#is gender not real but hormones and traits associated with them real? is making a distinction between the two worth it then? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

burningtheroots · 1 year

Text

Sex dysphoria (and "Gender" dysphoria) is an ego-syntonic mental health condition, and we need to improve how we view and treat it [here‘s why]

Yes, it‘s quite long.

First of all, there‘s a difference between »sex« (the biological reality one is born with) and »gender« (a social construct which associates one‘s sex with stereotypical traits and behaviors). So, of course, sex dysphoria and "gender" dysphoria aren‘t the same thing, but are usually intertwined.

Let‘s sum up what »ego-syntonic« and »ego-dystonic« mean in the context of psychological disorders:

»Ego-syntonic« means that ideas and our perception match up with our needs, self-image and personality.

»Ego-dystonic« means that ideas and our perception don‘t match up with our feelings, values and personality.

Ego-syntonic disorders, like Body Dysmorphic Disorder, Eating Disorders and Personality Disorders of all kinds make the person who suffers from these mental illnesses perceive them as a part of themselves; a part of their identity. The symptoms are experienced as congruent with their "reality" (e.g. starvation is experienced as a rational solution for the falsely believed flaws one wants to eradicate).

Ego-dystonic disorders, like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) make the person suffer, but they’re still able to acknowledge that the symptoms they experience are inconsistent with their own perception (e.g. "I‘m going to hurt xy" —> intrusive thought, doesn’t align with the person‘s values) of reality. They have it easier to identify it as a problem which needs to be treated as such, and don‘t identify with their symptoms as a part of their self.

Here‘s a little comparison between OCD and OCPD (obsessive compulsive personality disorder) to make it clearer:

Sex/"gender" dysphoria are ego-syntonic disorders, as they make the person experience the symptoms and identify with them like eating disorders and personality disorders do (also, they often go hand in hand!).

An important doubt I‘ve come across is that sex dysphoric people struggle with what their body parts really are whereas anorexic people (for example) struggle with how they perceive their body parts.

This is a fair argument, however, it‘s not entirely true so we need to take a closer look at it:

People with anorexia and body dysmorphia see what their body actually looks like but perceive it as "wrong" which then translates it to beliefs like "I‘m too fat", or more generally "xy is wrong with me; I‘m xy because of […]". They struggle with the perception of reality and identify with their symptoms, thus believe that these thoughts and feelings represent the truth about their bodies. After all, they struggle with a mental illness, not with their eyesight!

The same applies to sex dysphoria. People who suffer from it see their actual body parts and think they‘re "wrong" which then translates to "I am trapped in the wrong body" and "I need to change xy". They view the thoughts and feelings caused by their dysphoria as a fact, as a representation of reality.

This also explains why "gender affirming care" has rather low rates of regret, as the constant reassurance and affirmation don‘t challenge the symptoms but rather reinforce them.

Anorexia patients are likely to die due to starvation and malnutrition, whereas the negative side effects of hormonal treatment and cosmetic surgeries are not as obvious (but still very real, although often denied).

When you have a person with an eating disorder, they‘re likely to defend their behaviors and perception and feel attacked when you don‘t go along with their symptoms — but you still need to solve it with them. Imagine if we listened more to those stuck in their eating disorder than to those who break the cycle.

When you have a person with OCD, for example, they want their struggles to be recognized as such — as a problem — and receive help. When you go along with their symptoms, they usually feel misunderstood and hopeless (whereas people with ego-syntonic disorders experience these feelings at first when you don‘t go along with their version of reality).

Mental health care providers aren‘t supposed to go along with and reinforce the dysphoria of their patients but rather to actually do research and find ways to treat them. Instead, they tend to follow the rules of gender ideology and don‘t bother to solve the issue — they rather justify its existence. And those who speak against it are silenced immediately.

My criticism therefore clearly lies with the (mental) health system and the gender ideology propaganda. "Gender" is a set of stereotypes which has nothing to do with actually being a man or a woman, and no one is "born in the wrong body". It‘s a mental health condition which isn’t properly recognized and treated as such, which eventually hurts both dysphoric people and women as a sex class.

We need more research, better communication, better understanding and actual treatment options that don‘t rely on or hide behind patriarchal ideas of "identity".

We need more people to acknowledge that dysphoric children are very likely to overcome their dysphoria when they aren‘t constantly affirmed that they "need" to change and conform to anything, and we need to raise more awareness to the underlying mental health issue.

Of course, people who have sex dysphoria and other illnesses mentioned above will and can say that "it‘s not the same", which is true — no disorder is 1:1 like another. That‘s not the point. The point is that sex dysphoria is viewed and treated in an extremely counterproductive way and "professionals" delude their patients further.

Dysphoria goes hand in hand with high rates of anxiety, depression, dissociation and many patients suffer from comorbidities, including eating disorders, autism, personality disorders and BDD. This isn’t a coincidence, and the current approach only makes it worse, although the sufferers are often convinced of the opposite.

By the way, this isn’t about self-expression — everyone is free to present themselves however they like; this is about mental health. No one needs to disrupt or try to debunk reality in order to be themself, but when you‘re constantly told to do so, you end up in an endless cycle. And begin to feel anger towards anyone who and anything that challenges your perception.

Gender ideology isn’t going to help anyone, it‘s only going to keep harming everyone and is taking advantage of actually dysphoric people who are dragged into it and used as a "justification".

I‘m not here to hate. I‘m here to help. Thanks for reading.

5 notes · View notes

archiephd · 2 years

Text

trying to explain that gender essentialist thinking is harmful just on principal of upholding the concept in society while also acknowledging how like. trans men have noticed more confidence and physicality once they went on testosterone without undermining the point.

#trying to talk to my siblings abt it has been one of the most frustrating experiences of my whole life #like am i in the wrong?? if i squint at my sister using words like masculine energy and feminine energy in her spirituality #to describe a different between forward / penetrative / hardworking energy versus a receiving / being energy in her spirituality?#like to me. wanting to describe those ideas is fine. but why are you using gendered words to do it #it is partly because in english we haven't thought of many replacement words that Aren't gendered #but like. is the reluctance to change that vocabulary a matter of convenience or some room to clear out gender essentialism?#is gender not real but hormones and traits associated with them real? is making a distinction between the two worth it then?#EYE think so. because you can have women with low estrogen who feel masculine but are still content as female #and you can also have women with high testosterone who don't want hormone therapy yet still identify as female #so to link the two feels? unnecessary? even IF there is a likelihood to more easily acquire certain traits with each individual hormone #I DON'T KNOWWW enough about all this i unironically wanna get into gender studies just bc of this conversation hsdfkjsl #which was prompted by me subjecting myself to j*rdan p*terson bc my brother listened to him in the past btw lol #my brother has many disagreements with him and both he AND my sister are trans allies by i feel like...#they still have some concept of gender essentialism and i don't know how to properly confront it when i haven't even done that much researc #and honestly feel like i can't given my schedule #god. if you read all that thank you. also pls share ur thoughts if u have any #i've been thinking abt this for days #and would love any and all extra input especially from trans voices but not exclusively i am desperate #*edit my sister also like acknowledged how my squinting was justified but also saw me acknowledging peoples' responses to hormone therapy #and the difference they've felt in behavior as like. contradictory lol #and how like. if there was a trans woman who didn't want hormone therapy like. Were they tested to see if their natural testosterone levels #+ were low???#and i was like????? Does it matter #as long as there is one trans woman with high testosterone and one trans man with high estrogen doesn't that mean linking hormoes +#+*HORMONES with gendered traits is faulty?#but i guess like. if there's a generalized likelihood it Would make sense to link them #but IS there a generalized likelihood or is it mostly all circumstantial and socialized??#also is gender essentialism associating gendered traits with genetalia and Not hormones or are they the same??#does it MATTER?? i dunnooooooo god

52 notes · View notes

attemptsonherlifepdf · 3 years

Text

modern gothic, sci-fi, and the moral binary: why the matrix is one of the most relevant gothic pieces of the last twenty five years

the gothic is a genre that is designed to explore transgressive behaviours and private desires, and often does so by having these explicit acts committed by a supernatural character. this serves to not only characterise the behaviour as monstrous but ‘Other’ people who behave that way. while this is typical of traditional gothic literature, modern gothic tends to present sympathetic villains, who suggest to audiences that transgressive behaviours are not inherently threatening or deserving of punishment, but simply different. as put by kelley hurley, ‘through depicting the abhuman, the gothic reaffirms and reconstructs human identity.’ in order to understand the progression from traditional gothic to modern genres that stem from it, namely science fiction, psychological thrillers and murder mysteries, we must first understand it’s basic timeline.

gothic literature began as a genre with very little positive reception, originally seen as a frivolous, and unserious style of writing. often called ‘dark romanticism’, the genre used the ‘purple prose’ and decadent architecture of romantic literature, but associated it with more sinister narratives concerning religion, murder and both sexual and identitiy-oriented transgression. originating from horace walpole’s ‘castle of otranto’, the genre was used to reflect the cultural anxieties of the time period, and thus gained traction by being temporally relevant. modern gothic’s deconstruction of the ‘good vs evil’ binary is a reflection of contemporary understandings of the aforementioned topics, which address the complexities of transgression. notable examples of later gothic literature include susan hill’s 1983 novel, ‘the woman in black’, a pastiche of traditional victorian ghost stories that utilises sympathetic villains to add complexity to the idea of villainy. additionally, the work of angela carter, particularly that of her 1979 collection ‘the bloody chamber’ which uses gothic conventions to subvert more conservative fairytales and fables, another instance of this ‘dark romanticism’ technique.

by presenting transgression as complex, rather than fulfilling one side of a binary, modern gothic allows us to consider if transgression is even that dangerous; it serves to dismantle the idea that ‘different = threatening.’ a brilliant example of this is the previously mentioned work of carter, and her short stories ‘the tiger’s bride’ and ‘the courtship of mr lyon.’ these stories are subverted retellings of the traditional ‘beauty and the beast’ fairytale. While maintaining the general events of the original ending, where beauty stays with the beast of her own volition, carter offers up two dynamics between the human and abhuman that serve to recharacterise ‘Othered’ creatures as less threatening and more sympathetic and innocent. ‘the courtship of mr lyon’ mimics the original story’s ending, with beauty’s understanding of the beast resulting in his transformation back to human. ‘the tiger’s bride’ offers the reverse: in beauty’s acceptance of the beast, she transforms to be animal-like like him as well. this appears almost as an act of solidarity. perhaps an incredibly modern reading of carter’s metamorphosed characters is as an allegory for transgenderism. discussions around gender identity during the 1970s in britain, even in second-wave feminist circles, were more concerned with rejecting and redefining traditional gender roles than they were with the personal identity of individuals, so we can assume this was not carter’s intention when writing these stories. however, ideas of physical transformation, and how proximity to the ‘Other’ can ‘radicalise’ one’s own identity are very fitting with treatment of transgender people both historically and presently. genres that stem from the late gothic, namely sci-fi, have been known for using metamorphosis as an allegory for marginalised identities, using physical transformation as an allegory for ideological or emotional transformation. a prime example of this is lana and lilly wachowski’s series ‘the matrix.’ written as a trans allegory, the movie series criticises the social pressure for conformity the way carter does and attempts to explicitly recharacterise trans people as an innocent non-conforming identity rather than a threat. carter’s exploration and reproval of established values similarly tends to centre around ideas of gender, making this reading not entirely unreasonable. she suggests that societal fears surrounding gender identity and liberation are unfounded.

ultimately, carter paints various traits and identities that are widely considered ‘threatening’ to be multifaceted and liberating instead, as she views the established values that they ‘threaten’ to be restrictive and in need of changing. the matrix represents these established values with ‘agents’ who attempt to hide the true nature of the world from the population. in the preface to the bloody chamber collection, helen simpson writes that 'human nature is not immutable, human beings are capable of change', arguing this point as the core of carter’s gothic subversions. she suggests through her writing that what is perceived as a social threat is often based upon what is uncomfortable rather than what is actually dangerous. her work is partially ambivalent in that it does not instruct what is right or wrong, but instead depicts societal relationships and allows the audience to interpret it.

the matrix achieves a similar result, with gothic elements and subversions supporting it’s messages.sci-fi takes gothic settings, ideas of liminality, decay, transgression and the Other, and recontextualises them with in the hypothetical far future. traditional gothic settings such as the ruins of decadent mansions become abandoned high-tech buildings. the binary between conventional and transgressive shifts from being a contrast between catholic ideals and more modern behaviours to being a contrast between those profiting off capitalism and those suffering from it.

implicit in the matrix’s notion of discovering a newer world more true to reality is the idea that ‘different’ or ‘unconventional’ experiences and identities are not threatening, but liberating. the matrix suggests we can unlearn our villainisation of trans people, and does so through the use of various gothic conventions. to begin with, gothic texts are often written to reflect the cultural anxieties of the moment. lilly wachowski has stated that the movie was ‘born out of anger at capitalism and the corporate structure and forms of oppression.’ the late nineties in america was certainly a time of tension for lgbt people. frank rich sites ‘the homophobic epidemic of '98...spiked with the october murder of matthew shepard’ as an era of extreme difficulty for the lgbt community in the usa. this hostile environment is reflected in the nature of the matrix’s ‘agents’ and their insistence on maintaining the illusion of free will that comes with the false reality they push. they are in no way open to ideas that differ from their own and actively come down on those who suggest them. this anxiety for the lgbt community is reflected in the movie; the anxiety itself is expressed through a combination of subverted and traditional gothic tropes. gender itself is a topic highly relevant to the gothic. the wachowskis utilise binary oppositions, the most obvious example being the red pill vs blue pill’ scenario. the movie poses a stark contrast between two approaches to life: ‘the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth, by taking the red pill, or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.’ its interesting for a piece that is intentioned to deconstruct binaries to construct this binary, but it does serve a purpose. this binary serves as a device to show, allegorically, the experience of trans people in western cultures. belinda mcclory’s character, switch, is a specific representation of the gender transition process. in the matrix she appears as a woman, and in the real world as a man. while the wachowskis may not have had the creative freedom to include an explicitly transgender character, this was the closest and most specific hint they could have given the audience, right down to the character’s cratylic naming. switch’s experience presenting as both man and woman, and only one of her presentations occurs in the ‘true reality’ that is representative of people’s true natures and personalities. this use of metamorphosis mimics the way many trans people must present as their assigned gender at birth in public, and their true identity in private, that their physical body and their perception of themselves when they have control of their appearance are not necessarily aligned. this parallel relies upon the binary consisting of a false reality and a true one to illustrate its point.

it has also been suggested that the red pill is representative of a hormone pill, and many viewers have likened neo’s mental restlessness to gender dysphoria: ‘what you know you can't explain, but you feel it. you've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. you don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.’ these small parallels coalesce to form the movie’s representation of the trans experience in a way that is arguaby subtle to the cisgender viewer. neo openly rejects being called ‘mr anderson’ or ‘thomas anderson’ from our first introduction to him. he replaces his given male-coded name with something seemingly androgenous for his own comfort, and ‘mr anderson’ almost serves as a deadname, which only the agents who enforce a false reality use to refer to him. agent smith uses neo’s two names to frame his two separate lives very distinctly; ‘one of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.’ with an understanding of the trans subtext of the movie, this appears as a thinly veiled reference to the difficulties openly trans people face. coming out, in most places in the world, can result in loss of employment, loss of contact with family, and so on. as put by lili wachowski, ‘transgender people without support, means and privilege do not have this luxury. and many do not survive.’ agent smith appears to be warning neo of the dangerous of living as his true self, insistently referring to him with his given name rather than his chosen one, even if just for bureaucratic reasons. neo’s name is a vital to his defiance against both agent smith and the false reality he seeks to maintain:

agent smith:

you hear that mr. anderson?... that is the sound of inevitability... it is the sound of your death... goodbye, mr. anderson...

neo:

my name... is neo.

in defiantly maintaining his chosen name, neo pushes for the true reality to be accepted and understood. this is motivated by the fact that ‘i don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.’ this is an instance of neo taking control, by asserting his identity. the high stakes of this scene mimic the high stakes that trans people face in asserting their identities in an unaccepting social climate. the movie also acknowledges the public perception of trans people as a threat: ‘i know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. you're afraid of change...the matrix is a system, neo, that system is our enemy.’ appearance vs reality is yet another key aspect of the gothic that is utilised in the matrix, and the narrative forces the viewer to consider whether they would accept a harsh reality or prefer total ignorance and accept what appears in front of them.

the movie’s treatment of violence against its protagonist is particularly relevant to the gothic. typically, queer-coded men or people of colour in fiction experience physical violence allegorical to the way female characters are written into sexualised danger: for trauma-based character development. violence against minorities in media, specifically gothic media, is often symbolic rather than just plain horrific. female, queer or bodies of colour are seen solely as political identities, so the violence they face is violence against an idea, not a person. queer or queer-coded men like neo are often feminised to a certain extent, even if its simply rejecting the title ‘mr’, to allow the violence against them to be symbolic or political rather than personal. often with cisgender, heterosexual, white or male characters, any cruelty they face is considered to be senseless and is characterised as brutal, pure violence, as their bodies are simply allowed to exist as bodies without a political statement attached to their existence. they are not making a statement or defying standards simply by having bodies. the gothic specifically uses symbolic violence in its later stages, and it is often faced by characters who are ‘Othered’ such as frankenstein’s monster being faced with angry hordes of people, or the suicide of jennet humfrye, the titular character of the woman in black who had a child out of wedlock. this symbolic violence in the matrix is particularly relevant to the above scene between agent smith and neo, where neo’s retaliation involves not just physical fighting but defiance over his own identity.

setting in the matrix is quintessentially modern gothic, and is an integral part of characterising the differences between appearance and reality. the real world and the matrix are characterised both by their physical appearance and the characters associated with them. the whole movie is shot with relatively bleak green, grey and blue tones; the unnamed cities in the matrix were filmed in sydney, australia, but are supposed to appear as a city that could be located anywhere. this makes viewers somewhat comforted as the cities appear familiar, but their association with the antagonistic agents makes it difficult to truly identify with them. in contrast, the real world appears cold, crude and difficult to survive in, but is home to a crew of sympathetic rebels that the audience is supposed to root for. the city of zion is all harsh metal and can feel like a very temporary, unsafe residence but scenes such as the party in matrix reloaded characterise it as a place of community. the duality of each setting is typical of the gothic, and allows the viewer to explore the complexity of the movie’s conundrum. no option is the easy, immediate or obvious choice. the viewer must consult their own morals and values. ideas and anxieties surrounding moral decay are vital to the narrative of gothic tales; the genre explores and seeks to define humanity, and doing so often involves ethnocentric set of morals associated with good and bad. concepts like metamorphosis, identity, and the rejection of religion or christian/western ideals all play into this, but this is where modern gothic’s acknowledgement of complexity reframes things. most developments described as ‘modern gothic’ apply to sci-fi as it is an extension of, or evolved from,1960s-1990s gothic.

in presenting the aforementioned topics as multifaceted, the genre is able to imply or sometimes directly suggest that the ways in which presentations of them differ from established values is not immediately threatening, but simply different or even sympathetic. the matrix almost reverses traditional expressions of transgression by suggesting that those seeking to maintain the status quo are enforcing restrictive and immoral ideals, and that those whose agendas differ from the status quo are seeking liberation. this appears very similarly in angela carter’s previously mentioned work, exemplifying the parallels between sci-fi and the gothic. ‘the matrix stuff was all about the desire for transformation but it was all coming from a closeted point of view.’ lilly wachowski states. transformation and metamorphosis are topics so in line with the content of the gothic, allowing authors to explore and compare different states of being in order to eventually, sometimes implicitly, condemn one and promote the other. in reference to how she was drawn to use sci-fi as the medium for this story, she says that ‘we were existing in a space where the words didn't exist, so we were always living in a world of imagination.’ things that cannot work in our social climate can be allowed to work in an imagined scenario, with imagined consequences separate from the real world, similarly to the gothic’s use of the supernatural as a vehicle for taboo actions and values.

the wachowskis select science fiction tropes that are core to the gothic as a medium for the matrix’s allegorical meaning: taboo subjects, metamorphosis, binary oppositions, moral questions and stark settings. the matrix arguably serves as a bridge between the two genres, while also being unmistakably modern in its support of trans people and its open criticism of capitalism and social systems. this is not to say that earlier texts do not argue similarly points, but that the popularity of the matrix means that these points and messages are widespread and consumed by a massive audience. the movie was released in early june of 1999, and by august 2000, the matrix dvd had sold over three million copies in usa, making it the best-selling of all time. its unlikely that those three million dvd owners had all interpreted the movie the way the wachowskis had intended, as is the case with all media, but their anti-capitalist and pro-lgbt rhetoric was still present in the movie and has become glaringly obvious to more viewers over 20 years beyond its release date. using binaries as a tool to deconstruct other binaries is a device used more and more within sci-fi and the exploration of morals, systemic structures and the role of lgbt people are both vital to both genres. trans people are originally characterised as ‘Other’, but are rightfully humanised and encouraged to pursue their true identities: ‘to deny our impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.’

i.k.b

79 notes · View notes

guiltyidealist · 3 years

Text

op has me blocked but it’s an important post so I’m reposting the text

I see a lot of people saying they “would never date a transgender person” and accusing several well-meaning trans people (who are ill-equipped to explain why that’s transphobic) of perpetuating ideas born from rape culture.

since I’m sick of seeing the same conversations with all the same pitfalls, here’s why saying things like “I’d never date a trans person” is harmful and bigoted:

you can’t always tell who is and isn’t trans just by looking at them. we all know that “date” is used in the previous statement as shorthand for “be into/attracted to,” as in “I’m not into/attracted to any transgender people, even if they identify as a gender I’m capable of feeling attraction towards.” attraction (typically) relies on a combination of personality traits and visible physical features, and unless you live in a nudist colony, you won’t have any idea what someone’s genitals look like at first sight, much less which binary gender they were assigned at birth. but once again, you can’t tell someone’s gender (let alone “”biological sex””) just by looking at them. you might think that all trans people have some sort of “tell” or “giveaway”, like an adam’s apple or lack thereof, but that simply isn’t the case, ESPECIALLY when you take gender-reaffirming hormone treatments and surgeries into account. sorry, but you won’t be able to tell the difference between a trans person who passes in every way and a cis person who hasn’t altered their body. you think you know what our voices sound like, that our “true gender” is betrayed by the shape of our skull or the curves of our hips, but you don’t.

finding masculine women and feminine men less attractive than masculine men and feminine women isn’t the same thing as finding trans people less attractive than cis people. shockingly enough, there are a LOT of feminine cisgender men and masculine cisgender women. if you don’t find short hair attractive on women, that’s fine! same with long hair on men–that’s just part of an aesthetic preference. the problem lies with making the assumption that all trans women are “obviously too masculine” and all trans men are “obviously too feminine”. once again, you usually won’t be able to tell who’s trans on sight. many violent hate crimes against trans people only occur because someone *wasn’t* able to clock us on sight, only to find out we’re trans later and feel disgusted and ashamed for ever being attracted to us. it’s okay to find certain physical features that you associate with one extreme presentation or the other less attractive than others, as long as you’re well aware of how racism and colorism factor into “personal preferences” too.

just because you know the gender someone was assigned at birth doesn’t mean you know how sex with them would functionally work. now, this isn’t to say you’re ~morally obligated~ to have or even consider having sex with someone when you don’t want to. all I’m pointing out is that many people jump to the conclusion that all trans women have penises and all trans men have vaginas, when that’s just not true. many of us have had (or will at some point have) bottom surgery, which renders our genitalia virtually indistinguishable from “the real deal.” witty little clapbacks like “don’t expect me to suck your girldick” and “I don’t want your boypussy” are pretty common in discourse, but given that not all trans people keep the genitals we’re born with, they only serve as a reminder of how uneducated people are when it comes to our bodies.

trans people know better than anyone how traumatizing the threat of sexual assault can be. like many modern day cisgender sexual predators, transgender sexual predators tend to target vulnerable people in online spaces. as a trans person who was repeatedly sexually assaulted by another trans person, I can testify that it’s much easier for predators to privately win someone’s trust from a distance and get them alone in a socially acceptable manner rather than brazenly attempting an assault in full view of other people. the chances of a transgender sexual predator going into public bathrooms and attacking their victims in broad daylight are slim to none, especially given how many people are already trying to deny trans people human rights based on the unfounded fear that ALL trans people are “too dangerous” to be allowed in public bathrooms. but contrary to popular belief, we’re much more likely to be sexually assaulted ourselves, and usually by cisgender men. (you know, that one large demographic with an alarmingly high rate of turning out sexual predators.)

it costs $0.00 to stay in your lane. if you personally find some random trans person unattractive, cool! keep it to yourself. we don’t need “friendly reminders” that you’d never want to date or have sex with us; trust me, we know. it’s rare that I go a day without being reminded of how grotesque and repulsive my body is to cis people, there’s really no need to pour salt in the wound.

thanks for coming to my TED talk, don’t be an obtuse piece of shit in the replies.

#transphobia #transmisogyny #intersexism #t3rf rhetoric #reg rhetoric #genital preferences #genitals tw #nsfw/

19 notes · View notes

uncloseted · 3 years

Note

saying "people who identify as girls are girls" is not simple. at all. i mean ok i am a girl. why? because i identify as one. but why? there's nothing that unites all girls. which doesn't mean that all girls have to be exactly the same but they at least need to have ONE thing in common. i mean if people say yeah i like women, when i'm in the street i look at women not men. how do you know? how do you know who's a man and who's a woman and who's anything else? and even woke people look at someone

1and think "girl" then think, or maybe they're non binary! but they never say or maybe they're a man. never. a person who looks like me has two options: girl or one of the hundreds of non binary identities. but to be a man, I'd have to try harder. it's not enough to IDENTIFY AS. ffs I can't be the only one who sees this. and just to clarify, i sent the joke about Emily being transphobic and i sent the first two of the three asks that you answered together i forgot this. you seriously thinl that if you raise a baby completely gender neutral, like one of those "theybies" and you tell them a girl is someone who identifies as a girl a boy is anyone who identifies as a boy nb is someone who identifies as neither, that they will deep down, without taking into account any stereotypes or biological essentialism, know what gender they are? even if they end up saying I'm a girl/boy, it will be because they will be exposed to girls and boys and "choose" the one they relate most to, or even because they like how the word "girl" or "boy" sounds.

I think you're asking some really good questions here. You're raising a lot of very philosophically interesting questions about the metaphysics of gender (what does it mean to have a gender, what does it mean to be transgender, is gender a social construct or is it innate to humans, etc) and how gender, as a social construct, impacts our lives on a day to day basis. Better philosophers than I have struggled with these questions for decades, but I'll do my best not to get too into the weeds on their different theories in this post. Instead, I'll offer my thoughts on what gender is and then investigate how we interact with it on a practical level. This is likely to be a long post, so apologies in advance, but it's a complicated issue that touches everyone's lives and I want to be mindful of that while writing this. Also apologies that this is going to be a pretty binary post. I don't mean to exclude nonbinary identities from this conversation, but to illustrate the points I'm trying to make, I think it's easier to talk about binary identities first. Just know that I do think nonbinary identities are real, valid and worthy of recognition and respect. Lastly, I'm not attached to any of the views expressed in this post. They reflect my thinking at this moment in time, but that might change as I learn more about these topics. I apologize if any of the views presented here are inadvertently hurtful. That's not my intention at all, but I recognize that regardless of intention, some things can cause harm. My goal in this post is to explore some ideas, and I would love to hear other people's opinions on this topic or criticism of these ideas. The Metaphysics of Gender So, to start out with, what is gender? Why are you a girl? Why do you identify as a girl? Why does anyone, and what links those people who identify as "girls" together? Is identifying as a girl enough to be one? These are complicated questions, both philosophically and culturally, and they've become more visible as we've become more culturally aware of gender variances (recently in the West. Third genders have always existed, and do continue to exist, in many cultures around the world). In biology and philosophy, there's a concept called "homeostatic property clusters" (stay with me here, I promise I'm going somewhere with this). "Homeostatic property clusters" is basically just a fancy phrase for the idea that if a creature has enough of a certain set of characteristics, they can be defined as part of a larger category, even if they don't have all of the traits that creatures in that category might have. In the PhilosophyTube video "Social Constructs", Abigail offers the category "mammals" as an example of a "homeostatic property cluster". Mammals are creatures that have warm blood, produce milk, and birth live offspring. Humans are mammals based on these characteristics, and so are seals and giraffes. But platypuses are also mammals, even though they lay eggs instead of birthing live offspring. These three properties, having warm blood, producing milk, and birthing live offspring, tend to "cluster" together, but they don't have to all be present in order for the creature to be "a mammal"- in this case, two out of three is fine. I think gender is similar. It's a homeostatic property cluster that includes biological, psychological, and social traits. Not all of those traits must be present for a person to "be a girl" or "be a boy", but enough of them have to be present in order for the person to be considered as part of that category ("girl" or "boy"). That cluster of traits is what all "girls" have in common, even if those traits aren't exactly the same for each individual. So, then, in the context of gender, what are those traits? "Biopsychosocial traits" is all very good as an academic term, but what does it actually mean? Let's start with the biological traits, since I think they're what most people default to when talking about gender. Biological Sex and Gender One trait we might consider when talking about whether someone "is a

girl" is sex characteristics. Sex and gender are fundamentally separate concepts, but for many people, they're linked. Many cis people consider themselves cis because they were "born in the right body" or lack the desire to medically transition. They have a "subconscious sex" that matches their physical body. So I think this is a good place to start. We might ask the question, "does this person have primary or secondary sex characteristics associated with being "a girl"?" It feels like the answer should be obvious- do they have tits and fanny, or don't they? But in reality, "biological sex" itself is kind of a homeostatic property cluster. Female sex characteristics include XX chromosomes, ovaries, estrogen and gestagen, a vagina, uterus, and fallopain tubes, breasts, and a menstrual cycle. But there are people without some of these traits that are still "girls". For example, some girls don't have a menstrual cycle (due to menopause, hormonal birth control, low body weight, PCOS, etc), but they're still girls. Some girls don't have a uterus (for example, if they've had a hysterectomy), but they're still girls. Some girls never develop breasts, but they're still girls. Some girls are born with Swyer syndrome, where they have a uterus, fallopian tubes, a cervix and a vagina, but have XY sex chromosomes. They're still girls. Any one of those traits by themselves can't be enough to decide if a person "is a biological girl" or "isn't a biological girl", but if a person has enough traits in that cluster, then they can be considered part of the larger category "biological girl". That by itself is kind of a TERFy take, so I would offer that the biological trait in the cluster "girl" is "has a cluster of female sex characteristics, either naturally or artificially, or gender dysphoria resulting in a desire to acquire those sex characteristics." But that alone can't be enough to determine if someone is or isn't "a girl". If it was, it would exclude pre-medical transition trans boys, even pre-medical transition trans boys who are living their lives as boys. It's also a transmedicalist take- it would also exclude trans people who never medically transition. To me, that doesn't feel right. People shouldn't be considered "a girl" or "a boy" based on biological essentialism, the pain of gender dysphoria, or their access to medical transition. So there have to be other factors at play- other traits in the cluster. Gender as Identity On the other side of the spectrum, some people say that gender is identity. You are "a girl" or "a boy" because that's how you identify- it's how you see yourself. In this viewpoint, gender is something innate to a person, that they instinctively know about themselves. It's perhaps a "female soul" in a "male body". In your ask, you express some scepticism about this view, and I'm inclined to agree. If humans have souls, I'm inclined to think they're not gendered, since what constitutes gender varies so widely across cultures and time periods. But I do also think that "identifying as" is an important element of "being a girl". Identifying as a girl is a basic criteria for being a girl. No person who doesn't identify as a girl can be a girl. It's an innate property of "girlness", the same way that an innate property of triangles is that they have three sides. But I do agree with you that I'm not convinced it's enough to only "identify as". Other traits in the cluster have to be present, because without a physical or social transition (or at least, the desire for a physical or social transition, particularly in cases of people for whom it's not safe or possible for them to transition), a person's identification doesn't have much practical value. Gender as a Social Role If "identifying as" isn't enough, then perhaps an important part of the gender conversation is the social role that gender plays in our lives. A gender is put upon us when we're born, and people continue to expect us to fill our assigned gender role throughout our lives. Maybe what's important isn't our body

parts or our internal identity, but instead, the gender role society lets us adopt. Perhaps society has to let you adopt the gender role you identify as. Either you're perceived as a woman or you aren't, either you "pass" or you don't. Perhaps those expectations that others have of you are what defines your gender. Intuitively, this seems to be tapping into something that feels true, at least to me. "Identifying as" isn't enough because society has to acknowledge that we are who we say we are. As you say, perhaps we have to "try harder" to "be a girl" or "be a boy" than just "identifying as". But this, too, has its problems. What about trans people who can't or don't pass? Does their transness get revoked for not appearing like they're trying hard enough? And what constitutes "hard enough"? Is trying at all "hard enough", or is there a point at which you "become" your gender? How many people need to reach a consensus on your gender before that's who you "are"? Does it get revoked by one person who misgenders you? And what about people who are cis, but occasionally put into an opposite gender role because of the way they present themselves? It seems to me that relying on other people to confer gender onto us is at once too limiting and not limiting enough. Gender as Gender Expression Going off of the idea of gender as a social role, then maybe gender is how you physically express yourself to the world- how you look to others. Maybe if you choose to express yourself as a given gender (through hair, clothes, makeup, voice, etc.), that's the gender that you are (or a reflection of the gender that you are), because that's how society will gender you. But that seems insufficient as well, for a lot of the same reasons that gender as a social role does. There are people who express themselves in stereotypically "masculine" ways but who identify as girls and who are understood to be girls by those around them. Their "girlness" is not culturally taken away from them based on their gender expression (unless there's another trait within the cluster of "being a girl" that they appear to not have). A girl can wear a full face of makeup, a dress and high heels, or have a pixie cut, no makeup, and wear a flannel and Doc Martens, but that alone isn't enough to say that she's not "a girl". This is especially true now, where very few ways of presenting are viewed as inherently gendered. Dresses and skirts are no longer exclusively "a girl thing" and pants have long been gender neutral. And what constitutes "presenting as a girl" and "presenting as a boy" changes across culture, time, and based on other characteristics an individual has (like class, race, size, or level of ability). So gender expression doesn't seem sufficient by itself to determine gender identity. Gender as Behaviors and Actions (aka Gender Performativity) Okay, so gender isn't just gender expression. But what about gender as a set of behaviors, something that you do? Gender performativity is a theory presented by Judith Butler in 1990 (sorry, I know I promised I wouldn't namedrop philosophical theories, but this is important to the conversation). Butler says that gender is constructed through a set of "acts" that are in line with societal ideas of what it means to "be a girl" or "be a boy". This performance of gendered acts is ongoing, even when we're alone, and is out of our control. Butler believes that there's no such thing as a "non-stylized" act- that is to say, everything we do is an act, and there's no such thing as an act that is not perceived as being somewhere on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity (at least, not in the current world we live in). The way we stylize these acts have the possibility to change over time. So Judith Butler believes that we "do" gender rather than "being" gender- that a girl "does girlness" over time. Put another way, a girl does behaviors, actions, and expressions that are stylized as "girly", which is what makes her gender identity "girl". And this gender, "girl", is constantly being

produced as the girl produces more of those "girly" acts. Instead of having an innate gender or expressing our internal gender through the way that we present, Butler thinks our outward gendered acts create our inner gender identity. Those acts and the way we perform them are shaped from the minute that we're born, when we're thrown into a pre-existing gender category and taught that "people like us" do things "in this way". This theory offers an answer to the question we asked in the previous section about gender as presentation; someone who is dressed "masculine" can still be "a girl" because they're performing "girlness"- they're doing acts that are in line with what we think of as "a girl". Because Butler doesn't believe that you're born with an internal gender, her work is controversial in trans spaces and are sometimes thought of as being trans-exclusionary (although Butler herself is a trans advocate). But I think disagree. Presumably, a person could change the stylization of the acts they perform. A person who was performing "boy" can begin to instead perform "girl", although they did not grow up performing "girl". It may be difficult, as they haven't had the performance of "girl" thrust upon them their entire lives, and have not experienced the "oppression experiences of girlhood" that can shape the performance of "girl". But gender performance and gender socialization are a lifelong process, and so the more a person "does girlness", the more they will be perceived as "doing girlness", and the more they will be expected to "perform girlness." I think it becomes something of a feedback loop where performance feeds socialization and socialization feeds performance. What about the "theybies"? What would happen if you raise a baby completely gender neutral? What would happen if a baby wasn't thrown into a pre-existing gender category upon birth? Would they identify as a gender without taking stereotypes or biological essentialism into account? This is essentially a question about social constructs. If we raised a baby with the understanding that some people have male sex characteristics, some have female sex characteristics, and some people have a combination of both, but removed the social constructs we have around gender, would gender still exist to this child? What you've created here is a "Twin Earth" thought experiment- a hypothetical where there are two Earths that are identical in every way except for one. Our Earth has the social construct of Gender, but Twin Earth does not. Would our Theyby still have a gender if they lived on Twin Earth? I think no. They wouldn't have a context to understand the social systems that we've created around sex characteristics, and so they wouldn't be able to place themselves within those systems. They wouldn't understand why we've based our whole society around sex characteristics as opposed to something else. They would be able to identify that they have the sex characteristics associated with "boys" or "girls", but not what it means to "be a girl" or "be a boy". (If you want to dig further into this idea of Social Constructs, that PhilosophyTube video I linked above is a good place to start). They could learn, but it wouldn't be innate to them. We, however, don't live on Twin Earth. We live on Earth. And on Earth, we do have the social construct of gender. So even if you raise a child completely gender neutral, they still have a concept of what it is to "be a girl" or "be a boy". They might learn that "girls" have long hair, or wear dresses, or are nice and caring, or are emotional, or walk and talk a certain way, or wear pink, or whatever other social constructs we ascribe to the gender "girl". They might learn that "boys" have short hair, wear pants, are mischievous, are aggressive, or walk a different way, or wear blue, or whatever other social constructs we ascribe to the gender "boy". Kids who are raised gender neutral look at the physical characteristics of other kids, the gender expression of other kids, the performance of "girlness" or

"boyness" that other kids do, and compare them to the physical characteristics they have, the gender expression they like, the gender expression that's expected of them from others, the performance of gender that they gravitate towards, and the performance of gender expected of them from others, and they tend to pick the one that feels more like their category. Most kids start conceptualizing their gender identity around age 3 or 4, and that's true for kids who are raised gender-neutral as well. When they start spending more time out in the world, they notice that they're different from some kids and similar to others, and they learn the language to describe those differences. But all of this is kind of beside the point, because raising a child as a "theyby" doesn't ultimately have the goal of the child not having a gender or growing up to be agender or genderqueer. It has the goal of allowing children to develop their likes, dislikes, and views of themselves without the contribution of harmful gender stereotypes. And I think that's actually a really great goal- how many of us that were raised female were discouraged from pursuing certain interests (especially science and technology related interests) because those "aren't girl things"? Kids will be exposed to those harmful stereotypes eventually, but if a kid is raised until age 3 without them, they might be more resilient to them when those ideas are presented. And for kids who do end up being transgender, being raised without gender lets them know that they'll be accepted by their family no matter their identity. Okay, but give us some answers... what is gender? So, we've gone over a lot of things that gender isn't, or at least, a lot of things that can't exclusively constitute a gender. But where does that leave us? What does that make gender? I propose it's something like the following: There are lots of ways to have or experience a gender. In order to have a gender, a person must:

1. Identify as that gender and: 2. have a cluster of sex characteristics matching the biological sex associated with that gender, either naturally or artificially, or gender dysphoria resulting in a desire to acquire those sex characteristics AND/OR 3. socially inhabit that gender, through gender expression or gender performance, or have a desire to socially inhabit that gender

I think that covers pretty much every case I can think of. People who identify as a gender and have the sex characteristics matching that gender are cis people, regardless of their social presentation. People who identify as a gender and have gender dysphoria or who have medically transitioned are the gender they identify as. People who identify as a gender and socially inhabit that gender are also the gender they identify as, and so are people who identify as a gender and would like to socially inhabit that gender but can't due to financial constraints or safety concerns. They're just experiencing trans identity in a different way to medically transitioned people. Gender as a Social Construct Okay, so that's the metaphysics of gender, or at least, an approach to the metaphysics of gender. I want to make it clear that I'm not attached to this theory, and I don't necessarily think I'm right. This is just where I've landed in my thinking right now, and I'm open to hearing other people's opinions and criticisms. In any case, it's very abstract, very philosophical, but maybe not super practical for the other questions you're asking here, and definitely not simple. So why, in my original answer, was I making the claim that "people who identify as girls are girls" is simple, then? I was making that claim because the way we interact with other people isn't metaphysical. It's practical. And practically speaking, all you need to do is acknowledge a person the way they ask to be acknowledged. Does someone say they're a boy named Jack who uses he/him pronouns? Great, call him Jack and use he/him pronouns. Does someone say their name is Sarah and use she/her pronouns? Great, call her Sarah and use she/her pronouns. Does someone say their name is Alex and they use they/them pronouns? Great, call them Alex and use they/them pronouns. Does someone say their name is Cloud and they use ze/zir pronouns? Great, call them Cloud and use ze/zir pronouns. You don't have to understand their relationship with their gender or what their gender means at all. You can even think their gender is "cringe". But you do have to respect the way they view themselves, and acknowledge them how they want to be seen. Think about it this way- if you were at an event and someone had a nametag that said, "Hi! My name is Taylor", but when they introduced themselves, they said, "I know my nametag says Taylor, but actually I go by Riley," what would you do? You'd just... call them Riley, right? You don't need to know why they have the wrong nametag to respect that their nametag is wrong. You probably wouldn't insist on calling them Taylor because that's what the nametag says. You probably wouldn't even ask how they ended up with a nametag that was wrong. Trans people are people, and they deserve respect just like anyone else. That's why this is simple- all you have to do is listen and be respectful, even if you don't understand. Wrapping up, here's my question to you. What is it about trans people that makes you uncomfortable? Think about it honestly, and try not to default to, "it's political correctness run amok! People are offended if you breathe too loudly!" Does it feel like a challenge to your own identity, either your gender identity or your sexuality? Is it a discomfort with society changing? Is it a fear of getting something wrong and offending someone? The vast majority of trans people I've met just want to be acknowledged for who they are. They'll politely correct people who misgender them or accidentally say something transphobic. And the ones who are the most aggressive or militant are the ones who have been hurt the most by a system that won't acknowledge them for who they are. It's a plea to be seen in a world that denies them that visibility. Maybe it isn't trans people that need to become less sensitive, but us who need to become more accepting. Some resources that you might be interested in if you liked this post: The Aesthetic | ContraPoints Social Constructs | Philosophy Tube "Transtrenders" |

ContraPoints Gender Critical | ContraPoints Judith Butler's Theory of Gender Performativity, Explained

12 notes · View notes

umbraja · 4 years

Text

Body Hair Positivity: Good or Gross?

It’s been a trend lately to embrace a more diverse image of beauty. Freckles and muffin tops, dark skin and curly hair, scars, tattoos, unusual proportions, crooked teeth, pretty much anything is supposed to be accepted under the banner of Body Positivity.

But what about body hair?

And I’m not just talking about armpits or legs. I also mean unusual body hair. The kind people don’t talk about. The kind women aren’t “supposed” to have: chest hair, happy trails, beards, back hair. The kind that doctors call hirsutism and is often associated with hormonal imbalances from things like Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Cushing Syndrome, medication side effects, menopause, or even just genetics. It affects somewhere between 5%-10% of women depending on the region surveyed but may be higher as it can often go undiagnosed.

It’s not like we’re taught how healthy body hair should look.

Humans have been removing body hair since before recorded history. Archaeologists have found evidence of early humans using clam shells and shark teeth to remove body hair. Ancient Egyptians are well known for their full body waxes. Ancient Greeks considered it “uncivilized” for a woman to have pubic hair. Roman boys celebrated their entry into manhood with a mandatory first shave. And medieval European Ladies plucked daily to remove all hair from their brows, temples, and neck - some even plucked their eyelashes. The “New World” was no stranger to body hair removal either. Thomas Jefferson, and many others, wrote of some Native Americans’ depilatory obsession.

“With [Native Americans] it is disgraceful to be hairy on the body. They say it likens them to hogs. They therefore pluck the hair as fast as it appears.” - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

In the non-native US, body hair removal wasn’t really a big thing until the 20th century when we did a complete 180 on the subject. Before that Puritan values made sure that most body hair was covered by clothing so few bothered to remove it since no one was gonna see what was under all that cloth. Now recent studies say that 93 to 99 percent of American women regularly remove their body hair, making it one of our most widely practiced beauty norms. Girls as young as 10 are pressured into shaving, waxing, plucking, threading, anything to remove errant hairs as soon as they start to sprout. Refusal to do so leaves us open to bullying, both on the playground and in the office. Visible body hair can cost a woman jobs, promotions, and relationships so most of us remove it, no matter the cost. Which one study worked out to be more than $10,000 over the course of her life for the average American woman who shaves. If she waxes instead the bill goes over $23,000.

So what happened?

“Where eighteenth-century naturalists and explorers considered hair-free skin to be the strange obsession of indigenous peoples, Cold War-era commentators blithely described visible body hair on women as evidence of a filthy, ‘foreign’ lack of hygiene.” - Rebecca Herzig, Plucked, a History of Hair Removal

The driving forces behind hair removal in America are the same three that cause most of the nation’s problems: greed, sexism, and racism. Let’s go in chronological order.

As the “Age of Enlightenment” began to secularize European politics, Imperialists needed a new excuse to justify their expansion into non-European territory. Naturalists like the still famous Charles Darwin handed them pseudoscience. It’s debatable whether or not these naturalists intended their work to be used as the foundation for white supremacist ideology that still plagues us today but there’s no question about how racists interpreted it. They saw evolution as a line that went from ape through colored people and ends at Aryan. Real science tells us that’s not at all correct and if anyone is closer to cave man it’s white people who often have Neanderthal in their DNA. But they didn’t have genetic sequencers back then so they used physical traits to “prove” it instead. Part of this was a gross mischaracterization that body hair could be used to determine a person’s place within the line of human evolution. They claimed people with coarse, dark hair were closer to apes and those with thin, light hair were more evolved. Guess who picked up on that concept in the 20th century.

Darwin further complicated matters in his attempt to explain why some white people were hairier than some indigenous populations by associating hairiness with evolutionary backsliding and mental illness.

“[Hairiness in Europeans] is due to partial reversion; for characters which have been at some former period long inherited are always apt to return. We have seen that idiots are often very hairy, and they are apt to revert in other characters to a lower animal type.” - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Other scientists and even medical experts of the time ran with this idea and before long the educated elite considered hairiness (along with other non-Aryan traits) to be a symptom of disease, insanity, and criminal violence. The uneducated masses were more familiar with freak show displays of unusually hairy people as “missing links” to our primate ancestors. Both cases considered having body hair to be a very bad thing. They’re also very bad science and not at all true.

Despite these very strong, racist feelings about body hair, it still wasn’t common for American women to remove it beyond the upper lip, neck, jaw, or between the eyebrows. Most women don’t have much hair there and those that did rarely had time or money to invest in removing it. Also they wouldn’t be caught dead admitting they had to so historical records might not be accurate about how many women actually plucked. For the first half of American history peach fuzz and other light hair was seen as normal and clothes covered the rest. But the 20th century not only saw women wearing less cloth and showing more skin it also saw them calling for gender equality. Critics of women’s liberation often accused suffragettes of sexual inversion - aka acting too much like men, which they saw as an abhorrent threat. To really drive this point home they often depicted women’s rights activists as being hairy, thus politicizing our pits. Pair this with the “hygiene” movement’s embrace of already mentioned racist views on body hair and you have a recipe for weaponized shame.

“Self-consciousness brings timidity, restrained action and awkwardness. The use of Del-a-tone relieves the mind from anxious watchfulness of movement.” - 1919 Del-a-tone depilatory advertisement

Enter Capitalism. Producers of hair removal products wanted to up sales so they did the exact same thing that was done with every other beauty product on the market - shame women into buying their stuff. It’s debatable if this was motivated purely by greed, in an attempt to reach an untapped market, or if the resulting gender oppression was intentional but men were spared of this aggressive shaming (until recently at least). Women, on the other hand, were flooded with advertisements for body hair removal products. From the first “razor for women” in 1915 to 21st century laser hair removal ads, women are constantly being reminded of our body hair. It doesn’t take a genius seeing ads that call smooth skin “attractive” or “sanitary” to extrapolate the opposite - that body hair is ugly, and dirty. A series of ads for Del-a-tone depilatory products even called it “necessary” for sleeveless fashion and suggests that not using their product will lead to social anxiety. Pair that with only ever using shaved models in all of fashion advertising and you send a pretty clear message: female body hair is something to be ashamed of. Advertising works. Now most American women actually feel gross if they’ve missed a shave, despite body hair being perfectly natural and not at all dirty. This disgust is so strong it has even bled over into an aversion toward male body hair which has seen a sharp decline in popularity since the shaggy chested disco days. Now men are being inundated with “manscaping” advertisements and expectations of manicured if not completely removed body hair.

So that’s the background but where’s this going?

While female body hair removal is firmly ingrained in western beauty standards, a new generation of women are rebelling against those ideals - body hair included. Recent studies have shown a shift in body hair trends among young women. Only 77% percent of women 16 to 24 reported regularly shaving their pits in 2016 and 85% shaved their legs, down from 95% and 92% respectively just two years prior. Since then we’ve started to see models, celebrities, and everyday women with unshaven pits and hairy legs. Body positivity campaigns have even gotten a few advertisers to include body hair in their ads. Now you can see razors actually shaving hair from women’s bodies instead of inexplicably running over baby smooth skin.

Women have always told ourselves that hair removal is a choice but we’ve never before been encouraged to choose not doing it. Instead we’ve been brainwashed to think it’s dirty and disgusting and that no one will accept us for being hairy. Today’s young woman is actually presented with a choice, “to shave or not to shave” and a lot of them are choosing not to. Which is great news for people like me who have hirsutism and are sick of being shamed for how nature made us.

But we’ve still got a very long way to go before I can be confident that my neck beard won’t hold me back both socially and professionally. A lot of the women who have publicly displayed body hair in recent years have come under attack by people calling them various shades of “gross” and some have even been sent death threats. It’s one thing for a rich and famous Hollywood movie star to take that kind of risk but for an autistic office worker living in a conservative backwater that’s a whole different game.

Whatever your thoughts and feelings on body hair, America still hasn’t escaped the shame of the last hundred years. Women are still very much judged for being hairy. A lot of people still think it’s gross. I’m not one of them but I’m full of unpopular opinions.

#body hair #body posititivity #history

75 notes · View notes

cruelangelstheses · 4 years

Text

the path to girlhood

fandom: love live! rating: T characters: rin hoshizora, hanayo koizumi words: 3.9k additional tags: character study, au, trans girl rin, bullying, internalized transphobia, high school description: rin struggles to accept herself at her new school when she discovers a love for dancing. a/n: hello hello!! i wrote this a little over a month ago and decided to finally polish it and post it! this au is pretty similar to canon except that they’re just regular high school girls and not idols. i promise it’s not as angsty as the tags make it seem!! i will never write write a fic in which rin hoshizora is cis. happy pride to my fellow Transes of Gender <3 title comes from kururin miracle aka rin’s Trans Song. i love her so much. that's my fuckign daughter

read it on ao3

—

On the first day of high school, Rin Hoshizora goes to school in a skirt.

She hasn’t worn one out in public since she was a child, having resigned herself to hiding inside hoodies and sweatpants. As she wanders the unfamiliar hallways, Rin tries not to be conscious of the way some of her peers sneak curious glances at her from behind notebooks or open locker doors. If nothing else, she hopes the button on her backpack—a striped flag of pink, white, and blue—will be enough to clue them in, if any of them even know what it symbolizes.

Last month, Rin’s parents successfully enrolled her into the local but relatively well-regarded Otonokizaka Academy for Girls, mainly thanks to “proof” from her doctor that she has, in fact, started taking hormones and that she is, in fact, a Real Trans Girl, whatever that means. It’s an old, impressive school with plenty of extracurriculars and classes to choose from, and her best friend, Hanayo, goes there, too. Most importantly, though, it’s a chance to reinvent herself, to meet new people who don’t know her dead name—to make a statement, simply by wearing the Otonokizaka uniform and sitting in an Otonokizaka classroom, that says, I am a girl just as you are.

So far, it doesn’t feel quite as empowering as she thought it would.

Instead, she feels like a newborn baby, cut from the umbilical cord of the closet, naked and confused as she’s thrust into a strange new world. There’s no turning back now, no chance to abort the mission. All she can do is step forward into the light, with all the beauty and danger that it brings.

—

When Rin steps into her homeroom class, a soft, familiar voice calls out, “Rin-chan!”

Hanayo jumps up out of her chair and scurries over, her red glasses bouncing on her face. Rin grins and wraps her arms around her, squeezing her tightly, and for just a moment, she forgets about the rest of the world. There’s nothing outside this classroom, nothing outside her best friend’s warm embrace.

Rin opens her mouth to say something, anything—a how have you been or a help me please I don’t know if I can do this—but she doesn’t get the chance, because then the bell rings, and the homeroom teacher strides into the room. In a flurry, the students rush to their desks. Hanayo has saved a seat for Rin in the back, right next to her, and Rin sighs in relief as she slides into the chair.

While the teacher introduces herself, Rin scans the room, searching for any sign of a reaction from her classmates. Most of them are facing forward, listening or at least pretending to listen to the teacher. One girl sitting a few seats away pokes her friend on the shoulder and gestures to Rin. “Wow,” she mutters, just loud enough that it’s clear she wants Rin to hear it. “They’ll let anyone in this school, huh?”

Rin’s face heats up, and she quickly looks away, down at her empty notebook. In an attempt to seem nonchalant, she pulls a pen out of her pencil case and starts doodling a cat to distract herself. She likes her short hair—it’s cute and easy to manage, and it doesn’t get in her face when she’s playing sports—but suddenly she wishes it were longer so she could hide behind it. That probably wouldn’t work too well, though—before long, she’s sure her peers will be able to recognize her just by her decidedly unfeminine frame.

“Psst,” Hanayo whispers, and Rin turns her head to look at her. Hanayo props up her notebook horizontally. On an otherwise clean page, she’s written in pretty, curly handwriting, I believe in you! with little hearts all around it.

Rin flashes her a tiny smile and mouths a thank-you, but she still can’t shake the feeling that everything about her is wrong. Her knees are too knobby, her handwriting isn’t neat enough, her voice is too loud. She feels like a randomized Sim, like someone just threw together a collection of traits and lumped them all into a person. She’d like to give the spirits a “You Tried” sticker.

—

Rin likes talking to people. She likes jumping in on a conversation about athletics or music or pets and talking about her favorite type of cat (orange tabbies, obviously) or her favorite sports (how could she choose just one?). She likes introducing herself to those who look shy or lonely—in fact, it’s how she met Hanayo. Today, though, she finds herself infuriatingly tongue-tied, stumbling over her words in a way she never has before. Though she attempts, as always, to appear friendly, most of the girls she talks to seem to be at least somewhat uncomfortable with or uninterested in her presence, as if they’re just waiting for her to go away. The last thing Rin wants is to make someone unhappy or upset, so once she senses that she isn’t quite welcome in a particular group or conversation, she politely withdraws from it.

When Rin walks into the bathroom, all the girls that were hanging out and doing their makeup immediately grab their things and leave.

Rin overhears a few more rude comments throughout the day, but no one is overly confrontational. She finds herself pondering over girls and the way they show aggression—how girls who speak disparagingly about others behind their backs are referred to as “catty,” while physical fights between girls are often called “catfights.” Either way, aggressive or passive-aggressive, dealing in physical damage or emotional, girls are consistently compared to cats. It’s unfair to cats, Rin thinks, to associate them only with animosity and violence. Cats can be sweet and loving, too. Cats wouldn’t hate her just for wearing skirts or referring to herself as a “she.”

“Rin-chan,” Hanayo says later that day when they walk home from school together, “are you going to join any clubs or activities? They’ve got a lot of sports.”

“I might do soccer,” Rin replies, “and maybe basketball in the winter. But I’ll have to try it out first to see if I like it.”

Hanayo raises an eyebrow but says nothing. Rin loves soccer; they both know she loves soccer. What Rin’s really saying is, I’ll have to see if I’m treated in a way that deters me from playing.

“Well, if you don’t like it,” Hanayo says delicately, “you could do other sports that aren’t team-oriented. There’s track and cross-country. And there’s dance.”

“Dance?” Rin repeats. “What makes you think I’d be any good at that?”

“Well, you’re so coordinated, and you have really good stamina,” Hanayo says, twirling a strand of light brown hair. “And you like music. It looks like it’d be really fun.”

“You should do it, then,” Rin says, not unkindly.

Hanayo chuckles sheepishly. “I’d like to, but I’ve been too nervous to go by myself. Maybe you could come with me? Just to the first couple of meetings.”

Rin frowns. It’s not that she dislikes the idea of dancing, necessarily; she’s just never considered it. Dancing is for pretty girls with limbs as pliable as putty and skin softer than rose petals, not a scrappy little transgender tomboy with scraped-up knees and a finger that didn’t heal properly because she took it out of the splint before she was supposed to. Dancing is for girls who would never be mistaken for boys.

“The people there seem really nice,” Hanayo adds. “And I’ll be with you, remember?”

After a few moments, Rin finds herself nodding slowly. “Okay,” she says, trying to picture herself dancing to pop music or classical arrangements. It doesn’t quite feel right. “But if it falls on the same day as soccer, I’m choosing soccer.”

—

At the first soccer practice, they have a scrimmage against one another. It’s a perfect chance for Rin to show her teammates what she can do, to earn their trust and start to build camaraderie just like when she played on boys’ teams. Within the first few minutes of the mock game, however, it becomes abundantly clear that most of the girls have no interest in establishing a rapport with her. Some shift uncomfortably whenever she’s near. Others, especially those on defense, play particularly aggressively with her, pressing so close to her that they almost touch, nearly shoving her out of the way, or “accidentally” kicking at her heels when attempting to steal the ball from her. Nearly all of them seem to refuse to pass her the ball, even when she’s wide open, and even though she’s one of the fastest and most experienced members, so that the only times she ever actually manages to get it are when she steals it from the other side. The coach claps whenever Rin scores a goal, but hardly anyone else does, and it only seems to be out of politeness.

At the end of the practice, Rin is about ready to fall over in exhaustion, but not in a good way. She doesn’t think she’s ever had to work so hard in her life to try to make people like her, or at least play nice with her.

Hanayo texts her that evening. How’d it go?

Not great :-( I think I’ll come with you tomorrow to the dance club, Rin responds.

Hanayo’s reply comes a few seconds later. Oh no I’m so sorry!! Tomorrow will be better I promise!!

Rin sighs and flops down on her bed. “I sure hope so,” she mumbles to no one as she stares blankly across the room. A dress she bought online hangs on her closet door, unworn.

—

The room used for the dance club is similar to a gymnasium, except that it’s smaller and has walls made entirely of mirrors. When Rin steps out onto the hardwood floor and sees a few other girls chatting in the center of the room with a dance instructor, her chest tightens.

Beside her, Hanayo takes a deep breath. “I’m nervous, too,” she says, taking Rin’s hand in her own. “But we’re here together.”

They amble up to the small group, and the dance instructor turns to them with a smile. “Oh! It’s so good to see some new faces,” she says. “You can call me Miyazaki-sensei.”

“Hi,” Rin and Hanayo say in unison. They both giggle nervously.

“Hey, there’s no need to be nervous!” says a spunky girl with a side ponytail. “Anyone can learn to dance. I’m living proof! Plus it’d make great material for the talent show!”

Rin and Hanayo exchange glances. “Talent show?” Rin says.

“Yeah!” the girl says. “Every year right before summer break, the school holds a talent show. Anyone can enter! It’s really fun! Last year Kotori-chan, Umi-chan, and I performed as a trio,” she gestures to the other two girls in the room, “and we’re hoping to do it again this year! Sign-ups should be—uhhh, Umi-chan, when are the sign-ups again?”

One of the girls, Umi, sighs in exasperation, but there’s a hint of a smile on her face. “Two Mondays from now. So not this coming Monday, but the one after that.”

“Great!” says the ponytail girl. Turning back to Rin and Hanayo, she adds, “Are you two friends? You should perform as a duo! It would be so cute! I bet I could find the perfect song for you guys—”

Miyazaki holds up a hand. “Why don’t we see if they actually enjoy it first, hm?” she says, amused.

First, they go around and introduce themselves. Miyazaki and the other girls seem nice enough; in fact, Rin thinks she saw Honoka, the ponytail girl, smile and wave at her as she walked into Otonokizaka on the first day of class. She appears to just love and accept everyone; her sincerity is almost childish, but charming nonetheless.

Then they get into the dancing. The three other girls, all second years, seem to know what they’re doing when it comes to planning their performance, so Miyazaki spends most of her time teaching Rin and Hanayo some simple moves to a handful of familiar pop songs.

Slowly, Rin can’t help but unfold. The satisfaction that blooms in her chest whenever she gets a move right, when she shifts her body perfectly to the rhythm of the music, is such a pleasant shock to her system that she feels herself letting her guard down, opening up. She and Hanayo laugh whenever they screw up a step, and no matter how many times they fail, Miyazaki’s patience and attentiveness never waver. When Rin glances over at the other girls, she finds them completely absorbed in their practice; only occasionally does she notice any of them looking her way, and when they do, it’s not with the piercing eyes of judgment, but the joy of sharing in something they love. In this room, Rin doesn’t have to worry about how others see her. She can just be.

—

Hanayo and Rin attend every dance rehearsal together. It’s a small, close-knit group, and even though they aren’t all working together on the same exact thing, Rin can feel that sense of camaraderie that she’s been missing. They’re all constantly looking to improve, to try new things, to create something lively and beautiful. The world is their canvas, their bodies the brushes, the music the paint. For Rin, dancing becomes an unexpected refuge. In the dance room, no one throws crumpled-up papers at her head or tries to trip her down the stairs; no one whispers ugly words in her ear as she walks by.

After hours of deliberation on both their parts, and a lot of convincing (read: begging) on Honoka’s part, Rin and Hanayo decide to take her suggestion and sign up for the talent show as a dancing duo. Honoka apparently spends an inordinate amount of time picking out the perfect song for them, an upbeat tune from an upcoming idol about accepting oneself. “Trust me,” she says, “the audience will love it. Idols are all the rage these days.”

Rin suspects that Honoka picked it out on purpose for its lyrics, but for what it’s worth, it is a catchy song, the kind of song that makes Rin want to jump up and dance whenever she hears it. Luckily for her, that’s exactly what she’s going to do.

Miyazaki helps them come up with the choreography, and they spend the next few months working avidly to perfect it. Even on weekends, they often meet up at one of their houses and practice for hours. Only if they feel that they did the best they possibly could will either of them feel comfortable enough to get up onstage and let hundreds of potentially unforgiving eyes gaze upon them.

Every once in a while, a particularly nasty comment or incident will give Rin pause, and she’ll feel an almost overwhelming urge to beg Hanayo to let them drop out of the talent show. She wouldn’t do that, though; she’d never want to force her best friend to turn her back on an opportunity just for her. Besides, she’ll be okay as long as Hanayo is there with her.

—

The day before the talent show, Hanayo isn’t in school.

During lunch, Rin calls her in a panic in one of the bathroom stalls. “What’s going on?” she hisses. “Our final rehearsal is tonight! Where are you?”

“I have pneumonia,” Hanayo replies.

Rin feels like the floor is falling out from underneath her. Words crowd in her mouth, but all that comes out is, “In summer?”

Hanayo chuckles halfheartedly. “Yeah. I think I got it from my grandfather. You know his immune system isn’t the best. I don’t think I’ll be able to—” She breaks off into a fit of coughing. “I can’t come tonight. I don’t think I’ll be able to perform tomorrow. I went to the doctor yesterday after school, and he says I need to rest until the antibiotics start working.”

Rin recalls the past few days, how Hanayo had been coughing for a little while and seemed more out of breath than usual. She’d hoped it was just a cold, that it would go away in no time. Now Hanayo is sick in bed, her lungs filled with fluid, and they’re scheduled to perform tomorrow.

“Kayo-chin, I—I can’t do it on my own,” she says, her heart starting to race at the thought of standing alone on that stage.

“Sure you can,” Hanayo says. “Just…finish the school day and then go to rehearsal. I’m sure Miyazaki-sensei can help you out.” Then she hangs up before Rin has the chance to argue.

The rest of her classes are a blur. Her mind spins with worst-case scenarios, and her hands shake too much for her to even try to doodle. She speaks to no one, afraid that if she opens her mouth, nothing coherent will come out.

As soon as the dismissal bell rings, Rin snatches her things and races down the hall to the dance room. Her hands are so full that she kicks the door open with her foot.

Miyazaki flashes a smile at her, but it quickly dissipates once she sees the look on her face. “What’s wrong?”

Rin drops her things on the floor against the wall. “Kayo-chin’s sick,” she says breathlessly. “Pneumonia. She can’t perform tomorrow. We have to drop out. I can’t do it without her; we have to drop out—”

Miyazaki holds up both her hands. “Whoa, whoa, slow down. Deep breaths, okay? We’ll figure it out.”

Rin nods reluctantly and tries to steady her breathing. She hears the door open and close behind her, and then Honoka says, “Where’s Hanayo-chan?”

“She’s sick,” Miyazaki says calmly. “Rin’s probably going to have to perform by herself tomorrow.”

“Oh dear,” Kotori says. “I hope she gets better soon.”

“Rin-chan can do it, though!” Honoka says. “We’ve all seen her in action. She’ll do great!”

Rin shakes her head. “I don’t know.”

“It shouldn’t be too difficult,” Umi adds matter-of-factly. “You two were basically doing the same moves, right? It’s not like you were ballroom dancing. You won’t have to change much of the choreography to turn it into a solo act. And we can help you.”

Rin shakes her head again, faster. “It’s not that. I’m not worried about how I’ll do. I’m worried about how it’ll look. I’m not one of those pretty girls everyone loves. I’m different. And everyone’s eyes will be on me and no one else. I’ll be the center of attention…and I just don’t know if I can deal with how they’ll react to that. It suits me to be a partner or a member of a group, so I can blend in more, so someone else can shine. I can’t be the girl who shines. Not like this.”

“Of course you can!” Honoka blurts. “People are afraid of what they don’t understand. But you’re a girl just like the rest of us. Now’s your chance to show everyone. You’re at the Otonokizaka Academy for Girls, aren’t you?”

“But I tried to show everyone,” Rin says, her shoulders slumping. “That’s what I thought going to this school would do. But people still treat me like I’m just too different for them. Like I’m a failed girl, like I’m the wrong kind of girl.”

It’s Miyazaki who speaks up next.

“Then that’s their problem,” she says, “not yours. There’s no such thing as a ‘wrong kind of girl.’ There are girls with short hair and girls who love sports and girls who like to work on cars and girls who wear tuxedos and girls who like to build things—and girls who were mistakenly raised as boys. And the sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner you can be free of what others think of you. People are going to judge you no matter what you do. So if dancing brings you joy, and you want to share that joy with other people, then I want you to dance your heart out on that stage tomorrow.”

For a moment, all is silent. Then Rin chuckles sheepishly. She’s right. Of course she’s right.

“Okay,” she says finally. “Who wants to help me touch up this choreography?”

—

It’s the day before summer break, and the air buzzes with excitement. Even from backstage, Rin can feel her classmates’ gazes from out in the auditorium. Her heart feels like it’s going to claw its way out of her chest and make a run for it, and part of her wants to follow suit. Deep down, though, she knows she’s ready. She’s worked as hard as she possibly could. She’s going to stay, and she’s going to perform like her life depends on it. She has to, for Hanayo.

Rin adjusts her earrings and checks her makeup one final time in the backstage mirror before Miyazaki pops her head in. “Honoka, Kotori, and Umi are almost done,” she says. “You’re up.”

Rin smooths out her dress, a cute pastel pink, the very same one she bought online over the winter. It’s her first time wearing it in public, and it fits her like the final piece of a jigsaw puzzle. She takes a deep breath and glances down at her phone, which glows brightly with a new text message from Hanayo. I believe in you!! it reads, followed by a bunch of heart emojis.

Rin smiles, then fixes the pink barrette in her hair and heads out to the curtain area.

Honoka, Kotori, and Umi are walking offstage when Rin arrives. “You’ll do great!” Honoka whispers to her as she walks by, giving her a brief, sweaty hug. Kotori claps enthusiastically, and Umi puts a reassuring hand on her shoulder.

“Up next,” the principal says from the sound box, “we have Rin Hoshizora!”

The crowd claps politely. Rin tries her best not to look at any of them as she ambles onto the stage; her focus is only on the music and her body.

When she hears the opening of the song, all the fear and self-consciousness that’s been building up in her seems to fade away, replaced by instinct and muscle memory. She knows how to do this. She’s been doing it multiple days a week for months now.

For most of the first verse, the crowd is silent, as if they aren’t quite sure what to make of her. Then, when she bounces across the stage as the song shifts into the chorus, a few people whoop and cheer, and that’s all Rin needs to keep herself moving, to let the melody carry her home. She’s never felt more beautiful, more purely and authentically her. There’s so much she often hates about her body, but right now, she’s thankful for everything that makes her up, from her long limbs to her rectangular frame. Dancing, she’s discovered, isn’t just for conventionally attractive cis girls. It’s for anyone, as long as they have the passion and the resolve.

Honoka was right about the song choice—by the end, some people are clapping and dancing along, even singing the parts that they know. When Rin finishes the song with a smile, a wink, and a pose, the crowd responds in raucous applause. More than a few people in the audience seem shocked, and several others are smirking, shaking their heads, or mumbling to each other.

And yet, Rin finds it doesn’t particularly bother her. She’s realized something about this sudden turnaround: their acceptance of her is conditional, but her happiness is not. If being herself makes others uncomfortable…well, that’s their problem, not hers.

#love live!#rin hoshizora #hanayo koizumi #love live school idol project #love live school idol festival #trans girl rin #llsif #llsip #love live! fanfic #my fics

11 notes · View notes

i-ran-away-without-a-map · 4 years

Text

@jenlog I ain't having an argument in the notes cause it's a pain in the ass. I don't know why you didn't just tag me in a normal reblog or post if you wanted to discuss things.

Anyway, this is the link to the article you provided: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2749479

I took the time to read that and I can only say one thing: read the damn comments on that, from fellow academics. They back up what I was also gonna say: it's a very flawed analysis. It has the strength of numbers of participants, but it lacks proper data analysis, it fails entirely to account for already existing mental health issues in the participants, and it is extremely vague with the details of what exactly the patients reported (aka the so called "gender identity conversion therapy" could very well be anything, from an actual form of gay conversion therapy to their therapist advising them against taking hormones, and neither of those options suggest the actual practice of such a thing as "gender identity conversion therapy"). Also, the people who participated in writing this study already assume that "gender identity" is an actual thing, which is a whole other debate that they fail to even take into account, not even as a statement like "for the purposes of this study, we are working off the assumption that gender identity is a real psychological trait" or something along those lines; that in itself is extremely dishonest, and doesn't help the credibility of this source much.

Here is comment one in its entirety, for reference:

"September 27, 2019

Not all therapy is conversion therapy

Julia Mason, M.S. M.D. | Calcagno Pediatrics

As a pediatrician, I am very concerned with the probability that we are prematurely and permanently medicalizing many young patients who suffer from transient gender dysphoria (GD).

Multiple studies confirm that only a small minority (15%) of childhood-onset GD persist; GD persistence may be even lower in the novel segment of adolescent-onset GD--a poorly understood group of primarily female patients, which has become the predominant presentation in the last 10 years.

Many of these patients’ distress has resolved with the help of ethical forms of non-affirmative therapy, which allowed them to ascertain the reasons underlying their GD. Conversely, a great many have been harmed by quick affirmation, which often led to hormonal and surgical interventions they later regretted. (https://www.piqueresproject.com; https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/)

Turban et al allowed a number of study limitations-- including convenience sampling and failure to control for mental illness, a key predictor of suicidality--which should make any savvy reader wary of accepting the study conclusions about the harms of therapy aimed at alleviating GD.

In addition, the authors failed to mention a key methodological flaw. The researchers limited their survey to a sample of persons identifying as transgender (a term that lacks clinical specificity), rather than including all persons who have suffered from gender dysphoria (a DSM 5 diagnosis). As a result, the study is not generalizable to the larger population of persons with gender dysphoria (GD). The number of persons who at one point suffered from GD but no longer do far outnumbers those who have persistent and consistent GD and thus identify as transgender.

Without access to ethical exploratory psychotherapy (which the authors appear to incorrectly conflate with unethical conversion therapy), patients suffering from GD have only one option: permanent treatment with hormones and surgical interventions. Given the many known, and as yet-to-be discovered risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, the irreversibility of sex change surgeries, and the increasing numbers of young people expressing regret about choices made during what turned out to be a transient phase of their identity formation, it’s critical to ensure free access to all ethical forms of therapy.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported"

I found this one to be very well worded, but the other two are equally informative and all three can be found by scrolling to the bottom of the link you've provided, and pressing the read more options.

To put it bluntly, this is a shaky study at best. Academic studies all follow certain guidelines, and while there are of course differences between types of studies and the subject the study is made for, I'm familiar with reading psychology type studies since I'm a psych student myself, and immediately I can point out that this would not have gotten very good grades. It states its point repeatedly, often without any clear link between its reaffirmed hypothesis and the actual data gathered. Here's a thing about studies: they're real hard to make for several reasons, but one of them is that data gathering is hard, and data interpretation is harder. You also don't always wind up being right in your hypothesis: sometimes you're right, sometimes the results are inconclusive, and sometimes your hypothesis was wrong. You need to write that down, that's the conclusion part, and it's absolutely mandatory. You're not supposed to twist data to fit your hypothesis, or to purposefully keep your data analysis vague. This article has overall poorly analysed and interpreted data, quite an aggressive writing style (it drives its conclusion on repetitive statements more often than not), and the three comments (which by the way! function as peer reviews, since they are written by fellow academics) do a very good job of explaining its weak points further, so I suggest anyone who has some time to kill, give both the article and the comments a read, since it was actually pretty interesting, especially if you're currently a psych, med or sociology student, since it gives a very good practice on both how to spot the weak points in an article, and it can also be an exercise of what questions you should ask yourself as you read an article.

Overall, thanks for the evening read my dude, but if you're genuine about your interest in such studies, I suggest you check out those comments (the reason why articles are peer reviewed is so that dishonesty, purposeful or accidental flawed data interpretation, or personal biases can be spotted), and try to learn how to spot poorly made articles, since those aren't gonna be very helpful for any actual research.

#radfem #radfems do touch #radfem safe #radical feminism #gender critical #sorry for geeking out a bit there at the end #but I genuinely enjoy analysing and commenting upon articles #those are amongst my favourite types of homework

3 notes · View notes

omegafrisk · 4 years

Note

Thing is, gender identity is determined by how the nervous system interacts with the hormones estrogen and testosterone. It is not something you are born with, but something you discover during the process of puberty, as your nervous system changes and develops the traits necessary for gender identity. As such, portraying a prepubescent child with an absolute sense of gender is a very bad method of representing that gender. Prepubescent children do not have gender identities.

((what... are you talking about? it’s been months since this blog was even active, let alone involved in ciscourse. where is this even coming from? do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

i’m sorry, but this idea is utterly disconnected from reality. some of us exist in the real world, where transgender kids are becoming increasingly more common not because of the pressuring of their parents but because they force confused and terrified parents to accept who they are. i know transgender six year olds. i know genderfluid six year olds. i know them personally, and i fuckin’ love them because they’re adorable little kids who give me big grins when i use the right names and pronouns for them. i’ve listened to their parents talk about how they tried everything to convince their kids that they can be gnc if they want, that they don’t have to be a girl to wear dresses or a boy to like trucks, and the kids said, over and over again, “no. i know what i am. it’s not that.”

gender identity is not biological. it’s societal, and personal. not even sex as we tend to think of it is completely biological - the categories of “male” and “female” as we’ve constructed them are completely arbitrary because nothing in nature is binary. everything is a spectrum, especially physical traits.

before you try to lecture someone who knows far more about what you’re talking about than you do, try talking to actual human beings rather than relying on your incomplete knowledge of science that’s already decades outdated. the fucking american psychological association is ahead of you on this front. to be frank you’re making yourself look like an idiot.

i’m always willing to answer questions if you genuinely want to understand, but if you try to argue with me i will block you. please direct any further questions to my main @everyone-needs-a-hoopoe, i’m not interested in clogging up this blog with any more nonsense.))

#transphobia //#ciscourse //#ooc #Anonymous

11 notes · View notes

transgenderteensurvivalguide · 5 years

Note

Hi! I think I might be genderqueer, and I like to wear traditionally feminine things (makeup/dresses/high heels) but it also makes me uncomfortable because I don’t want people seeing me as a girl (I’m afab). If there a way to wear what I want without being read as female? Thank you!

Lee says:

Honestly, if you’re afab and pre-medical transitioning, sometimes you have to make a choice between passing and presenting yourself in a way that others will perceive as feminine. There’s just no way around that.

It’s totally a valid desire to wear makeup and dresses and high heels, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to do “feminine” things or present yourself with a feminine gender expression, and in an ideal world you’d be able to be recognized and respected as your real gender regardless of appearance.

Gender expression isn’t the same thing as gender identity:

The genderbread person

Separating Out Gender Identity from Gender Expression

What is gender expression?

So choosing to present yourself in a way that’s typically feminine like wearing dresses doesn’t make you any less valid as a non-binary person. It’s fine and valid to be non-binary and still present in a masculine or feminine way. You don’t have to have an androgynous appearance to be non-binary. So I’d like to make that clear before we continue..

Passing involves someone unconsciously and rapidly taking in a bunch of factors about your appearance, your voice, and your demeanor and then automatically mentally assigning you a gender. Some features are more important than others in this mental categorization; facial hair is often a bigger indicator than hip size, for example.

This isn’t like a conscious checklist people go through every time they see you; society trains our brains to automatically and unconsciously take in gendered features and categorize them as feminine or masculine to spit out a binary gender association.

But when you’re visibly gender non-conforming, or androgynous or just visibly non-cis, that tends to throw a wrench in the works and you can tell because the cis people start to like stare at your chest or something and you can see the gears turning in their heads as they try to figure out what gender you are- or more accurately, they want to figure out what gender you were assigned at birth and/or what genitals you have.

There are some afab people who haven’t medically transitioned and can still wear heels, makeup, and a dress and not be gendered by female by strangers. Binding, getting short hair, voice training, and sometimes fake facial hair and masculine makeup (in stage or cosplay settings usually) can help, but many afab people won’t be able to not be seen as female while wearing a dress even if they’re doing those things. There are lucky folks who just have the right genes and naturally look masculine enough to wear what they want and still pass- they do exist!- but that isn’t the case for most folks.

So if you’re on that line of passing vs not passing where you aren’t being consistently gendered as male or as female, those little gendered features and cues add up because people are consciously scrutinizing you. And the cues of “dress, high heels, makeup” are going to tip you into being read as a girl if you’re afab and on that middle line of passing.

It’s really hard to pass as non-binary- I’m also nb and I’ve found that strangers who can’t tell what gender you are sometimes refer to you with (maybe randomly chosen) gendered pronouns and gendered terms anyway because they’re stuck in a binary mindset and don’t know what else to do, or they become hostile and you find yourself getting shouted at when you enter the women’s locker room so you go to the men’s locker room and then they tell you to leave there too.

This isn’t always the case, but yeah, it is hard to pass as non-binary so not wanting people to see you as a girl might mean compromising on them seeing you as a boy. But that’s my personal experience- and if you want to try to pass as non-binary then go for it, but you may want to lean towards the masc side of androgynous if you’re afab and don’t want to be read as a woman so if a stranger feels like they “have” to pick a binary to gender you as, then they won’t be as likely to pick female.

So if you’re not interested in medically transitioning, which is valid, you may find you have to counter the characteristics about your voice/body that are read as female by going towards as masculine gender expression. The clothing you wear, your hairstyle, all that is part of passing too, and the accumulation of traits is more important overall than just one single one. The links below have tips on passing as male:

How to pass as male

Guide to being read as male

Passing tips

Transmasculine passing tips

FTM passing tips

Passing and presentation

Masculine body language

How do I know if I’m passing?

If you’re constantly passing (and obviously hormones help with this) you can often get away with “bigger” things and still pass. When you’re pre/non-HRT, the small things add up because they have to counter the unwanted feminine/masculine things about your bod, but when you’re passing more consistently then something like wearing makeup will stop being cuing that automatic misgender because they’re going to read other gender cues that they deem as more significant.

Testosterone FAQ

Top surgery

Facial masculinization surgery

Body masculinization surgery

Hysterectomy and oophorectomy

Bottom surgery (genital surgery)

But- if you do end up passing, either through changing your presentation and/or HRT, and strangers do see you as a man wearing a dress instead of as a woman wearing a dress, you’re going to face some toxic masculinity and misplaced transmisogyny. So there are safety risks there too because you could be harassed.

As for right now, you might have to choose between not being seen as female and your ideal presentation if you’re a pre-everything AFAB person and you tend to get misgendered when you wear makeup, heels and a dress. Either choice is valid, but there is a choice.

However, you don’t have to fully do one or the other, and it’s possible to wear heels and makeup on some days, then present yourself in a typically masculine way on other days to pass.

All that applies to strangers though- if you surround yourself with supportive friends who will respect your non-binary identity, you should be able to wear whatever you want to around them and they shouldn’t gender you as female because they understand that you aren’t, no matter what you wear.

You may have to explain your nb identity and the difference between gender identity and gender expression, but there are people out there who will love and support you even if you don’t have them around you just yet.

Having that network of social supports who will always gender you correctly will help even if you can’t get strangers to do so, and we have a Dysphoria page with tips on coping with dysphoria which may be helpful for the times when you don’t get gendered correctly.

#Lee says #passing as nonbinary #passing #gender expression #nonbinary #ftm in link #Anonymous #transgenderteensurvivalguide #trans #transgender

59 notes · View notes

a-polite-melody · 5 years

Text

Truscum are always “honestly asking in good faith” why someone would transition without dysphoria.

Why the scare quotes?

Because while that’s what they say they’re doing, and what they’re portraying that they’re doing on the surface, what they’re actually doing is more insidious than that.

First of all, on any other posts made by truscum, where they’re trying to “educate” people, they say that their stance can be summarized just by, “you need dysphoria to be trans.” Anything else they say is built upon that assumption. And yes. That’s true.

And so, while asking why someone would want to transition if they aren’t dysphoric may seem like a harmless question and an opportunity to educate, it’s actually a trap.

Usually, as seen by how they move forward on those posts, they’re asking this question in lieu of asking how someone can be trans without dysphoria. They’re associating transness with transition, which is assimilationist bullshit that trans people have fought against for ages.

They’re perpetuating the societally held cisnormative believe that being cisgender is the default and trans people suffer because they’re “born with the wrong body” or “have a different brain sex than their body’s sex” or whatever the hell else nonesense cis people try to explain transness with (while coincidentally ignoring the extreme amounts of variation within even just cis people who share agabs’ primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, gonad structure, hormone levels, chromosomal make-up, etc. that demonstrate that the binary sexes aren’t two distinct categories, but a spectrum of different traits, and so “male brains and female brains” being in the wrong “female bodies and male bodies” is a gross oversimplification, as all sex-essentialist views are).

Basically, it’s a very reductionist stance that truscum/transmeds have taken by way of equating transness with transition with dysphoria (ie. clinicially significant levels of distress).

So, to answer their actual question of: “How can someone be trans without having dysphoria?” while also going over the answer to their ““good faith”” question’s answer as well.

Being trans is defined as “a person whose sex/gender assigned to them at birth differs from their actual gender.” If someone, when they were born, had a doctor exclaim about them, “it’s a girl!!” and then the person themself later, once they’ve started learning more about themself as a growing, developing person, says, “actually I think I’m a [insert-other-gender-descriptor-here],” then they’re trans.

No part of that requires dysphoria. And you aren’t entitled to know if they experienced it or not in realizing they’re trans.

That isn’t to say that dysphoria isn’t a very common way trans people realize that they’re trans, and that it’s not a common thing many trans people deal with. It just isn’t (and doesn’t have to be) a universal experience for every trans person. Every person is different. Every trans person is different. Your experience of having dysphoria may not accurately describe other trans people’s experiences, just like my experience of having had only euphoria may not accurately describe other trans people’s experiences.

I, personally, have fluctuating dysphoria. It took me multiple months after realizing that I’m trans to actually identify that feeling as dysphoria because it did fluctuate so much (and still does), while my gender euphoria stayed constant and very strong. And no, I’m not saying that to say, “take it from a real dysphoric trans,” I’m saying that for a long while, even after I’d realized I was trans, I didn’t actually have dysphoria. I still go through long spells of not having dysphoria.

I knew I wasn’t a woman. It never felt wrong to be called a woman, but saying that I’m not a woman feels more right. Which is why I want to socially transition to being nonbinary, and have in online spaces and offline safe spaces. Even before I experienced dysphoria, even when I haven’t experienced dysphoria in a long while, I still am nonbinary and want to be referred to as such. Same deal can happen with body parts. While I’ve basically resigned myself to not have gender affirming surgeries because I don’t need even more surgeries on top of the likely many I’ll have in the future because of chronic illness and disability... I should have a penis. I was born without one. I’m not dysphoric about what I have. I even kinda like what I’ve got going on down there when it’s not throwing a tantrum at me about one thing or another. But I also have. Basically a phantom penis. It’s there, even if it’s not physically there. I’m not dysphoric, but if it were viable for me to have that kind of intensive surgery paying out of pocket (because for me it’s not necessary, even though I want it), I totally would. There’s physical transition without dysphoria, and notice how it doesn’t steal resources considering even with universal healthcare where I live, non-necessary procedures usually can’t be covered, and also get pushed down to the very bottom of waiting lists in favour of people who have serious need of those surgeries within a shorter timeline so that the resource of time actually ends up getting taken from those of us who might get an improved quality of life, but don’t technically need the surgeries because we’re not dysphoric and often will end up with our lives on pause for years so that people who need it sooner can only have their lives paused for a few months. Just saying. (Resource stealing arguments have never made sense to me, especially now that I’m in the medical system for other non-“necessary” crap related to the disability/chronic conditions and keep getting sidelined and nothing is moving forward because I’m not imminently dying, so it’s fine, I guess. But I digress...)

My experience of transness has had so little dysphoria that the majority of what I’d consider to be that transness has nothing to do with dysphoria. Dysphoria has almost no role in my identity or my being trans.

It’s at about this point that I’m expecting comments like, “But you are dysphoric. It doesn’t matter that it’s rare, all that matters is that you’re dysphoric!”

And that misses the point entirely. I’m not looking for validation for myself. I’m not looking for edgy teens who think bullying people is fun and cool if you’re an oppressed person doing it to tell me that actually, I’m a “twue vawid twans uwuwuwu!!!”

I’m saying that propping dysphoria up as the one single thing that makes a person trans is reductionist and has assimilationist roots. It’s intrusive and a violation to require knowledge of someone’s medical conditions (which dysphoria is, transness is not).

Take trans people at our words. We know us best. And you being trans doesn’t make you the expert on each and every one of us. Instead of trying to prove if someone’s a cishet faker, take them at face value.

And, you know... just. Use their behaviour to gage if they should be asked to leave or not. I’ve been hurt waaaay more often and way more seriously by gatekeepers in LGBT+ spaces than people in queer spaces who are “““transtrending”””. I’d rather outsiders see people having harmless fun exploring their identities and thinking trans people are a joke than them seeing people infighting and making what is meant to be a safe and welcoming space for people figuring out gender stuff into a place of bullying and harassment and think trans people are a joke.

Because, in the end, people saying they’re stargender will never hurt trans people as much as someone probing into their medical history, assuming things about them based on parts of their appearance which they can’t hide about themself (like big hips, breasts that can’t be made flat or can’t be bound at all, etc.) that make them “present female” (whatever the hell that means), especially if that trans person has been trying to love all of their body anyway as part of self care, and as such triggering dysphoria in a whole bunch of trans people in doing so.

#trans discourse #nonbinary discourse #truscum #transmed #trumed #transmedic #tucute #queer discourse #my post #high rambles #basically just a stream of consciousness rant while high #high blogging #long post

60 notes · View notes

umyikesiguess · 6 years

Text

“You don’t need dysphoria to be transgender.”

“You don’t need dysphoria to be trans.”

This is a sentence that can make people feel strongly. This is a sentence that has sparked up countless debates. People push and pull on either side of the argument until the sentences exchanged dissolve into petty insults; into worthless exchanges. No one seems to get anywhere.

I think the biggest problem here is that lots of people see this as an open debate, when in reality there truly is only one correct side. This correct side has scientific analysis and data to back up their reasoning, while the other side simply makes claims based off of their own opinions of what exactly gender is. Definitions are not taken into account. Data is not taken account. The only thing taken into account is one’s own warped definitions, opinions, and sick ideas of “inclusivity.”

Another problem that usually arises is truscum leave areas of the conversation open, instead of closing and filling in all of the gaps. This leads tucutes to jab at areas where the argument has not yet been developed, only briefed upon for fleeting moments. They take words and twist them, purposefully misunderstanding them to make up for their lack of any real argument.

So here, in this post, I will leave nothing up to debate (well, you can still express your opinion and explain why or why not you agree or disagree with me, but factually, I will be correct), I will tie all loose ends. I will cite my sources and be thorough. I will fill in the gaps.

Truscum, terf, tucute, feminist, transphobe, lgbt, cishet, and so on, I welcome you all to read this post and give me your input.

Now, onto the main post: You need dysphoria to be transgender.

Firstly, let’s get some definitions out of the way.

Google defines the word “Transgender” as, ‘denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.’

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word as, ‘of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth; especially : of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity is opposite the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.’ (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender)

“Gender” is defined by Google as, ‘the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).’

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “Gender” as, ‘the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.’

The term “Gender Dysphoria” is defined by Google as, ‘the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.’

And by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as, ‘a distressed state arising from conflict between a person's gender identity and the sex the person has or was identified as having at birth; also : a condition marked by such distress.’

Keep in mind (tucutes especially), I am not choosing to define these words the way that they have been defined. These definitions have been worded carefully and are based upon factual evidence. How you or I may define these terms is irrelevant, because these are the correct definitions, and they have already been decided upon. Unless new data comes up stating otherwise, which I doubt will happen, these definitions are static.

Now that we have defined these key terms, we should move on to the argument, and it’s simple, this sentence will sum it up: You need dysphoria to be transgender.

Why, though? Isn’t being transgender just an identity? And can’t anyone identify as whatever they please? And after all, gender is on a spectrum, and non-dysphoric transgenders aren’t hurting anyone. Maybe truscum should stop being gatekeepers---the LGBT community doesn’t need that kind of negativity.

These are common arguments I see tucutes making. First, I’m going to address the “why?”

Now, my favourite place to gather information from is the DSM. If you’re not already aware, the DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM) (and before we go any further, I do want to say that the DSM I’m using for reference is two editions out of date. The current version of the DSM does not include transgenderism in it, as the DSM stopped considering it a mental illness in 2013 [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/]. Furthermore, recently the WHO (World Health Organization) changed the classification of transgenderism, following in the DSM’s footsteps, just five years after the fact. However, despite the fact that my references are slightly out of date, I assure you they are reliable sources, and that the diagnosis that I present is still valid.) The DSM is basically just a big book of diagnoses for any and all mental illnesses. It is a book used religiously by psychiatrists, and me too.

The DSM I’ll be using for reference is the DSM-III (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9562-y) (which by the way, links countless references that you can check out.) In this book, we see the diagnostic criteria for transsexualism (transgenderism, GID, GD, or GI, whichever term you choose to use is fine. Though some of these terms may be classified as out of date, they all mean the same thing) as (a) sense of discomfort and inappropriateness about one’s anatomic sex, wish to be rid of one’s own genitals and to live as a member of the other sex, the disturbance has been continuous (not limited to periods of stress) for at least 2 years, absence of physical intersex or genetic abnormality, not due to another mental disorder, such as Schizophrenia.

Here what we see is what I’ll call The Pattern of Distress.

Now, if the criteria provided by the DSM doesn’t cut it for you, then let’s take a look at some other symptoms of transgenderism.

Psychology Today has this to say about transgenderism.

‘Gender dysphoria (formerly gender identity disorder) is defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one's own assigned sex that results in significant distress or impairment. People with gender dysphoria desire to live as members of the opposite sex and often dress and use mannerisms associated with the other gender. For instance, a person identified as a boy may feel and act like a girl. This incongruence causes significant distress, and this distress is not limited to a desire to simply be of the other gender, but may include a desire to be of an alternative gender.’

(https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/gender-dysphoria)

Now, what I want to address first is what I called the Pattern of Distress.

From each symptom of transsexualism, we see one consistent thing: Distress is caused by one’s biological sex. This is the key symptom of transsexualism, and this distress is otherwise known as Gender Dysphoria.

“A sense of discomfort and inappropriateness:” Distress. “Wish to be rid of one’s own genitals:” Distress. “The disturbance is continuous:” Distress.

All of these symptoms include distress. This distress is Gender Dysphoria, which is needed to transgender. You know why? Because distress is a key symptom of being transgender, and distress is equivalent to Gender Dysphoria.

Transgenderism and Gender Dysphoria are synonymous. Which is another thing I want to briefly touch on. In the medical world, these two words are, more or less, the same, and warrant the same diagnosis.

So, I think I’ve proved my point significantly. There’s no way around it: Gender Dysphoria is needed to be transgender.

Now, let’s move on to arguments I see tucutes commonly using. The most used argument that I’ve seen is anyone can identify themself however they please. The only way to be transgender is to identify as it. However, this argument lacks any evidence to support it.

Firstly, this implies that being transgender is simply a choice. If all you have to do is identify as transgender to be transgender then hypothetically, anyone could be transgender. And then, if being transgender is a choice, that would mean that it’s not a serious condition, and therefore things like top surgery, bottom surgery, and HRT would no longer be covered by insurance, and would be classified as cosmetic procedures. There would also no longer be a medical diagnosis for transgenderism, and it would not be a valid disorder, because, after all, you can just identify yourself as transgender and then you are. By that logic, being transgender is clearly just a choice and a choice does not warrant the need for a diagnosis.

Furthermore, what would be the incentive for people to not discriminate against people who identify themselves as transgender? After all, who would make a conscious decision to become the other gender. Who would pay thousands of dollars to mutilate themself in an irreversible way. Who would want those pink, puffy scars on their chest, or the pain of taking hormones? Surely only a freak would. So again I ask: What would the incentive be? (Also any discrimination would not even be classified as such because being transgender would a choice.)

See, this wishy washy idea that anyone can be transgender as long as they identify that way is extremely dangerous. It’s important to consider the consequences before we decide that being blindly all-inclusive is a good idea. We must consider the risks that these ideas pose. All of them.

But, now, let’s go into why someone can’t just identify as transgender and...be it.

First we must ask the question: Why is someone transgender? What makes this disorder valid?

The simple answer here is that there is an observable neurological difference between the transgender brain, and the cisgender brain.

‘In particular, researchers are identifying similarities and differences between aspects of the structure and function of the brains of trans- and cisgender individuals that could help explain the conviction that one’s gender and natal sex don’t match.

The results may not have much effect on how gender dysphoria is diagnosed and treated, notes Baudewijntje Kreukels, who studies gender incongruence at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. “It’s really important that it will not be seen as, ‘When you see [gender dysphoria] in the brain, then it’s true.’” But the insights from such research could go a long way toward satisfying the desire of some transgender people to understand the roots of their condition, she adds. “In that way, it is good to find out if these differences between them and their sex assigned at birth are reflected by measures in the brain.”’ (https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-brains-of-transgender-people-different-from-those-of-cisgender-people-30027)

‘Several studies have looked for signs that transgender people have brains more similar to their experienced gender. Spanish investigators—led by psychobiologist Antonio Guillamon of the National Distance Education University in Madrid and neuropsychologist Carme Junqu Plaja of the University of Barcelona—used MRI to examine the brains of 24 female-to-males and 18 male-to-females—both before and after treatment with cross-sex hormones. Their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)’ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/)

The cause of these neurological differences is not yet known, and it is extremely difficult to pinpoint where they stem from, however, it is speculated that it starts from the development of the baby in the mother’s womb.

‘One prominent hypothesis on the basis of gender dysphoria is that sexual differentiation of the genitals occurs separately from sexual differentiation of the brain in utero, making it possible that the body can veer in one direction and the mind in another. At the root of this idea is the notion that gender itself—the sense of which category one belongs in, as opposed to biological sex—is determined in the womb for humans. This hasn’t always been the scientific consensus. As recently as the 1980s, many researchers argued that social norms in how we raised our children solely dictated the behavioral differences that developed between girls and boys.’ (https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-brains-of-transgender-people-different-from-those-of-cisgender-people-30027)

So, if there is a clear difference between the brain of a cisgender person and of a transgender, and this clear difference is the cause of Gender Dysphoria, then that means that you cannot just identify as trans and just be it. You must have the transgender brain (which causes Gender Dysphoria) to be trans.

Now, onto the whole, “gender is on a spectrum” myth.

There’s this idea that’s been going around that is less than factually correct, yet it spread like wildfire simply because it allowed Tumblr’s narrative on gender to flourish.

Is gender on a spectrum? No. Biologically, there are only two genders, and there always will be. Now, I know some people will be happy to argue that gender is different from sex (I used to be one of those people), and while there are only two sexes, there can be millions of genders. And gender isn’t biological; it can shift and change...but this simply isn’t right. (Take a look at the definition of “Gender” again.)

You see, there is a clear difference between the male and female brain (this is part of the reason why transgenderism is valid.) An example of this is brainmass; a male brain is slightly larger than a female’s (for more information on the neurological differences between the sexes, you can read this wiki article, though it is a little dry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences.) And (with the exception of intersex people) you will either have a female brain or male brain. Your brain will usually correspond with your sex, the only exception to this is transgender people, who have a brain that acts more like that of the opposite sex.

Therefore, gender is not on a spectrum. Nor is is a feeling. Nor is it something that can shift or change. Gender is innate; biological; ingrained in you from birth. And though it’s fun to think that you can shift throughout the “gender spectrum,” and be a boy one day and a girl the next, it is impossible.

(I think people are mistaking gender with gender expression. These are two separate things.)

“But non-dysphoric transgenders aren’t hurting anyone. Let people live!”

See: Firstly, this implies that being transgender is simply a choice…

The last argument I’ve come across is that truscum are gatekeeping, and I’m gonna give it to you straight: We are. And we have to. You know why? Because we cannot blindly accept everyone into the trans community. The more we accept non-valid trans people into the community, the more we water down what it means to be transgender. The more we water down the severity of the condition. The more our community becomes a joke to society. And the more we are at risk to the demedicalization of transgenderism, to the shift of surgeries and HRT from medical procedures to cosmetic. The more we are risk to discrimination not even being classified as such.

All of these are things clear issues that come along with supporting a factually incorrect narrative. I understand that wanting to include everyone stems from a place of kindness; of not wanting to hurt anyone, but sometimes people need to be told “no.” They need to know where they belong and where they don’t, and they need to understand that being transgender is not quirky, cute, or fun. It’s a serious, painful disorder that is not to be taken lightly.

#mogai #mogai discourse #mogai hell #trans #transgender #transgenderism #transsexualism #transsexaul #tucute #truscum #nonbinary #lgbt #lgbt discourse #transmed #transmedicalist #genderfluid

8 notes · View notes

atwoodk · 4 years

Photo

Symptoms

How do you know a symptom is “real”? What kinds of factors might impact whether or not a symptom is a) perceived; b) acted on; c) legitimized? Can we assume that people experience diseases in the same way?

It is not up to a health professional to distinctly say that a symptom is either real or it isn’t, as that individual at that time is feeling something. It is the health professional’s responsibility to thoroughly investigate what is affecting this patient to make them present with certain symptoms. Unfortunately, this is not always the way it pans out as there can be a range of stigma and disbelief from health professionals that are still being dominated by the biomedical model, and more often than not what an individual is expressing doesn’t fit into this model.

It is characterized in Lyons & Chamberlain 2006 that the features of the biomedical model are that there is pathology or physical cause that must be the etiological starting point for an individual to feel sensations and then respond to by seeking medical attention. Furthermore, this model then uses the construct of “correctness” or “incorrectness” to legitimize the individual’s interpretations of what they are experiencing. With correctness meeting the biomedical model, but incorrectness would be influenced by aspects of the biopsychosocial model. However, this should not be the case and it needs to become more normalized to explore the biopsychosocial aspects when investigating symptoms so that health professionals can improve everyone’s health not just the ones that fit into their dominant model.

Multiple factors are influencing what a symptom is and if it is acted on, one factor that impacts symptoms is the construct of gender, where through gender roles women are traditionally aligned with ill health, and men are aligned to being fit, healthy, and masculine. A vast range of studies shows that women report more symptoms than men do, however, a lot of this can be disregarded or put down to women’s issues. Which are problematizing women’s basic everyday health, whilst making them feel like they are part of this other construct when what these women are experiencing and feeling is completely normal. Research shows that women can also experience symptoms differently from men, an example being heart attacks, but women aren’t presenting with the perceived symptoms. From the different presentations, women are not getting the care they require, as their symptoms aren’t aligning with the biomedical model, and research for more serious conditions are being based on men.

Additionally, women have not been included in a large portion of research on symptoms for certain conditions. It shocked me when reading Colville’s article when it was expressed about medical dosages for women being adjusted for “small men”, straight away this raised issue to me as women and men have different hormones how do you know how they will react to the same drug? If this wasn’t bad enough this article talked about women being excluded from research, but the results were still being applied to them even though it had not been tried. To me this seems unethical, would you do a study on certain drugs with men as the participant and then give it to a child to use? No, because they are not the attended population and you have no idea what to expect and the potential harm it could cause to them, so why is it ok to use results for women when they are not the intended population?

No two people will experience illness and disease in the same way, they may have similar symptoms but even with similarities, they will have varying effects. This could be contributed to individual personality traits or the biopsychosocial model. I think it is vastly important to incorporate the biopsychosocial model, as the biomedical model is constructing what symptoms are associated with what disease, but they are missing the unknown knowledge that patients can provide to help improve these constructs or the dispositional influences. Whether a lot of symptoms are acted upon is down to the preconceptions of that illness, which also links to the article Hether & Murphy 2010 wherein the way media can present certain symptoms in a way that will influence if people will legitimize what they are experiencing and the act on it.

Sometimes it takes other people to recognize your symptoms, I have had a personal experience of having a moderate head injury where my head was smashed into a piece of concrete while out drinking. It wasn’t until a few days later when I was walking to work with a colleague that he was the one that noticed my speech was off, and I wasn’t making sense. I was none the wiser that something was wrong with me, as the symptoms I was experiencing were some of what you would find normal for a hangover, and head injury symptoms do not always present immediately. It wasn’t until someone else pointed out the symptoms and the severity that action was then taken. This doesn’t fit with the biomedical model as I wasn’t recognizing the symptoms, but it was still something physically wrong with me, at the same time as also being relational to the cognitive-perceptual approach which highlights physical symptoms and the sensations we feel aren’t as straightforward as we thought.

From my experience, I have also really engaged with this topic especially in the aspect of pain as from this same injury I developed pain symptoms that are still present 2 years after my injury. It has been very hard as it is only now that health professionals are investigating a pain condition, and from the very start of my injury, I reported the exact same symptoms. It is frustrating as it feels like people don’t believe you when you are talking about pain, quite often people will say to me “oh but you look fine” or it’s just a headache can’t be that bad when they have no idea the full force of what I’m experiencing and that headaches daily is a lot different to a one-off headache. Nevertheless, as much as people can’t see a symptom, there is also the contrast bought to light of the concept of only seeing a symptom and seeing people only by this and making judgments based on preconceptions of symptoms and disease and leading to judgment and discrimination.

0 notes