pressure to see yourself as trans?

Post Reply New Topic

I have to agree with starkid here. As much as trans folks want to erase biological reality, we need a language to refer to it. We need to be able to distinguish between natal males and natal females, for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, natal males and natal females have different medical issues, and this is especially relevant for natal females, who experience menstruation and are usually at risk of pregnancy for decades of their lives, plus being put on the mommy track for their entire lives. Natal males have distinct health issues, too. (I assume that taking hormones puts trans people at additional risk, since there are going to be side effects.)

Another issue is male pattern violence. A third is sports. Trans girls and trans women have typically spent years "on steroids" before transitioning, and the effects of that may be lifelong. Trans men who have taken T are also affected by this. This will become obvious as more trans women move into women's sports. There's a trans girl (Andraya Yearwood) who recently cleaned up in track and field who hasn't even started taking hormones - is that fair?

And I don't agree with the term "cis" either. Pretty much all natal females experience gender/sex dysphoria at one time or another, sometimes seriously.

Vocabulary only really works when everyone (or most people) agree with it. A minority imposing a vocabulary on a majority is just not going to fly. It doesn't matter how oppressed you are, you still need to come up with a solution that works for everyone. (Same as accommodation for disability - it has to be workable.) Making traditional terms essentially meaningless is not workable.

My video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeOelQj1B0

And Natasha Chart published an article on feminist current the other day: http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/ ... tectomies/

I am sorry if my attitude upsets trans people, but I am unwilling to back down. I do want for us to find a solution that works for everyone. I don't even know if that's possible right now.

We do. We have cisgender women and cisgender men, transgender women and transgender men.

And, "biological reality"? It needs to be said that this is the same kind of language racists use to rationalize their beliefs.


True, but this is a matter of discussion for doctors, not for common persons. And I notice I never hear this argument used by medical professionals, probably because medical professionals realize that the correlation between gender and certain medical issues isn't so black and white.


It's true that the effects of testosterone are difficult/impossible to reverse, but I don't think there's a high incidence of violence among transgender females (not nearly as high as the violence AGAINST transgender females, that's for damn sure). I wonder if you have a source that says otherwise?

In fact, the gender/sexual demographic with the highest rate of domestic violence is cisgender lesbians. *sniff sniff* You smell that? That's the smell of radical feminist narratives going up in smoke.


I understand trans women in sports are a controversial issue, and I think there needs to be some tight restrictions on transgender athletes' eligibility to compete in major sporting leagues. But it's a pretty big leap to go from "you shouldn't run track" to "you shouldn't exist."


You just said a few paragraphs ago that we need a language to refer to biologically female women, and now you're saying you don't like the word we use? Hehe, which is it? I don't think you can have it both ways. Women who have XX-chromosomes and are born with a vulva are called cisgender women, take it or leave it.

And no, you haven't experienced dysphoria. Everyone on this board who has suffered gender dysphoria is probably groaning internally at your words.


If everybody thought like that, we'd still be calling black people the N word (and I'm sure some of us do, though I'm proud to say I'm not one of them).


Well, you sure have some interesting perspectives here. I hope nobody follows your advice though. FYI, it's possible to be androgynous and transgender, just like it's possible to be androgynous and cisgender.

I considered transitioning back in the '80s, but I guess I don't have any credibility since I didn't go through with it. The hang up for me was my pelvis: in order to pass as a (very short) man I would have had to have it broken up and reset, since I have child-bearing hips, and that wasn't (and I assume still isn't) feasible. If I had been offered testosterone I would have been seriously tempted, and of course I wanted to cut off my breasts and hack out my uterus. (Ibuprofen for menstrual cramps wasn't a thing yet, and I think it is very common for girls/women to want to mutilate their bodies.) There are plenty of people of both sexes who don't transition because they can see it wouldn't make enough of a difference. So instead we grin and bear it. And usually outgrow it at some point.

No one is saying trans people don't exist. That's nonsense. Obviously you exist. The argument is how to classify trans people - trans activists want one taxonomy, the rest of society is saying that it's not that simple, because it isn't. The body you were born with is a biological bottom line - there is a limit to how much you can modify it, and pretending otherwise isn't helping.

Tanith Lee wrote a novel (Biting the Sun, iirc) in which adolescents could change their bodies as much as they liked - just step into a machine, push some buttons, and voila! So of course the protagonist, who does spend some time as the opposite sex, is frustrated because trying on different identities is just a distraction. What she really wants to become an adult and is tired of not being taken seriously as an adolescent. The grass is always greener. I wonder how much the emphasis on trans right now is due to economic uncertainty - we can't fix the economy (jobs going overseas or being eliminated due to automation, the widening gap between rich and poor) (though we could fix it with a basic income and a shift towards jobs in permaculture agriculture, if we could figure out how to get there from here), so lets get worked up about something else.

Here are some numbers on violence against trans people (not as high as advertised!) from the US:

source: https://medium.com/@julian.vigo/the-inv ... .mcptsssun - you need to scroll down quite a ways to get to this paragraph, but the author lists sources and numbers at the bottom of the article as well.

Also (same article, slightly further down):


And she cites figures that autistic kids are bullied more than trans kids.

There are websites dedicated to documenting violence committed by trans people against others. You can google if you're interested. It's important to remember that dysphoria is a medical condition that needs accommodation, but so is ptsd from male violence, and there are lot more women with ptsd from male violence than there are trans women. Don't throw women under the bus for the sake of trans accommodation.

MY CONCERN here is that young people who are androgynous between the ears, including autistics, gays and lesbians, are being pushed into seeing themselves as trans, in part due to ableism and homophobia, when they would benefit more from learning about the long history of androgynous people who were fine or at least ok with their bodies, many of whom made substantial contributions to society. Gifted/creative people tend to be more androgynous, and the "cure" for that, and for neurodiversity in general, should never be mutilation and sterilization (which amounts to eugenics). Androgynous people should never be told that androgyneity causes transness, because it doesn't. Transness (and not all trans are androgynous either - some trans women are very very masculine) is a combination of factors, including probably a lack of sophistication when it comes to understanding personality vs gender vs sex.

I think the solution to transness/dysphoria/confusion about these issues, especially for autistic people, is to focus on something else. Take up sports and become fit; climb mountains; write a book; write music or do art; travel the world - become good at something. I think that is where the cure is, if there is one.

Also, study up on permaculture - it's where the jobs of the future are.

Well I can certainly see where you're coming from on a lot of things, but a few points of yours need to be addressed:

The reason the official stats show a much lower murder rate for trans women, is because it's common for lawyers to seek a lesser charge such as manslaughter. The infamous "trans panic defense" is still the standard in courts all over the U.S. (except in California). FBI statistics mean nothing to me, because I know the police and the courts really don't give a s**t about us.



What about autistic trans kids? Like, if an autistic kid already feels alienated among their peers and uncomfortable in their own skin, telling them they're "androgynous" and "won't really fit in as either gender" probably isn't too good for the ol' psyche.


I tried that already. I cut my hair short, took boxing lessons, got into fishing and hunting, joined a men's Bible study group. I thought maybe I didn't enjoy life as a man because I had never given it an honest try. But those "solutions" didn't work, because there are no solutions to being trans. Being honest about who we are inside is the only solution, and that means transitioning.

I don't feel any pressure to be seen as trans. I want people to know I'm trans. I wear a variety of German helmets to get the point across. I want people to know that I identify as male.

I did NOT mean do macho things to feel more masculine (or feminine things, for that matter). I meant follow your interests, immerse yourself in things that you love for their own sake. (Sports/fitness because fitness increases confidence, not because it's gendered.) And if you don't have any of those interests/passions, that's a really big problem, maybe even bigger than being trans. How do you develop any kind of identity at all if you don't have things that interest you?



To me, it's just being honest. Some people don't fit into neat categories, and they might as well embrace that rather than fight it. Do I not qualify as trans, or at least previously trans, or almost trans? I assume I'm genderqueer, whatever that means. (As far as I can tell, genderqueer=androgynous.) I wanted to transition decades ago, but it would have just made things worse, so I'm glad it wasn't accessible the way it is now. Young trans/autistic/gay/lesbian kids deserve to know that lots of older people either regret they transitioned, or are glad they didn't, and that transitioning isn't the only option. Neurodiversity pride is another option. "My body, my brain. You think they don't match? Tough. Deal with it. Me? I like it that way."

I've known about my masculine brain since I was at least 5 and I've had dysphoria since hitting puberty. I feel more pressure put on me to be cis. I just want to be myself, not forced into gender roles and other bunk.

Well, neurodiversity pride is an option, but framing it as an alternative to trans pride, rather than a complement, is problematic. If you talk about autistic people being "androgynous between the ears", you risk alienating and confusing young people who are still figuring out who they are. And if kids are made to feel like they have to choose between an autistic identity and a trans identity, most are probably gonna pick the trans identity. You might just be pushing autistic trans kids away from the support networks they really need.

I'm confused about some things here.

1. How does talking about being androgynous between the ears alienate people? If it confuses people, then they're not in a position to give informed consent to medical transition, and need to learn about it. But how does it alienate people?

2. I don't understand why kids would choose a trans identity over an autistic identity. Is it because trans is in the media more right now? Is it because disability in general is still shunned? Realistically, if you're autistic, you need to deal with that at some point. If you have sensory issues, or communication difficulties, or get bogged down in detail way more than others, that has nothing to do with gender vs sex, and it's only fair to remind people of that if it looks like they're running away from those issues. Letting them lie to themselves isn't doing them any favours.

I see neurodiversity and trans activism as contradictory because most trans activism seems to promote the idea of a gender binary, where you are either masculine (male brained) or feminine (female brained), and never both, whereas in real life most people are a mix of the two. In other words, trans activists seem to be anti-neurodiversity.

Some people more androgynous than others, and research has shown that autistic people, especially autistic women, tend to be in the middle. Whenever an autistic person wonders about transness, it's only reasonable to remind or inform them of this, to make sure they aren't getting the two confused. And when it comes to medical transition, it's unethical not to take it into consideration. Unfortunately, I've found that talking about trans issues from a neurodiversity perspective has gotten me labelled a "terf". I'm not sure if that's just people being argumentative or whether they genuinely don't understand what neurodiversity is about.

It's normal for young people (teens, 20s) to try on different identities. In the '90s, sexual orientation got added to the mix and now a lot of people experiment with that, trying out different orientations before deciding where they are most comfortable. (Some people know when they're very young but many people are less extreme in their orientation, so it make sense for them to consider their options, and even people with extreme orientations are going to question now and then just because.) Now, trans is being added to the mix, and lots of young people are considering whether they might be trans or not. The only problem I have with this, with respect to the individual, is that medical transition is irreversible - if you take hormones, they will cause permanent changes, especially if you're taking testosterone. And puberty blockers can have serious side effects. (Never mind surgery.) So it's one thing to experiment with your identity - that's fine. It's another thing to go ahead and make permanent changes to your body before you have a clear understanding of what's involved. Telling autistic kids/young adults this might alienate them, but so what? Society has a responsibility to protect people who aren't in a position to protect themselves, including restricting medical treatments to those who understand the implications. And it's possible most people have to be older than 18 to truly understand sex + gender + interactions between the two, in which case 18 isn't old enough for informed consent. I also question whether parents should be allowed to make this serious a decision for minors. Parents seem to be trusting medical authorities and trans activists too much, when there's a lot that still open to debate.

To me, promoting neurodiversity before allowing medical transition is just a way of making sure that people are informed enough to make the best decisions for themselves.

"Neurodiversity" is just a word white autistic people use to sugarcoat the fact that the big names in autistic representation are heterosexual, white, English-speaking and culturally Christian, and the relative difficulty minorities have in seeking a diagnosis. Until this problem is addressed, I don't think autism activists should claim to care about diversity. Just my two cents.

That's an excellent point. If you do a google image search for famous autistic people, you'll see that the roster is whiter than the front row at a Kenny Loggins concert.

Neurodiversity is a concept based on diversity neurology not race, gender or religion. That should be self-evident.

So someone who cares about diversity is supposed carry all of the responsibility and should be resented for believing diversity of neurology? Yet this only applies if they are white and heterosexual? You can just be resentful and not believe in diversity at all, just so long as you are not white and heterosexual?

I suppose one good thing about the divisive and judgmental ideology of Intersectionality, is it is slowly destroying itself using faulty logic like that.

All of this is of course forgetting where autism research originated and difficulty people have obtaining diagnosis in non-white etho-chrisitan cultures.

People with such views are every much as entitled, intellectually elitist as the picture of the world they pain and their faux moral outrage especially ironic.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 05 May 2017, 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't understand Barchan's comment until you posted this.
Yeah, neurodiversity is diversity of brain structure/functioning, independent of race, sex, religion etc. It is harder for some racial/ethnic groups to get a diagnosis (and also harder for women) but that's a different issue.

Asserting something doesn't make it true. It may be true but it may be not. There may be other factors such as economic background or even cultural factors within the communities.

Sticking it to white heterosexuals is terribly fashionable but I can probably name more ethic minority or gay people on the spectrum than I can from poor white groups from the south or rust belt.

I agree that it's more complex than "white males have an easier time getting a diagnosis."

The other autistic people I've met have tended to be white and from well-educated backgrounds, which fits with what I've read about diagnostic biases.