Recently came out as a trans woman - AMA

The first lie here is that surgery is needed to alleviate GD, and that lie comes from opponents. Yes, in some cases it is needed, but opponents make it out as if every transgender person needs that. They don't. Some do perfectly well with simply presenting, while only might only need top alteration. Secondly, simply because you don't believe it to be true, that doesn't make it a lie. Their truth doesn't have to match yours. That lack of matching yours doesn't make it a lie. If you love yourself, then you are honest with yourself about who and what you are. A homosexual who is still in the closet doesn't love themselves enough to be honest with themselves. But gay opponents would claim that living as a homosexual was that person not loving themselves and living a lie, because they could not concieve that another person's truth would be different from their own.

 

Your entire response is a lie. I didnt say anything about surgery being NEEDED to alleviate GD. In fact it is quite the opposite...surgery is the WORST form of 'treatment' for GD. What is NEEDED is for the individual to learn to love themselves as the person that they are, regardless of the person they believe themselves to be. If you cant accomplish that goal, then literally nothing else you do will be effective. Which is LITERALLY what I have said all along.

 

Point blank...because it IS a sociological lie. Fabricating a lie that you can be someone you arent just to appease people is a lie...an evil cruel lie...and should not be perpetrated to normalize the delusion. And if you need further evidence of that fact, all you have to do is loom at whaty the lunacy you promote has spawned. We have gone from 2 genders to now an infinite number of fabricated ****, with children so ****ing confused by the lunacy you have promoted that they are mutilating them selv es to match the lunacy they have fabricated. You have ****ed over generations of children all so a handful of mentally ill people can feel 'normal'.

 

Correct. Those would be the one claiming that transitioning doesn't work.

Again, not all transitioning is surgery. That is a lie that opponents want others to believe. And surgical transitioning still does take years, and includes therapy. I won't claim that there are not medical people out there who are not taking advantage of people with this, but then no medical field is void of such predators. But if we are not shutting those other fields down because of the predators within them, then there is no need to shut this one down.

One of the problems with making claims of something being extremely rare when looked at in history and using that claim to say the increase currently is false, is that it doesn't take into account the hiding of the condition in question because it was not acceptable back then. One can make the claim that homosexuality was extremely rare looking back in history. But with closer looks, we find evidence that it was not as rare but more hidden. As people become comfortable being seen, then more come out. An increase in admitting to a condition is not an automatic increase in the occurrence of the condition.

 

No...they arent being redefined to accommodate learning...they are being redefined to accommodate lunacy.

THAT is your legacy.

First you create the illness...then you offer a 'solution'.

 

Studies show the opposite unless you are getting them from the Heritage Foundation, which is extremely biased. Suicidal ideation drops 44% after GCS.

Even just presenting has a positive effect in reducing suicide

Further, those who detransition are twice as likely to commit suicide than those who do not.

Of course the brain is the issue. We have evidence where the brain structure of transgenders are closer to, but not the same as, those of cis gender people of the opposite sex, than those of cis gender people of their own sex. And what we have now in transitioning, whether surgery is involved or not, is the best treatment we have developed to date. I don't see you out there with any better treatment, that doesn't cause more harm than good. Will we develop something in the future where we can shift the gender enough to alleviate the GD instead of shifting the body? Hopefully. Bu until then we go with what works best.

 

Not one bit is a lie. You disagreeing with it does not make it a lie.

I never claimed that you said it. However, I will admit to poorly wording that. The lie from opponents is that proponents are making that claim or trying to push all transgenders into surgery. You repeating that or making statements that imply as much (intended or not) does not make you the lying per se.

It is not a necessary treatment for some, but for others, it is the best available.

Exactly, they have to learn to love themselves as a male woman or a female man, or a non-binary whatever. However, that doesn't mean that loving themselves will make the GD go away, or make it any easier to live with it. What you propose in them not transitioning is a lack of loving themselves and being who they are.

Agreed. Yu are just suggesting actions that go opposite of living themselves. You only want them to love part of themselves.

 

You are conflating the actual attraction with the labels use. Sexual attraction is based on a large range of factors. Sex/gender is pretty much the only one we have given a label to. While we were still conflating sex with gender (which was for longer than we were using the words as synonyms) we only assumed that attraction was based on the physical body. We are now learning that there are people who are attracted based on the body, regardless of gender, attracted to the gender regardless of the body, and those who only attracted to those of a specific sex/gender combo, usually those that "match". My being gender based in my sexual attractions (I am attracted to both cis and trans women) does not make me transgender.

Not in my experience. It's pretty well spread out, between that stereotype and the couples just simply being people.

Again you are making conflations. Yes, manly or butch or whatever, can be an additional factor in sexual attraction. However, I could prefer butch straight women as a straight man. Her being butch doesn't make me or her any less heterosexual.

 

Yeah, I can imagine this was hard

Is there anything positive you think or feel about your natural body? Also, is your body the only thing about yourself that you are this unhappy about?

Science has already shown this is impossible since there are such significant brain structure and chemical differences that lead to differences thinking and behaving. They've actually found that the more egalitarian a society is, the more segregated men and women get in terms of their job choices. This all stems from evolutionary pressures that cause differing mating strategies and thus reward difference types of biological structures. The only way to eliminate sex differences is for evolutionary structures to be reversed (which would take a very very long time; so long that it would be miraculous for the human species to still be alive by then.)

Can you elaborate on this? First of all, I think all feelings are valid in that there is always a logical reason we've developed them.

Second, what do you understand your feelings to mean?

Are you saying some parts of you has been resisting wanting to change your body?

Indeed, it sounds like you've thought about this quite a bit. I'm not sure that's the case for all people though. Also, how much work have you done with the help of a mental health practitioner?

 

My only problem with studies like this claiming that ideation drops is that these individuals have a cognitive schema based on a lie they've been told about "gender identity" and the cure "SRS." Thus, if they think SRS is the only thing that is going to save them, of course they are going to report higher suicidal ideation before getting it. I tend to prefer a more solid data set: actual suicide rates.

Here's an example of a study that directly disputes the claim that SRS significantly reduces suicides:

"Sixteen of the 35 people who recently had visited the clinic, only came for a medical check‐up, as they were postsurgery (vaginoplasty or phalloplasty). Two people were in the surgery trajectory, and 17 were still in the diagnostic or hormonal phase at time of suicide."

So what they are saying is this:

16 (46%) of those that committed suicide, did so after receiving SRS

2 (6%) were on the SRS trajectory (although hadn't had the surgery yet)

17 (49%) either hadn't been approved yet or were receiving hormones only

This means 18 (51%) of them had the surgery or would get it soon, but still killed themselves. This doesn't seem like a significant improvement in suicide rates. Indeed it seems about the same and maybe worse.

See below for another important quote showing that a stage in the SRS process doesn't really have an impact on suicides.

"An important finding was that the incidence for observed suicide deaths was almost equally distributed over the different stages of treatment"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/#acps13164-bib-0026

It should also be noted that this study tries it's best (despite these findings), to still try and justify SRS. Thus, the intent of this study was to justify SRS, but they failed in doing so.

I think this supports my position even more. This shows that the real issue is a mental health issue. The difficulty in accepting one's whole self, body and mind. Of course your issues aren't going to go away once you have surgery. People have been getting plastic surgery for years to try to fill a void of dissatisfaction with their bodies to no avail. So, of course it's going to be devastating when the magic pill you've been told is going to cure you, doesn't.

I'm glad we agree it's a brain issue, but, from what I've read there are just as many studies that are inconclusive as there are studies that show any differences. Also, on the studies that show differences, most of them that I've read just state that the brains are different from both sexes, not necessarily more like one or the other. One study I read showed that there was a structural brain difference that was completely unlike both sexes.

I would disagree that it's the best treatment. That's your opinion and the opinion of many unethical scientists and health providers.

I agree we need to develop better treatments for this. I think the only way to be able to do this is for the societal and political heat to be turned down on this issue. Many scientists don't want to touch this with a 20 foot pole for fear of being cancelled or being called a transphobe. Doing research outside of the current "gender identity philosophy" and the "puberty blockers, HRT and SRS" protocols, is career suicide. How can we find better treatment if this is the case?

 

They may or may not. With people like me, who are more gender based than sex based, those primary sexual characteristics play a lesser role, or might not even matter at all.

 

I think that this is a good and key question. Thing is, it's hard to envision what such body dysphoria actually entails if you don't actually have it. I have a different condition (that I am not comfortable in discussing outside of this obscure mentioning of it) that does given me an insight towards that, but I also know it is nowhere near the same as what many transgender people go through. But that dysphoria can be quite powerful in some people. If you could imagine what it would be like to suddenly wake up in a body that is now female (or male if I guessed your sex wrong), but otherwise you, you might have an idea. Or even the straight idea of waking up in someone else's body. You would look at it, and you would know that that body just isn't you. You might have feelings of anger, or shame, or even disgust at it. And you can get all the therapy you want, but it won't change the fact that that body isn't you. At best you have to resign yourself that nothing can be done. BUT! If you could even get a little changed to closer to who you are, or were in the hypothetical, it could relieve at least a little of that stress and loathing. That being closer visually and sensation wise will never be the same as actually being what you are/were, but it's better than nothing. And yes for many, any losses are worth the gains. Why should you or I determine for another whether those losses are worth it or not?

 

I have to ask, how is a boy or girl supposed to behave that isn't a social construct? If he boy wears pink, is that an indication of acting like a girl should? Or is it an indication that society just decided that blue was a boy color, especially when we can look at the near past to see that pink was once considered a manly color and blue to be feminine in nature? Before anyone can truly answer this question, we have to know what is sex based behavior that isn't based on a social construct.

I think that most of us here are agreeing on this overall idea, even while we are disagreeing on what the bold means.

But what is the lie? Think about all the lies that have been handed down over the centuries about women and what they can and cannot do. Look at all of the careers that they have said that woman could never do simply because they were a woman. And yet here they are doing those jobs. We are now learning about all the things that women have done in the past that men initially took the credit for. So is it really a lie that they are as they claim, or is the lie what was believed before out of ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge)?

 

Maybe this needs to be better said as the current expectations of femininity, especially since those expectations have varied between cultures and across history.

 

To me this highlights the brain problem with all of this... It's not the body that is the problem. Treatments and scientific studies should focus on treating that. It would be unethical for a provider to provide a surgery to the body, knowing full well the mind is the issue.

 

This is one of the few things out of that administration that I agree with. I watched what happened with Alfie Evans back in '18, where the UK government would not allow him to be taken out of country to try an possible new treatment.

 

I agree that there is likely a component of this that is more about the brain. The brain likely assesses societal norms and if an individual is unhappy with their sex/body, they decide they like the opposite of of what their sex typically likes. However, I think some boys can innately like dolls without being influenced by societal norms. So I think it's a mix of trying to display the opposite sex preferences while also having innate treated commonly associated with the opposite sex.

I'm not sure why some women doing some things that men do has anything to do this.

I'm talking about being dishonest about the biological reality of the individual. Pronouns are meant to represent biological reality. No matter how much surgery or hormones and individual has or takes, that individual will not be the opposite sex. At this point the only reason many go along with this and use pronouns for the opposite sex for these individuals is to avoid hurting feelings and to go along with perceived social norms/etiquette. None of this should matter. People should just be comfortable being themselves. If that means they are a man with female traits, mannerisms, preferences and behaviors, so be it. Who cares. He's still a HE. He's still a man, not a woman. It's narcissistic to expect others to call you something you're not. Playing along also further placates the cognitive misunderstanding/delusion.

 

How are we supposed to find this out unless opponents stop trying to block these procedures from even happening. The same lack of studies that they say don't show the procedures work also means a lack of those showing that they don't work. And there does have to come a point where such things are tried on children. My step daughter was the first child to be given a treatment for, I think it was whooping cough, or some other condition that is normally vaccinated against, but she got exposed before her vaccination. It was either try this and maybe she lives, or do nothing and she has no chance to live. It worked and now is the standard treatment. Basically, you can't claim that it doesn't work on older teens if you are not allowing it to be tried.

 

@ALightInTheDark I'm at about a page still to catch up on. I see your replies, but I am also having to get on and off the computer with other things. I'll get there. However, if in doing so, I miss a post or a part that you want addressed, please point it out.

 

The thing is that we already use mostly gender based pronouns. In the end, when we address someone, we don't actually know their sex. It's why we are having problems with actual cis women getting stopped at restrooms by people accusing them of being transwomen. There are plenty of people making that claim that they always know, but that is really more bluster than fact, especially since there are far more transgender people who pass than more opponents want to admit to. But it is also because we make snap judgements on what a person is, and never really get the opportunity to find out what the reality is.

I can't fault the base logic of this, but the thing is, we do already have people who don't feel different while still bucking those gender roles and other social constructs of gender and/or sex. If it was simply a matter of being able to express opposite the current social expectations, then we wouldn't have as much of this issue. I agree that we need to stop having set standards that are arbitrary (guns or for boys; dolls are for girls, etc), but that is not going to solve the transgender and GD issue.

 

European countries are dialing back these "treatments" for youth due to its experimental nature. Studies can still be done on individuals unhappy with their sex to see if they grow out of it, if counseling helps, if medications help and so on. Simultaneously, they can experiment on animals for all I care, to determine long term physical consequences. I'd rather an animal than a human be experimented on. Having a terminal disease is different than being unhappy with your sex.

 

I honestly don't think that we can do that. Abolishing artificially assigned expressions and roles and such, sure. The fact that those have changed constantly throughout history proved that they are not immutable qualities. But I cannot see where we would ever be able to not have a gender itself. I think that would have to be something that comes from actual evolution, and not societal changes..

 

Refusal to accept new learning does not invalidate it. I return to the example of Galileo and how the people of his time did not accept the heliocentric model. But it was true nonetheless. Your refusal to accept this new learning does not make it any less true.

 

Its not new learning...its new lunacy. Its the promotion of mental illness and delusion as normal...which is fine...as long as they didnt push it on children...but they did. they have taken a mentl illness that impacted less than .017% of the population (virtually ALL gay males), and mainstreamed it and pushed it onto children where now the numbers vary from anywhere to .5 to 5% of the population that have become gender confused (not with just male or female but now literally hundreds of made up fairy tale ideations) because of this sick and demented agenda you champion.