Are men afraid of transgender women?

[GroundEffect]

AJS- said:

Well I would generally see abuse as something more active. Refusing treatment is possibly neglect but that would depend on their being a viable treatment. As I hace said I don't see any reason to believe that attempting to alter a physical reality is a viable treatment of a psychiatric disorder.

I'm so glad we have someone in our midst that is more informed than the DSM-V. Transgender is not a psychiatric disorder according to it. But of course you have more experience to give a more informed diagnosis.

Also, given that the mind is controlled by physical processes...shouldn't the 'physical reality' be the gender dysmorphia also? Why does the 'shell' of the being matter, ultimately, more than the 'soul'?

Would you propose we do gay conversion therapy for homosexuality also?

[AJS-]

otolith
Yes you did say that. However you also compared it with refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, something that can lead to a miserable death. Transgenderism in children appears to be something which quite often just irons itself out anyawy. Not quite the same.


The definitive statement there seems to be that it isn't considered ethical. How much research has been done into this compared with how much has been done into reassignment? It seems like very little.

I don't beleive academic hierachy or the current prevailing opinions in and of themselves make an argument any stronger.


Ground Effect
Again, well qualified people saying it does not make it so.


As far as I know there isn't any effective "gay conversion therapy" but I wouldn't necessarily consider it unethical to research it or offer it if it were effective.

[Fishtigua]

Even the BBC is on the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33791...

[otolith]

AJS- said:

otolith
Yes you did say that. However you also compared it with refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, something that can lead to a miserable death. Transgenderism in children appears to be something which quite often just irons itself out anyawy. Not quite the same.

Not everyone who is denied a medically indicated blood transfusion dies either.

[otolith]

Fishtigua said:

Even the BBC is on the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33791...

The Daily Wail isn't going to like that!

[p2c]

AJS- said:

otolith
Yes you did say that. However you also compared it with refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, something that can lead to a miserable death. Transgenderism in children appears to be something which quite often just irons itself out anyawy. Not quite the same.

It is quite a leap to say the numbers of gender non conforming children who later do not transition being high is the same as "quite often just irons itself out anyway" For a start we do not know the numbers of gender non conforming children who do not receive help, we pick up on small signals that its unacceptable and go into hiding, suffering in silence and what effect they could have on the real numbers.

Of those receiving support its also not fair to say that they would have been ok without help because they "drop out". I don't know how far through the "system" a child has to get to be counted in the figures we discussed earlier, but if it is children being seen by a GIC then they have got there because they have significant gender non conformance. As such they need that assistance and even if they don't transition for many of the non transitioners their gender non conformity was the first phases of them identifying as homosexual, as such they equally benefit from the assistance.

There has been some research into the differences between the behavior of the transitioners and the non and there is evidence that subtle language use and behavior can indicate to a high degree of accuracy which category they will fall. Things like "I wish" vs "I am" show the level of questioning va conviction with the latter group being the transitioners. Treating the latter group as "wait and see" can be detrimental to them as they feel they are not taken seriously and not getting the help they need.

AJS- said:

The definitive statement there seems to be that it isn't considered ethical. How much research has been done into this compared with how much has been done into reassignment? It seems like very little.

I don't beleive academic hierachy or the current prevailing opinions in and of themselves make an argument any stronger.


Ground Effect
Again, well qualified people saying it does not make it so.


As far as I know there isn't any effective "gay conversion therapy" but I wouldn't necessarily consider it unethical to research it or offer it if it were effective.

I don't know the extent of the research that has been done but it was many years ago and the reason there isn't much research on conversion therapy now is likely because it doesn't and didn't work. It is so unethical and ineffective that it is being made illegal in more and more locations as despite evidence that it doesn't work and is harmful many religious groups still try it and people like yourself support it.

If you accept however it doesn't work for "gay conversion therapy" why do you think it could work for "trans conversion"?

[MrBarry123]

Doesn't scare me in the slightest - people can do what they fancy (within reason).

It must be an awful situation though to feel like a woman trapped in a man's body and vice versa.

[otolith]

p2c said:

It is quite a leap to say the numbers of gender non conforming children who later do not transition being high is the same as "quite often just irons itself out anyway" For a start we do not know the numbers of gender non conforming children who do not receive help, we pick up on small signals that its unacceptable and go into hiding, suffering in silence and what effect they could have on the real numbers.

Of those receiving support its also not fair to say that they would have been ok without help because they "drop out". I don't know how far through the "system" a child has to get to be counted in the figures we discussed earlier, but if it is children being seen by a GIC then they have got there because they have significant gender non conformance. As such they need that assistance and even if they don't transition for many of the non transitioners their gender non conformity was the first phases of them identifying as homosexual, as such they equally benefit from the assistance.

And if they do resolve their issues and "drop out" while puberty is delayed, who is to say that would have happened if they had not been given that extra time and that perception that they had some control over what was happening to their bodies? Ending up not needing any further medical intervention at 16 is surely the best outcome, and if the hormone suppression increased the likelihood of that happening, a good reason to use it.

[qube_TA]

AJS- said:

And you don't suppose that delaying the natural physical development of an adolescent via artificial hormone treatment could potentially have negative consequences in itself? Or that this constitutes "a fuss"?

Or that a teenager "treated" in this way might feel excluded, hence stigmatised and consequently depressed and confused by this peculiar form of "therapy" far more than if they were allowed to develop naturally?

I cannot relate to that view point at all, and no amount of presumed scientific consensus or "evidence based" guess work will convince me otherwise or dissuade me of the opinion that such drastic intervention is a form of ideologically driven child abuse.

They wouldn't just take a boy that plays with dolls and start prescribing hormones, it would only be in extreme cases where the child's life is suffering massively because of this, they may then (following a ton of psychological examination and study) conclude that this course of action is the best solution. It'll be a super teeny-weeny very rare event that a child would need this.

[SPS]

I'm afraid of all women - no matter what their gender

[s2art]

AJS- said:

Well to give a very general and hypothetical answer to the very hypothetical scenario I would probably have a preference for changing the mind. Though the thought that this could be done on a computer is in itself a rather dystopian vision. My preference would be altering the mind to suit physical reality rather than a very crude attempt to make physical reality conform to unobtainable ideals.

p2c said:

Really! I'm surprised you choose identity suicide to maintain your vanity of a perfect body.

I dont buy that as Id suicide. We change our preferences/view/tastes etc throughout our lives, that isnt identity suicide. Remember how big a difference to your opinion on girls when puberty struck. Identity suicide must involve memory loss at a minimum.

Edited by s2art on Monday 24th August 15:15

[AJS-]

p2c
As with anything most things relating to complex individuals we don't really *know* all that much, because whatever action was taken there's always the possibility that another course of action would have worked out better.

What I find a bit alarming is that it seems that one course of action has been decided upon with quite a level of certainty and another deemed unethical, and as per this thread questioning this is deemed by many to be at best worthy of derision and quite possibly a hate crime.

otolith
Again, while seems like a good outcome there's the huge unknown of what other outcomes might have happened with a different approach. I find it very hard to believe that delaying puberty through hormones has no negative impacts.

qube
No, I never thought they were doing this on a whim.

[AJS-]

p2c
Regarding "gay conversion therapy" I never said I don't think it could work possibly work. I really have no idea if it could or not. I'm not against it in principle, and it is another area which has apparently been written off except for the fringes of the religious right, as far as I know.

I would imagine most gay adults don't really want to be "cured" however, so it's a moot point.

[otolith]

AJS- said:

Again, while seems like a good outcome there's the huge unknown of what other outcomes might have happened with a different approach. I find it very hard to believe that delaying puberty through hormones has no negative impacts.

It's not a great situation to begin with, you're into the territory of finding least worst outcomes. The evidence appears to be that it doesn't cause any physiological harm. The drugs have previously been used to treat precocious puberty (and are also used to treat prostate cancer) so there is wider clinical experience with them.

What course of action would you consider more appropriate for these kids?

[qube_TA]

AJS- said:

p2c
As with anything most things relating to complex individuals we don't really *know* all that much, because whatever action was taken there's always the possibility that another course of action would have worked out better.

What I find a bit alarming is that it seems that one course of action has been decided upon with quite a level of certainty and another deemed unethical, and as per this thread questioning this is deemed by many to be at best worthy of derision and quite possibly a hate crime.

otolith
Again, while seems like a good outcome there's the huge unknown of what other outcomes might have happened with a different approach. I find it very hard to believe that delaying puberty through hormones has no negative impacts.

qube
No, I never thought they were doing this on a whim.

Fair enough, sorry it's just how I interpreted your response. I would expect that if this action had been prescribed to a child then it would be carefully monitored, and if concluded it wasn't having the desired effect then they'd be halted.

[p2c]

AJS- said:

p2c
As with anything most things relating to complex individuals we don't really *know* all that much, because whatever action was taken there's always the possibility that another course of action would have worked out better.

What I find a bit alarming is that it seems that one course of action has been decided upon with quite a level of certainty and another deemed unethical, and as per this thread questioning this is deemed by many to be at best worthy of derision and quite possibly a hate crime.

Its not that conversion therapy has been written off without consideration. They have been trying it for years for all LGBT "issues", they started off with electric shocks to testicles, ice pick lobotomies etc. Once that was deemed torture and inhumane they were restricted to psychological therapy with shame and aversion techniques. All it does is make people more depressed and suicidal. It is so bad that its not just against psychological best practice it has actually been made illegal for minors in many US states and that ban is expanding.

The other alternative though of "let them be" for LGB and medical transition for T is proven time and time again to be of therapeutic value.

The reason why Transsexualism was not removed from DSM entirely is because unlike LGB the T still need medical intervention to resolve their dysphoria, and it was feared removing it as a diagnosis would hamper this being available, and indeed its inclusion in obamacare medicaid is directly as a result of still being included in DSM. But the condition itself is not in itself a disorder any longer, the same a being homosexual was removed as a psychological disorder in 1973.

There is a high degree of satisfaction with transitioned (not necessarily post op) transgender persons, the major hindrance to full life satisfaction is social stigma, back to the original question of this thread.

So the reason why one solution is used and the other labeled as unethical and abusive is because after years of experimentation and study, that is exactly what they are in both cases.

Edited by p2c on Monday 24th August 17:47

[AJS-]

otolith said:

What course of action would you consider more appropriate for these kids?

This is a vast question to which there's no easy answer. What I would say is:

I think gender and sexuality are a lot more complex than we are comfortable to deal with, or than our love of categorising and labelling things really allows for.

I think our current understanding of it is much more limited than we (especially the medical profession) like to admit.

I think there are certain people who see trans as a cause celebre in itself because it vindicates their *beliefs* about gender and sexuality.

From entirely personal experience, maybe I'm fortunate but I can't remember gender really figuring much until I was around 12 or 13 beyond a vague awareness of Mum, Dad and people somewhat similar to them. Looking at my own daughter who is now 3 she sometimes asks when she'll have a beard, she sometimes runs around shooting the boy down the road with toy guns and jumps in muddy puddles like Peppa Pig. Other times she is all dresses, princesses and fairies. She's vaguely aware of gender but I can't imagine it being such a concern that it would ruin someone's life at that `age. The idea seems absurd to me.

So no, I don't have a very strong idea about what treatment should be offered or when. I just do have a very strong aversion to such drastic and life altering treatment in someone so young.

I think indulging the fantasy that you can be of the opposite sex if you choose is storing up problems, because the reality is you can not, in a physical sense.

It seems that research is all directed towards physical reassignment and the consequences of that, and very little or none is directed towards how people can come to accept their birth gender. I could be wrong on this?

[mph1977]

AJS- said:

<snip>
It seems that research is all directed towards physical reassignment and the consequences of that, and very little or none is directed towards how people can come to accept their birth gender. I could be wrong on this?

they've been there and done that for both LGB and trans and seen it fail dismally

all you are doing is confirming both your ignorance and your prejudices now ...

[p2c]

AJS- said:

This is a vast question to which there's no easy answer. What I would say is:

I think gender and sexuality are a lot more complex than we are comfortable to deal with, or than our love of categorising and labelling things really allows for.

I think our current understanding of it is much more limited than we (especially the medical profession) like to admit.

I think there are certain people who see trans as a cause celebre in itself because it vindicates their *beliefs* about gender and sexuality.

From entirely personal experience, maybe I'm fortunate but I can't remember gender really figuring much until I was around 12 or 13 beyond a vague awareness of Mum, Dad and people somewhat similar to them. Looking at my own daughter who is now 3 she sometimes asks when she'll have a beard, she sometimes runs around shooting the boy down the road with toy guns and jumps in muddy puddles like Peppa Pig. Other times she is all dresses, princesses and fairies. She's vaguely aware of gender but I can't imagine it being such a concern that it would ruin someone's life at that `age. The idea seems absurd to me.

So no, I don't have a very strong idea about what treatment should be offered or when. I just do have a very strong aversion to such drastic and life altering treatment in someone so young.

I think indulging the fantasy that you can be of the opposite sex if you choose is storing up problems, because the reality is you can not, in a physical sense.

It seems that research is all directed towards physical reassignment and the consequences of that, and very little or none is directed towards how people can come to accept their birth gender. I could be wrong on this?

AJS, I had wondered what your stake in the game was as you seemed to have too much interest in this thread for someone with casual passing interest, you were either as top troll or someone with a significant interest. If the latter and you ignore everything i have said in this thread please do not ignore the next sentence.

Do not expose your child to the views you express in this thread. Provide her with a loving open and fully honest and non judgmental "she can tell your anything" environment and that you will love her no matter what. Read the WPATH SOC and do your proper research. If gender non conformity persists or escalates GET HELP.

I am not saying your child is gender non conforming, not even close, but "when will i grow a beard" for a 3yr old girl is a red flag. We have already seen there is a very very high over 94% chance its nothing. But even if its only a 0.000001% chance she is trans it is the very very tiniest of hints or attitudes from you that will send her into secrecy and a dark path.

I can not even begin to describe how hard it is for someone to come out as trans, it can though be easier if it is to someone who shows trans accepting views. As a child of the 70's,80's i can not tell you what made me go into hiding but i can tell you i knew to hide from behavior reactions before I ever verbalized anything, at that point i knew for sure to hide.

For the love of whatever deity you believe in that what she said was just being inquisitive as being trans even in today's 'enlightened' world can destroy lives and families.

[Justayellowbadge]

p2c said:

I am not saying your child is gender non conforming, not even close, but "when will i grow a beard" for a 3yr old girl is a red flag.

Wow.