Being transgender is hard

[truethat]

Medical Guidelines for the Treatment of Transexual Children
The widely followed HBIGDA Standards of Care of Gender Identity Disorders, a document which has previously (and increasingly controversially) been against the treatment against the hormonal treatment of under 16's, has relaxed its rules somewhat in the latest (2001) Version 6. It now states that:

"Adolescents may be eligible for puberty-delaying hormones as soon as pubertal changes have begun. In order for the adolescent and his or her parents to make an informed decision about pubertal delay, it is recommended that the adolescent experience the onset of puberty in his or her biologic sex, at least to Tanner Stage Two." [on average this means about age 11 for biologic females, age 12 for biologic males] .....

"Adolescents may be eligible to begin masculinizing or feminizing hormone therapy as early as age 16, preferably with parental consent. In many countries 16-year olds are legal adults for medical decision making, and do not require parental consent. ....

"Any surgical intervention should not be carried out prior to adulthood, or prior to a real-life experience of at least two years in the gender role of the sex with which the adolescent identifies. The threshold of 18 should be seen as an eligibility criterion and not an indication in itself for active intervention."

http://www.secondtype.info/young.htm

Masculizing or Feminizing hormones as EARLY AS AGE 16. Thank you very much. Now what's the big scary bad thing about hormones anyway since we already give hormones to other young teens for other different kinds of things.

You are making up a situation that doesn't exist in order to justify a false idea as a way of perpetuating the idea that there is "something wrong" with the treatment of people with GID.

You think people who actually know what they are talking about should avoid the thread so you all can sit around and bathe in your ignorance on the topic instead of discussing facts.

That seriously made me LOL.


If they are not giving hormones to children STOP BRINGING IT UP AS A DISCUSSION.

 

[L.Y.S.]

http://www.secondtype.info/young.htm

Masculizing or Feminizing hormones as EARLY AS AGE 16. Thank you very much. Now what's the big scary bad thing about hormones anyway since we already give hormones to other young teens for other different kinds of things.

You are making up a situation that doesn't exist in order to justify a false idea as a way of perpetuating the idea that there is "something wrong" with the treatment of people with GID.

You think people who actually know what they are talking about should avoid the thread so you all can sit around and bathe in your ignorance on the topic instead of discussing facts.

That seriously made me LOL.


If they are not giving hormones to children STOP BRINGING IT UP AS A DISCUSSION.

No people who make horrible arguments like yourself. Full of emotional vendetta and prone to set up verbal altercations and ideological skirmishes. While I was previously in the thread, the issue of children was discussed. I am not crazy. I went back and read. This issue was discussed, and epeke was talking about the protocols and what not.

Btw, I did not ask you for that, I asked for the information in which people were debating it was wrong for children to use. Oh wait, you can't find it because that was never what we were arguing. Seems like I'm not the ignorant and uninformed one. Furthermore, if people are teenagers making this decision then I see little reason why anyone else should care about it. I personally don't care if someone 16 makes this decision. Generally people start having sex, and become associated with their life time identities by this age. It's practically harmless...

 

[truethat]

Why are people talking about protocols of giving hormones to children when it isn't done?

What's the point?

I am angry in this thread because as I have said, a bunch of people who want to sit around and have discussion about something they don't understand that continues to perpetuate misinformation about a group of people that are regularly discriminated against? You bet I'm going to get upset. Especially when you supposedly are trotting out the children in concern and what you are doing just contributes to more misinformation and outright lies?

It's no different than people "having a discussion" about interracial marriage and whether it's good for the children of such unions. It's narrow minded. And I'm going to point that out.

 

[Earthborn]

Many times the umbrella term of transgender is used interchangably with transsexual which is how I tend to use it and most of the people I talk to.

Follow your own link, and click on the question "What are some categories or types of transgender people?"

You'll see that the umbrella term "transgender" covers a lot more than transsexuals. All of them however are assumed to have issues with their gender identity.

Also the distinction about it being a medical diagnosis has a lot more to do with it being recognized as a medical condition so that surgeries and treatments are covered by medical insurance. I think that's a separate issue though.

Not only the coverage by medical insurance is at stake -- not in all countries is it covered -- by the justification of medical intervention. I think that therefore the movement within the transgender community that tries to depathologise transgenderism is mistaken. But I do agree that it is rather strange that it is listed as a mental disorder. First someone has to prove s/he is sane enough to make decision change their sex, only to be labelled crazy enough to justify the treatment.

 

[truethat]

Follow your own link, and click on the question "What are some categories or types of transgender people?"

You'll see that the umbrella term "transgender" covers a lot more than transsexuals. All of them however are assumed to have issues with their gender identity.

Not only the coverage by medical insurance is at stake -- not in all countries is it covered -- by the justification of medical intervention. I think that therefore the movement within the transgender community that tries to depathologise transgenderism is mistaken. But I do agree that it is rather strange that it is listed as a mental disorder. First someone has to prove s/he is sane enough to make decision change their sex, only to be labelled crazy enough to justify the treatment.

Yeah that part is the part that drives me crazy. That's why I said we don't say someone has a "sexual orientation disorder" when they are gay.

It's tricky, I did look up the terminology on that page and I can see that I use transgender (as do most of the people I know who discuss it) the way others seem to use transsexual. I think we shy away from using "transsexual" because there are so many people out there who continue to confuse gender identity with sexual orientation.

Nice to have someone on the thread who knows their stuff btw!

 

[L.Y.S.]

Why are people talking about protocols of giving hormones to children when it isn't done?

What's the point?

I am angry in this thread because as I have said, a bunch of people who want to sit around and have discussion about something they don't understand that continues to perpetuate misinformation about a group of people that are regularly discriminated against? You bet I'm going to get upset. Especially when you supposedly are trotting out the children in concern and what you are doing just contributes to more misinformation and outright lies?

It's no different than people "having a discussion" about interracial marriage and whether it's good for the children of such unions. It's narrow minded. And I'm going to point that out.

It was YOU who started out the argument not anyone else. Take responsibility for your own actions. You started out by talking about children, NOT teenagers. I think many people would've been much less adverse to the idea and reacted quite differently if you had blatantly mentioned teenagers from the get go, which you did not.

The only fault of ignorance in this thread is of your own doing, not anyone else’s. Everyone was arguing about the children. This is definitely a bait and switch because I remember arguing for several pages about the ethicality of child hormones. Now it is clear you switched your position and then tried to make it seem as though you always argued from this position which I can gather copious amounts of posts which suggest you didn't. You only recently switched the argument to teenagers, which proves the volatility and uselessness of your argument.

Not only are you emotionally involved in this thread, but you also bait and switch when necessary to keep conflict going, classic...

 

[truethat]

Oh pahleeeeeeeeeeze. Several people on this thread have argued that a child cannot know their own gender by the ages of 2-10. Then the conversation turned to whether or not it was ethical to allow a child to pick their gender and how it would "effect" society yadda yadda yadda. Then it moved on to hormone therapy.

Spare me the semantics.

I switched my position? What position? In my opinion if a child, the child's family and the doctor have determined that the child is indeed transgendered (transsexual) which is extraordinarily rare, I would not care at all if the child were to use hormones as soon as possible (with the onset of puberty) you all do know what age puberty starts in kids, or did I need to put that up as well. It's common sense.

My position has never changed.. Yours did a few posts up. I'll copy it for you.

 

[truethat]

So why give children hormones in the first place if they will grow out of it? Delaying puberty is one thing. Giving hormones is another. I don't think most people are adverse to the concept of teenagers, young adults, and older adults making decisions for their selves about life. But most would generally agree that children do not have the life experience necessary to make such a crucial decisions. Regardless to whether or not they are beginning to understand that they feel another gender. However, it is wise that a parent allows a child to explore their developing gender image by themselves. This does not mean however, a child should under any circumstances, should be given hormones. It's really as simple as that. I think the NHS had it right, give them drugs to delay puberty. If they wanna go through with it by 15 or 16, then it's their choice .

Then we are in agreement. My fault for not knowing better. If we are talking about delaying puberty I am in agreement with this.

I'm not going to reply to you again. You seem to be flat out lying.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Oh pahleeeeeeeeeeze. Several people on this thread have argued that a child cannot know their own gender by the ages of 2-10. Then the conversation turned to whether or not it was ethical to allow a child to pick their gender and how it would "effect" society yadda yadda yadda. Then it moved on to hormone therapy.

Spare me the semantics.

Yes, and while that was a part of the argument people also argued against hormone treatment for children, NOT teenagers. Find a post you posted that suggests otherwise and I'll concede the point. Don't find this article and I'll know personally that you are a fallacious and facetious liar who twists their words in order to fit whatever conniving objective you have in this thread.

 

[truethat]

Yes, and while that was a part of the argument people also argued against hormone treatment for children, NOT teenagers. Find a post you posted that suggests otherwise and I'll concede the point. Don't find this article and I'll know personally that you are a fallacious and facetious liar who twists their words in order to fit whatever conniving objective you have in this thread.

You can't be this dense. Hormone therapy include puberty blockers and the feminzing or masculinizing hormones. Why would you need to give any of that to a small child since most small children are not going through puberty.

I just posted what you said and the fact that you pointed out that you misunderstood. That wasn't even a reply to me. So how in the world have I twisted your words.


Again why did you bring up the issue of giving hormones to small children if it is NOT DONE. You even bring it up in your statement that it's not done that way. So why bring it up at all??????????

You did exactly what I said. You didn't understand or know that it wasn't done, because you haven't educated yourself on the topic. You brought it up as part of a discussion when it is NOT DONE> WHY?

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'm not going to reply to you again. You seem to be flat out lying.

Nope twisted my words again. I agreed that children should have their puberties delayed. I never said they shouldn't. I however, did argue that children should not be hormone induced at such a young age (i.e. given estrogen etc.). In fact most were arguing the same point and requested protocols. Then you twist their words as well. No one was adverse to the idea of a teenager doing this. And quite frankly your foolishness is putting a lot of people off from your arguments. You only focus on the negative which makes people a lot less tolerant of both you and your cause. You aren't doing anything for what you are proclaiming to defend. And you are so foolish in fact, you haven't even seen how I have generally shifted my position throw out the post as the evidence mounted.

You refuse to see that I have become more tolerant and open to the idea. Instead you see the few disagreeing statements I have made and find an all-out reason to post mimicry and foolish in this thread. If you don't respond to me fine. I'm frankly tired of your brand of foolishness. You directly bait people into conflicts with you. It'll be better for you to hit the ignore button. But I doubt you'll ever do this because you are addicted to conflict and bickering, which suggest to me that you are a bitter person. Maybe you aren't wrapped as tight as you originally portrayed.

 

[truethat]

Nope twisted my words again. I agreed that children should have their puberties delayed. I never said they shouldn't. I however, did argue that children should not be hormone induced at such a young age. In fact most were arguing the same point and requested protocols. Then you twist their words as well. No one was adverse to the idea of a teenager doing this. And quite frankly your foolishness is putting a lot of people off from your arguments. You only focus on the negative which makes people a lot less tolerant of both you and your cause. You aren't doing anything for what you are proclaiming to defend. And you are so foolish in fact, you haven't even seen how I have generally shifted my position throw out the post as the evidence mounted.

You refuse to see that I have become more tolerant and open to the idea. Instead you see the few disagreeing statements I have made and find an all-out reason to post mimicry and foolish in this thread. If you don't respond to me fine. I'm frankly tired of your brand of foolishness. You directly bait people into conflicts with you. It'll be better for you to hit the ignore button. But I doubt you'll ever do this because you are addicted to conflict and bickering, which suggest to me that you are a bitter person. Maybe you aren't wrapped as tight as you originally portrayed.

WHY WOULD YOU ARGUE THIS WHEN NO ONE IS SUGGESTING OTHERWISE?


You refuse to answer a direct question. Why would you have this argument? Who was saying otherwise?

I'll tell you what happened. Pages back I pointed out that people confuse transitioning children with hormones and SRS etc. I stated then that transitioning simply means presenting as the gender with which they self identify.

You got it wrong because you didn't take a bit of time to research any of your issues before deciding you had one.


I'll post my post from PAGE 3.

 

[truethat]

Why is it of any of your concern what protocol is used? Are you someone out there trying to save the gays as well?

If you knew what the protocol was you wouldn't be having this conversation. Basically for a very young child the "transition" is to allow the child to dress as the opposite gender and identify as the opposite gender. My god, what a horrible thing. And this is not done without a diagnosis.


The reason you are being called a bigot is that you are worried about a protocol you haven't even bothered to research. You sound like someone who is asking for PROOF that evolution is true, in one post on a message board and then debating ad nauseum the accuracy of the claims being made. If you don't understand something educate yourself. Or did you forget the title of the forum.

How has my position changed? I feel like a broken record on this thread. LOL

 

[AvalonXQ]

Gender is a social construct. It heartens me that people are starting to feel the freedom to adopt whichever gender they best identify with.

But, to me, it's something of a superficial bandage placed on a more basic problem, which is the polarization of gender roles in our society. Even permitting a trans individual to choose a gender opposite to that assigned their sex is tacitly acknowledging that they have to choose one or the other to fit in at all.

I really feel like it ought to be possible to ignore the gender question -- to take whatever aspects of each stereotype is truly characteristic of your personality, and not feel like you have to start by slotting yourself into one box and then make exceptions.

This, incidentally, is part of the reason why I generally don't identify as a gender online. While anyone who spends any time around me know where my traits gravitate, I honestly feel it's an unnecessary distraction from meaningful discussions. I'll identify if it becomes relevant; it seldom does. (It occurs to me that this attitude is probably at least partially due to cis-privilege, which may be worth further discussion on another thread. Sorry for the derail.)

 

[Dessi]

Gender is a social construct. It heartens me that people are starting to feel the freedom to adopt whichever gender they best identify with.

But, to me, it's something of a superficial bandage placed on a more basic problem, which is the polarization of gender roles in our society. Even permitting a trans individual to choose a gender opposite to that assigned their sex is tacitly acknowledging that they have to choose one or the other to fit in at all.

I really feel like it ought to be possible to ignore the gender question -- to take whatever aspects of each stereotype is truly characteristic of your personality, and not feel like you have to start by slotting yourself into one box and then make exceptions.

This, incidentally, is part of the reason why I generally don't identify as a gender online. While anyone who spends any time around me know where my traits gravitate, I honestly feel it's an unnecessary distraction from meaningful discussions. I'll identify if it becomes relevant; it seldom does. (It occurs to me that this attitude is probably at least partially due to cis-privilege, which may be worth further discussion on another thread. Sorry for the derail.)

I have a friend who is transgender but really in a category by herself: not necessarily transsexual, definitely not a cross dresser, asexual, likes short hair, dislikes makeup, not exactly butch, not exactly feminine, not exactly tomboy. She's just who she is

 

[AvalonXQ]

I have a friend who is transgender but really in a category by herself: not necessarily transsexual, definitely not a cross dresser, asexual, likes short hair, dislikes makeup, not exactly butch, not exactly feminine, not exactly tomboy. She's just who she is

In my opinion, this would not even be notable were there not a very specific set of female stereotypes that she has to either adopt or subvert when expressing herself socially.

In our culture, we are defined first by our gender, and then exceptions made from that baseline. Simply using "he" or "she" establishes a very different baseline from which to craft identity.

I don't begrudge transsexuals the desire to start from "the other" baseline. I just wish it wasn't necessary to choose either of these two extremes to start from at all.

 

[Dessi]

Not only the coverage by medical insurance is at stake -- not in all countries is it covered -- by the justification of medical intervention. I think that therefore the movement within the transgender community that tries to depathologise transgenderism is mistaken. But I do agree that it is rather strange that it is listed as a mental disorder. First someone has to prove s/he is sane enough to make decision change their sex, only to be labelled crazy enough to justify the treatment.

I was denied private insurance because the insurance company inferred I was tg, and hence uninsurable.

Here in the US, gender reassignment surgery, out of pocket costs for HRT, facial feminization, and breast removal can be used as an itemized deduction on taxes. In some cases, even electrolysis can be a medical expense, and therefore tax deductable.

Removing GID as a legitimate medical diagnosis would undermine that fact that these sorts of surgeries are a bona fide medical expense, not simply cosmetic, and definitely cause problems for everyone who ever tried to deduct transition costs from their taxes..

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'll admit, I don't understand how it is a bona fide medical expense, rather than merely something cosmetic.

I can understand that the cosmetic changes may be necessary for your mental well-being, but they are still cosmetic in nature; you're not suffering from any physical disorder that needs to be fixed for your body to operate as it is medically expected to.

In my mind, it compares to plastic surgery for burn victims. Once skin grafts and other reconstructive work has made it so that the patient has a properly functioning face, even a normatively "ugly" one (mis-shapen, asymmetrical, etc), further surgeries really are cosmetic rather than medical. This doesn't imply the surgeries aren't important for the person to function socially or psychologically. But I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between surgeries that are necessary for proper medical health and surgeries that may be important for personal happiness or self-esteem but are nonetheless not medically necessary.

 

[Dessi]

I'll admit, I don't understand how it is a bona fide medical expense, rather than merely something cosmetic.

I can understand that the cosmetic changes may be necessary for your mental well-being, but they are still cosmetic in nature; you're not suffering from any physical disorder that needs to be fixed for your body to operate as it is medically expected to.

In my mind, it compares to plastic surgery for burn victims. Once skin grafts and other reconstructive work has made it so that the patient has a properly functioning face, even a normatively "ugly" one (mis-shapen, asymmetrical, etc), further surgeries really are cosmetic rather than medical. This doesn't imply the surgeries aren't important for the person to function socially or psychologically. But I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between surgeries that are necessary for proper medical health and surgeries that may be important for personal happiness or self-esteem but are nonetheless not medically necessary.

I don't know about other countries, but recently in the US, O'Donnabhain v US Tax Court established that gender altering surgeries are a tax deductable medical expense.

Summary of the case is as follows:

- A transgender woman deducted the cost of her GRS (gender reassignment surgery) on her taxes, IRS stated that GRS was a cosmetic procedure.

- IRS argued that GID is not a "disease" because tg people are physically healthy, that there's no known cause, and that GRS does not "cure" it.

- O'Donnabhain, represented by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), asserted that GID is a diagnosable medical condition, which is accepted by all major psychiatric and psychiatric organizations in the US and elsewhere. GLAD argued that numerous court cases regarding transgender prisoners have ruled that GID is a serious medical condition which requires treatment, and it is well established that some mental illnesses (e.g. anorexia) have no known cause yet are treated as diseases for the purposes applying tax code.

More importantly, GLAD argued that every psychiatric reference recognizes GID as a serious disease and endorses
the triadic therapeutic sequence from Harry Benjamin Standards of Care, which recommends gender reassignment surgery as a therapeutic intervention required for the treatment of GID, as the authoritative guide regarding transgender care.

GRS is therefore a therapeutic treatment required to alleviate the distress of GID.

- 8 judges agreed with GLAD.

- 5 judges dissented on the basis that GRS does not treat the underlying cause of transsexuality. Speaking for myself, I find this line of thought disturbing, as it could imply that wheelchairs, crutches, painkillers, reconstrucive surgery, and such are not tax deductible medical expenses as they don't treat the underlying disease and/or cosmetic in nature.

A very good discussion of the case is here:
http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com...-taxpayer-on-surgical-expense-deductions.html

 

[truethat]

I'll admit, I don't understand how it is a bona fide medical expense, rather than merely something cosmetic.

I can understand that the cosmetic changes may be necessary for your mental well-being, but they are still cosmetic in nature; you're not suffering from any physical disorder that needs to be fixed for your body to operate as it is medically expected to.

In my mind, it compares to plastic surgery for burn victims. Once skin grafts and other reconstructive work has made it so that the patient has a properly functioning face, even a normatively "ugly" one (mis-shapen, asymmetrical, etc), further surgeries really are cosmetic rather than medical. This doesn't imply the surgeries aren't important for the person to function socially or psychologically. But I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between surgeries that are necessary for proper medical health and surgeries that may be important for personal happiness or self-esteem but are nonetheless not medically necessary.

That distinction can be found in facial transplant patients. And facial transplants are far more risky than GRS because the patient must take drugs to prevent rejection for the rest of their lives.

Some of these patients are blind and so you wonder what difference it really makes regarding their appearance, but others will have the surgery to help with eating or breathing. Those who are "only having it" to help with mental reasons are being too easily dismissed IMO. You only have one life, to go through it disfigured when there are medical solutions available is inhumane.