to @regentrude, it’s super weird to me that people appear to be purposely conflating the stating pronouns in an email (etc) convo. Trust, no one cares if you don’t, but if you do it might make a big difference to someone who needs to see it. There’s not much nuance to not understand. 

[KSera]

1 minute ago, LMD said:

I personally don't care if others want to share pronouns in emails/profiles but I won't. I have my reasons, you can assume my reasons are bigotry if you want. Or you can be curious or gracious.

I actually purposely keep my email name and signature neutral. My emails only give my first initial S, for the very reason of not wanting to advertise gender in my emails. People who know me know what it is and those that don't don't have any reason to know. I prefer it that way. I've done this as long as I've been on the internet, but it only just now strikes me that it would be at odds with me putting pronouns in my signature. I can see that might be different for a work email address that was only sending emails to coworkers and business associates (though honestly, I'm not sure if I would see a reason for associates to need to know my gender in my emails either).

[1234]

2 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Please don’t throw up your hands. You are the epitome of kind, considerate and respectful. Please keep doing what you do. 🙂 

Unrelated to @regentrude, it’s super weird to me that people appear to be purposely conflating the stating pronouns in an email (etc) convo. Trust, no one cares if you don’t, but if you do it might make a big difference to someone who needs to see it. There’s not much nuance to not understand. 

Yes! Someone freely offering up their pronouns really help my non binary ASD kiddo, especially people in authority. It helps them feel safer in whatever setting they’re in when it happens. They don’t think anything one way or the other if someone doesn’t do it, though. It just makes those people stand out differently to dc if they need something in the future.

[Melissa Louise]

40 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I'm throwing up my hands. Apparently there is no way to please everybody. If I host a featured artist who sends me a bio labeling themselves as "non-binary queer" and to whom I know it is very important that they are introduced as such, how is it possibly my place to criticize the way they want to self-identify? I will refer to them in exactly the way they ask me to. Me, as a straight person, telling them that I think their way of self-labeling is wrong would feel highly inappropriate.
(ETA: This is not a made-up hypothetical case; this person was the last feature in my event series before Covid)

In this case, you were asked to use the reclaimed slur. 

You should definitely not apply to to someone without that invitation though. 

(As a thought experiment, would you introduce a person by invitation using a different reclaimed slur? The n word? f@g? b*tch? s*ut? )

 

[Melissa Louise]

But again, getting into etiquette discussions is a diversion from the fact that gender clinicians, including trans gender clinicians, are starting to worry about where child and teen transition has gone over the past decade.

And are backing away from reflexive affirmation, and urging caution. 

 

[SanDiegoMom]

2 hours ago, MEmama said:

Please don’t throw up your hands. You are the epitome of kind, considerate and respectful. Please keep doing what you do. 🙂 

Unrelated to @regentrude, it’s super weird to me that people appear to be purposely conflating the stating pronouns in an email (etc) convo. Trust, no one cares if you don’t, but if you do it might make a big difference to someone who needs to see it. There’s not much nuance to not understand. 

It got asked upthread as a question so people answered it.  The fact that it is something that is discussed, that has complexity, therefore means there actually IS nuance to attempt to understand. But that kind of reflexive self righteous morality is why having nuanced discussions devolves so quickly into vitriol and accusations of transphobia.  

[TravelingChris]

3 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Homophobia exists in queer communities just as it does in any other kind of community. Pronouns signal a particular world view that may or may not also exist alongside homophobia. 

Yes, an urban experience is possibly different to a less urban one. Qu*** is a word I have been asked not to use by gay and lesbian people, including my dd. So I don't. Reclaimed slurs are particularly not for straight people to adopt, imo. 

Yeah, I won;t use that word also.  It was a slur,.  And no one has explained to me how those people are different.  

[maize]

3 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

In this case, you were asked to use the reclaimed slur. 

You should definitely not apply to to someone without that invitation though. 

(As a thought experiment, would you introduce a person by invitation using a different reclaimed slur? The n word? f@g? b*tch? s*ut? )

 

Isn't gay a reclaimed slur?

[Melissa Louise]

24 minutes ago, maize said:

Isn't gay a reclaimed slur?

Yes. Somehow the vitriol attached to other words like f@g no longer attaches to gay.

I've never been asked not to use it, and I don't think I've ever heard of people asking it not be used. If they did ask, of course, I wouldn't.  

[Frances]

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

In this case, you were asked to use the reclaimed slur. 

You should definitely not apply to to someone without that invitation though. 

(As a thought experiment, would you introduce a person by invitation using a different reclaimed slur? The n word? f@g? b*tch? s*ut? )

 

Well there is the show “Queer Eye” which is quite popular. Personally, I’m not a big fan of it and stopped watching after a few episodes. But I guess you think this would be different because the stars of the show likely chose it?

[TravelingChris]

47 minutes ago, Frances said:

Well there is the show “Queer Eye” which is quite popular. Personally, I’m not a big fan of it and stopped watching after a few episodes. But I guess you think this would be different because the stars of the show likely chose it?

And those guys were gay, weren't they?  Which is why I don't understand the new terminology.  

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

Well there is the show “Queer Eye” which is quite popular. Personally, I’m not a big fan of it and stopped watching after a few episodes. But I guess you think this would be different because the stars of the show likely chose it?

Nope, not really. And as I said, etiquette is really a BIG distraction from the article posted about Dr Anderson's concerns regarding trans identified youth. 

[1234]

The queer discussion prompted a talk with youngest tonight. They are non binary and identify as queer. That word has been spoken quite a bit here and with both of my dc’s peer group and I haven’t experienced a negative reaction in so long, so I asked. They have zero problem with the use of the word by anyone as long as it’s not being used negatively. It’s how they view themselves so they definitely don’t see it as bad. 

[Melissa Louise]

Like I said, a side issue that's a big distraction from the issue of gender clinicians starting to pull back from affirmation approaches. 

[1234]

Threads on this board take all kinds of twists and turns. I actually felt like this had been one of the more productive ones since some of us, on opposite sides, have found places of mutual agreement. The twists and turns of this conversation have even stayed rather civil this time, which I think has been helpful to some. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Joker2

[KSera]

46 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Like I said, a side issue that's a big distraction from the issue of gender clinicians starting to pull back from affirmation approaches. 

I anticipate side issues like etiquette are more comfortable to discuss than trying to understand and confront the issues that are starting to be expressed by people who are long time trans allies and gender care providers. I think many people don't want to hear or seriously consider that there might be problems with the current accepted standards. There are implications to that.

[LMD]

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

I anticipate side issues like etiquette are more comfortable to discuss than trying to understand and confront the issues that are starting to be expressed by people who are long time trans allies and gender care providers. I think many people don't want to hear or seriously consider that there might be problems with the current accepted standards. There are implications to that.

Yes. For some reason the prison issue never gets picked up as a side discussion...

[Frances]

18 minutes ago, KSera said:

I anticipate side issues like etiquette are more comfortable to discuss than trying to understand and confront the issues that are starting to be expressed by people who are long time trans allies and gender care providers. I think many people don't want to hear or seriously consider that there might be problems with the current accepted standards. There are implications to that.

I’m sorry I brought up the side issue. It had nothing to do with not wanting to confront certain issues. I’m just still in the leaning phase about all of this.

[1234]

Emotions took over for a moment. Deleted. Sorry.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Joker2

[LMD]

Haters? This has been a remarkably polite discussion so far?

[1234]

Nm

Edited January 10, 2022 by Joker2

[1234]

20 minutes ago, Frances said:

I’m sorry I brought up the side issue. It had nothing to do with not wanting to confront certain issues. I’m just still in the leaning phase about all of this.

You didn’t do anything wrong. I think some of the side discussions were a good thing. Some led to interesting discussions with one of my kiddos tonight, so that’s always fun. 😁

[SanDiegoMom]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

I’m sorry I brought up the side issue. It had nothing to do with not wanting to confront certain issues. I’m just still in the leaning phase about all of this.

Since irl I don’t know anyone (other than my son) who is gender questioning, I listen to a lot of podcasts and read whatever I can get my hands on. i know of two good  podcasts - Transparency (by the Gender Dysphoria Alliance and hosted by two trans men, Aaron Kimberly and Aaron Terrell) and the Heterodorx Podcast by Nina Paley and trans woman Corinna Cohn.  
 

Gender: A Wider Lens is my favorite one to dive into, with two gender exploratory therapists co-hosting. They are starting a “Pioneer Series” now where they interview established researchers in the field to talk about their areas of special interest. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by SanDiegoMom

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I anticipate side issues like etiquette are more comfortable to discuss than trying to understand and confront the issues that are starting to be expressed by people who are long time trans allies and gender care providers. I think many people don't want to hear or seriously consider that there might be problems with the current accepted standards. There are implications to that.

Now we are safely out the other side of dysphoria, it's interesting to think about how things could have gone had we not been able to access exemplary exploratory care ( from one of those clinics raising the alarm).

I honestly want more kids able to have that same standard of care, but they won't get it if people don't start being honest about the limitations of affirmation only approaches, which fail to address concerns around medicalization of minors. 

I cannot for the life of me see how that is hateful.

Do people not want at least a % of sudden onset dysphoria patients to recover without serious medical intervention?

It seems to me this outcome is ideal for the sudden onset patient. Distress alleviated, underlying causes identified and treated, without permanent alteration of the body...in what world is this a bad thing? 

I would think there would be rejoicing to discover that sudden onset patients can recover from their dysphoria, because it stems from roots other than those of early, persistent childhood dysphoria. 

The political aspects of gender are a related, but separate issue. It should be possible for people to set that aside to listen to what experts are beginning to say about sudden onset presentations ( and be reminded that watchful waiting is still the preferred approach for childhood onset!)

The culture around gender is toxic, but the needs of young people for the least invasive treatment of distress possible should be able to be agreed upon. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

I’m sorry I brought up the side issue. It had nothing to do with not wanting to confront certain issues. I’m just still in the leaning phase about all of this.

Oh, no worries on that, I got caught up in that as well, as we all tend to do on threads, no matter what they are supposed to be about originally.

[1234]

Part of the parsing out is how many are actually sudden onset dysphoria patients. Parents can’t be be the only voice we listen to there because I would have said my own Ds was sudden onset, but I know now I was wrong. We’ve rewatched home videos, I’m looking at photos, and I’m talking to people and it shows me I didn’t see things clearly. I know I’m not the only parent in this situation. I saw what I expected and wanted to see. 

Things can definitely be improved in regards to allowing medical professionals to do their jobs. That doesn’t mean minors shouldn’t receive medical treatment and interventions when necessary. It would be cruel to withhold treatment to many of these kids. I also want more kids to be able to receive the kind of treatment we received. We’re all parenting very different individuals and there is absolutely no one right way to do it. 

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Joker2 said:

Part of the parsing out is how many are actually sudden onset dysphoria patients. Parents can’t be be the only voice we listen to there because I would have said my own Ds was sudden onset, but I know now I was wrong. We’ve rewatched home videos, I’m looking at photos, and I’m talking to people and it shows me I didn’t see things clearly. I know I’m not the only parent in this situation. I saw what I expected and wanted to see. 

Things can definitely be improved in regards to allowing medical professionals to do their jobs. That doesn’t mean minors shouldn’t receive medical treatment and interventions when necessary. It would be cruel to withhold treatment to many of these kids. I also want more kids to be able to receive the kind of treatment we received. We’re all parenting very different individuals and there is absolutely no one right way to do it. 

I can understand given your specific experience, you have a perspective that is more worried about kids who need medicalization not getting it. Can you see that the opposite concern is just as valid, and under current affirmation-only standards in many states, is the more common problem? And someone can't go back once surgery has been done and lots of hormonal changes are irreversible. Lots of kids and young adults are being moved right to medical treatment without any therapeutic exploration of underlying issues and other solutions. A large percentage of which are teen girls on the spectrum and/or with anxiety and/or depression pre-existing before any gender dysphoria. And we're talking treatments that very frequently render the young recipients infertile and have drastic implications for sexual function for the rest of their lives. It doesn't seem right to err in the direction of medicalizing kids who didn't need to be.

[Matryoshka]

8 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

In this case, you were asked to use the reclaimed slur. 

You should definitely not apply to to someone without that invitation though. 

(As a thought experiment, would you introduce a person by invitation using a different reclaimed slur? The n word? f@g? b*tch? s*ut? )

Look, word use differs quite widely in different countries, especially with slang/slurs. One word you would never hear anyone say out loud in the US (starts with c) is apparently thrown around casually in the UK.  We find many of their 'bad words' perplexing or amusing.  It's the same with other languages spoken in multiple countries like Spanish and Portuguese. 

Queer here is not just not a slur but a preferred term among the LGBTQ community... oh, look, they've even added its initial to the acronym.  It's often used as an umbrella term or for when someone doesn't want to feel hemmed into just one of the options.

I shall remember never to use it whilst in Australia.  But you shouldn't chide Americans for using a term that's considered positive by the LGBTQ community here. (and has been for decades.)

[Melissa Louise]

Yes, my feeling with minors has always been that a therapy only approach leaves open the option of transition as an adult. 

But transition - social, blockers, cross sex hormones, bilateral mastectomies - can't be undone in adulthood. 

Childhood and teen years are just not developmentally about foreclosure. 

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Look, word use differs quite widely in different countries, especially with slang/slurs. One word you would never hear anyone say out loud in the US (starts with c) is apparently thrown around casually in the UK.  We find many of their 'bad words' perplexing or amusing.  It's the same with other languages spoken in multiple countries like Spanish and Portuguese. 

Queer here is not just not a slur but a preferred term among the LGBTQ community... oh, look, they've even added its initial to the acronym.  It's often used as an umbrella term or for when someone doesn't want to feel hemmed into just one of the options.

I shall remember never to use it whilst in Australia.  But you shouldn't chide Americans for using a term that's considered positive by the LGBTQ community here. (and has been for decades.)

Lots of things are preferred in the US, it seems. 

Can we stick with the topic - gender clinicians urges caution? 

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

I shall remember never to use it whilst in Australia.  But you shouldn't chide Americans for using a term that's considered positive by the LGBTQ community here. (and has been for decades.)

I think it’s still a good deal more nuanced than that here in the US. Certainly it’s a positive word for many in the LGBTQIA+ community; but it’s still problematic by many others, even in the US, particularly so as you move up in age. I see NPR did a piece on it a couple years ago:

https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2019/08/21/752330316/a-former-slur-is-reclaimed-and-listeners-have-mixed-feelings

[KSera]

16 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Childhood and teen years are just not developmentally about foreclosure. 

In looking up statistics about fertility preservation in transgender patients, I read a study that referred to  72 of 73 of the pediatric patients receiving fertility counseling before treatment. Which kind of blows my mind, because I don’t know at what point we started considering children able to make lifelong decisions about whether or not they have biological children. Women in their twenties have a heckuva time finding a doctor who will perform a hysterectomy on them if they aren’t trans in case they change their minds and want children later, but minor children are considered old enough to make that decision?

Edited January 10, 2022 by KSera
Typo

[Melissa Louise]

I see we are going down the 'it's a tiny number + their parents are wrong' path of minimizing concerns  of clinicians. 

That's sad. 

When there is a 4000% increase in a new type of presentation, the onus is really on clinicians to show that protocols developed for adults with a history of childhood dysphoria and/or teen + adult AGP are safe and proportionate for this differently presenting cohort. 

Clinicians are belatedly realizing they may not be.  Thank goodness. 'Allies' really need to start doing the same. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Melissa Louise

[Matryoshka]

20 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think it’s still a good deal more nuanced than that here in the US. Certainly it’s a positive word for many in the LGBTQIA+ community; but it’s still problematic by many others, even in the US, particularly so as you move up in age. I see NPR did a piece on it a couple years ago:

https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2019/08/21/752330316/a-former-slur-is-reclaimed-and-listeners-have-mixed-feelings

Certainly in my parents' generation it was still a slur.

But already in my generation (and I'm old) it was being reclaimed, and certainly in my kids' generation, it's what they use (and 2/3 of my kids are LGBTQ) pretty much every.single.book on the topic - by people in the community - uses it.  One of my kids handed me the first book to read.

These are from the description/promo materials for the second book on the screenshot:

Quote

Not every queer kid has easy access to a family member, teacher, counselor, or friend who can help them through the coming-out process. Even when they do, NEWSFLASH, most of us don't have all the answers! Queer is a great way for a teen, or someone who is trying to mentor or understand a queer teen, to gain some knowledge from a thoughtful, cute perspective.--Honey Mahogany, Activist, RuPaul's Drag Race Alumnus, Cofounder of the Compton's Transgender Cultural District

Quote

I learned more than a few things about our fabulously diverse queer culture, and especially the younger generation, that everyone should know.--Terry Beswick, Executive Director of the GLBT Historical Society Archives and Museum

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Matryoshka

[Melissa Louise]

OMG do you want an intro to American women under 30 who don't like it/use it/identify with it? Because I can direct you to them.

Even if it was 'only' elders, where's the respect? Elders won every right LBGT young people currently have. 

Can we now stop with the detours?! I'm starting to feel it's deliberate misdirection. 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Melissa Louise

[MEmama]

12 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Yeah, I won;t use that word also.  It was a slur,.  And no one has explained to me how those people are different.  

What people?

[TravelingChris]

7 hours ago, KSera said:

In looking up statistics about fertility preservation in transgender patients, I read a study that referred to  72 of 73 of the pediatric patients receiving fertility counseling before treatment. Which kind of blows my mind, because I don’t know at what point we started considering children able to make lifelong decisions about whether or not they have biological children. Women in their twenties have a heckuva time finding a doctor who will perform a hysterectomy on them if they aren’t trans in case they change their minds and want children later, but minor children are considered old enough to make that decision?

If you had asked me at 13 pr 15or 18. whether I wanted children, I would have said no.  Only adopted ones.

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, MEmama said:

What people?

Queer vs- gay, lesbian, bi, or trans or even non gendered- which I see as being asexual or maybe bisexual.

[1234]

7 hours ago, KSera said:

I can understand given your specific experience, you have a perspective that is more worried about kids who need medicalization not getting it. Can you see that the opposite concern is just as valid, and under current affirmation-only standards in many states, is the more common problem? And someone can't go back once surgery has been done and lots of hormonal changes are irreversible. Lots of kids and young adults are being moved right to medical treatment without any therapeutic exploration of underlying issues and other solutions. A large percentage of which are teen girls on the spectrum and/or with anxiety and/or depression pre-existing before any gender dysphoria. And we're talking treatments that very frequently render the young recipients infertile and have drastic implications for sexual function for the rest of their lives. It doesn't seem right to err in the direction of medicalizing kids who didn't need to be.

I honestly don’t know how many ways I can say I see both sides and agree we need better therapy in the beginning. I’m not going to agree that minors shouldn’t receive treatment beyond therapy just because they are a minor. That seems cruel and very wrong to me and why I said in my very first post that non trans kids are not more valuable than trans kids. Some don’t seem to care about what will happen to trans kids without treatment because all they care about are those non trans kids who slip through the cracks. I do care about them all and do think adjustments need to be made to how therapy can be done for these youth, but I do feel medical options need to stay in place for those who need it. 
 

ETA: I’ve also been reading through this doctor’s interviews, articles, and social media and I don’t think she’s saying no treatment for minors either. So, I’m really confused. Most posting here, on either side of the issue, seem to agree with her about better therapy and in take procedures. That would be the caution suggested. She’s not saying no medical treatment for minors who are determined to need it.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Joker2