"Gay, transgender movements need a divorce"

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think (and I've seen this with a lot of older gays) it can be very uncomfortable to have to hear the language of the trans movement in particular when it comes to the need to 'correct' or 'fix' or 'conform' the body through surgery and cosmetics. Those are emotive concepts for people who were and still are subject to pseudoscientific attempts to 'fix' their sexual orientation to 'match' their physical sex.

The people who are forcing gay people to "change their minds" about being gay are the same who are trying to change trans people's minds about their gender. The difference aquí is that (most) trans people want to make these changes, and the conservative/reactionary powers that be are trying to prevent them from having that choice and that autonomy. Iran, I believe, is the only place where they give gay people sex reassignment surgery to make them "straight women." Otherwise, the urges to change and fix their bodies are coming from the trans people themselves.

[Simfan34]

So we're just beginning to accept who we are and were born as in aggregate.. and we're being told to respect those who cannot accept who they were born as and to respect their need to change themselves into something else... something we have STRONGLY avoided.

I didn't say that it was wrong... I just said it is difficult for many gays, including myself, to accept and support because we have had such a strong desire to accept ourselves for who we are and to resist changing ourselves even when it would make things easier for us socially.

This is a very interesting tension, one I haven't thought of before. Of course, one could argue (as advocates of transgenderism do) that people who identify as transgender are aligning their physical self with their "real", mental self and are not really "changing themselves" as such. Regardless, the "gender transition" involves an indisputably real change taking place, even if it is regarded as being purely external. So I agree, first of all, that people who identify as transgender are changing, to get that out of the way.

This tension, based off of what I know, also has some pretty firm roots in actual experiences, where we've seen LGB people pushed towards "becoming" transgender. I suspect someone has already mentioned this, but in Iran, for instance, gay men are actually encouraged by the state to undergo reassignment surgery and become trans-women. The underlying dialectic* here is that same-sex attraction is problematic yet (presumably) immutable, a paradox resolved by "aligning" gay men with their attraction by making them women (which puts Ahmadinejad's claim that "there are no gay people in Iran" in a new light).

At the same time, and I think Maddy raised this point in another thread not too long ago, there are many transgender activists who are attempting to push in the same direction, that "feminine" gay male or "masculine" lesbian attributes are really indicative of as-of-yet-undiscovered transgender-ness. So we see that there is, at least from certain quarters, a real effort to "change" or "fix" LGB people by "making" them transgender. I don't think this can be brushed off too easily, nor do I think it's at all fair to lump all such criticism as "coming from the same people who opposed LGB people and thus bigoted/invalid/not worthy of consideration". The underlying currents of the LGB and the T are going in different directions-- one seeks to not change, the other does.

*I'm still not entirely sure what the exact definition of "dialectic" is, but I think it is a close enough approximation of the alternative "line of reasoning attempting to resolve an apparent contradiction", that it is appropriate.

Neuroscience Proves What We've Known All Along: Gender Exists on a Spectrum - http://huff.to/1ynkswR

A curious title, considering "what we've known all along" has only been regarded as received wisdom (and then only in certain circles) for what-- five years, if that?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I think (and I've seen this with a lot of older gays) it can be very uncomfortable to have to hear the language of the trans movement in particular when it comes to the need to 'correct' or 'fix' or 'conform' the body through surgery and cosmetics. Those are emotive concepts for people who were and still are subject to pseudoscientific attempts to 'fix' their sexual orientation to 'match' their physical sex.

that's… kind of the opposite? the equivalent to "gay conversion therapy" is trans conversion therapy, which is just as loathed by the trans community

[afleitch]

I think (and I've seen this with a lot of older gays) it can be very uncomfortable to have to hear the language of the trans movement in particular when it comes to the need to 'correct' or 'fix' or 'conform' the body through surgery and cosmetics. Those are emotive concepts for people who were and still are subject to pseudoscientific attempts to 'fix' their sexual orientation to 'match' their physical sex.

that's… kind of the opposite? the equivalent to "gay conversion therapy" is trans conversion therapy, which is just as loathed by the trans community

No. Simfans post touches upon what I'm getting at here quite well. Do you understand that people who have been subjected to hormone treatment as an 'ill' to treat homosexuality might find it uncomfortable to talk about hormone treatment as a 'good' to 'fix' trans people?

[Hydera]

Lots of argument from some that somebody willingly wanting surgical removal of the penis for transwomen or removal of ovaries and breast tissue for transmen is somehow a display of mental illness.

Most of these procedures are relatively safe and for transwomen, anything that removes the testes whether its full blown SRS or just an Orchiectomy. Means that testosterone is no longer produced, considering testosterone is produced for most of somebody who was born male, its not as illiogical since those type of surgery means testosterone is no longer produced. For transwomen who have had laser done in order to stop facial hair from growing, theres a chance that if they under a month are unable to get anti-androgens then if they have their testes then facial hair regrows eventually which wont happen if the testes are removed either through SRS or surgical removal of just the testes with the penis intact.

Besides these procedures are very throught out and nobody is rushed to do this procedure especially considering the cost. The purposes of these surgeries are only so those who are transgender will be much similar to the gender they want to be. Very very few are doing these surgeries for attention seeking.

[Simfan34]

that's… kind of the opposite? the equivalent to "gay conversion therapy" is trans conversion therapy, which is just as loathed by the trans community

I can't think of the numbers off the top of my of my head, but a non-insignificant people who have had sex-reassignment surgery have gone on to have reversive surgery, and a larger percentage have gone on to have regrets, according to some studies. I'm willing to attribute some of the high suicide rate for post-surgery transgendered persons (around 20x the rate in the rest of the population) to social ostracism but  it's unlikely that explains the whole story.

[Bojack Horseman]

Today's the deadline for Daugaard to sign or veto the bill. Wonder when he'll make up his mind.

[Adam Griffin]

Third page, so I'm sure it's been covered completely by now and I won't bother giving the long-form explanation (along with auxiliary justifications), but sexual orientation and gender identity are not one and the same. The irony is that social justice warriors have succeeded at defining this notion, and it is an accurate one. While it may have been well-intended and even necessary some decades ago, the grouping of multiple "queer" groups together under one umbrella is indirectly a statement that says "let's just put all of the freaks in a pile because they're freaks and knit a onesie for them". I, for one, don't appreciate that mindset.

[Simfan34]

I wish I had greater insight in the psychological and neurological communities as to the degree to which reputational concerns may affect critical views or research on transgenderism. As is increasingly the case with society at large, taking a skeptical view may very well cause one to be deemed a transphobic "bigot" and result in a chilling effect on research. Are studies with hypotheses that challenge conventional assumptions about gender dysphoria and being transgendered less likely to receive funding? Is research with results that undermine these assumptions less likely to be published?

On a related note, I wonder what the results of a study of people who have gone to a therapist for feelings of gender dysphoria would be. How many cases would end with the therapist advising against identifying as transgender, as opposed to encouraging such an identification? Not to mention what would happen if someone consulted online resources.

Let us keep in mind that the primary motivator behind identifying as transgendered is, ultimately, how one feels. It's not as if people with gender dysphoria are referred for MRIs to "confirm" their transgender-ness (perhaps some are-- and while the degree to which the study Wulfric linked to "proves" anything can certainly be debated, that is another issue).

We are thus in a peculiar situation where people are being "treated" on diagnoses made by someone who may very well be predisposed to assume that particular diagnosis! Before challenging this, ask yourself whether you genuinely think no doctor has ever been inclined to over-pathologise or to make a given diagnosis. Compound that with social pressures and one begins to see how people, again, may be "pushed" towards identifying as transgender.

Again we have a difference with LGBs-- being gay does not require "treatment". As afleitch noted, gay people have fought for decades to assert this point. Being transgendered, on the other hand, does-- or, at the least, it requires a degree of behavioral modification (unless you wanted to be, say, a trans-man who continued to act in line with their assigned female gender). There are relevant medical questions; whereas the question of "why are people gay" is, at this juncture, essentially academic, "why do people identify as transgender" is not-- as it impacts the medical response to someone who is deemed transgendered. The responses deemed necessary are of a completely different nature.

The differences between the LGB and the T are so multitudinous, and so diverse, that I struggle to see how one can claim they constitute a coherent group, outside of an intersectionalist bloc of groups marginalized on grounds related to their sexual organs, which is a category wide enough to include women in general.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I think (and I've seen this with a lot of older gays) it can be very uncomfortable to have to hear the language of the trans movement in particular when it comes to the need to 'correct' or 'fix' or 'conform' the body through surgery and cosmetics. Those are emotive concepts for people who were and still are subject to pseudoscientific attempts to 'fix' their sexual orientation to 'match' their physical sex.

that's… kind of the opposite? the equivalent to "gay conversion therapy" is trans conversion therapy, which is just as loathed by the trans community

No. Simfans post touches upon what I'm getting at here quite well. Do you understand that people who have been subjected to hormone treatment as an 'ill' to treat homosexuality might find it uncomfortable to talk about hormone treatment as a 'good' to 'fix' trans people?

that's the wrong comparison to make though.

a) trans people have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get access to hrt. it's very much not something that's forced on us, it's something we have to actively fight to get
b) the "alternative" to letting and helping trans people transition is, again, pseudopsychological "therapy" that is functionally identical to gay conversion therapy

[Simfan34]

I think (and I've seen this with a lot of older gays) it can be very uncomfortable to have to hear the language of the trans movement in particular when it comes to the need to 'correct' or 'fix' or 'conform' the body through surgery and cosmetics. Those are emotive concepts for people who were and still are subject to pseudoscientific attempts to 'fix' their sexual orientation to 'match' their physical sex.

that's… kind of the opposite? the equivalent to "gay conversion therapy" is trans conversion therapy, which is just as loathed by the trans community

No. Simfans post touches upon what I'm getting at here quite well. Do you understand that people who have been subjected to hormone treatment as an 'ill' to treat homosexuality might find it uncomfortable to talk about hormone treatment as a 'good' to 'fix' trans people?

that's the wrong comparison to make though.

a) trans people have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get access to hrt. it's very much not something that's forced on us, it's something we have to actively fight to get
b) the "alternative" to letting and helping trans people transition is, again, pseudopsychological "therapy" that is functionally identical to gay conversion therapy

Let me respond to point (b) briefly (I'm assuming you didn't see my previous post considering we posted almost simultaneously)-- do you reject the possibility that there are people who may experience feelings of gender dysphoria without actually being transgendered? If one is not actually transgendered, would therapy to help them accept this conclusion be wrong? Would it be "pseudo-psychological"? If we took this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would end up with the claim that it would be wrong, or pseudo-psychological, to tell anyone that they weren't transgendered.

This is why, at the very least, it is necessary to draw a distinction between gender dysphoria and being transgendered. The former involves feeling one's "true gender" is different from their biological sex. The latter involves that actually being the case. If we accept this distinction then we must accept that, in cases where people experience gender dysphoria without being transgendered, there can exist "non-pseudo-psychological" therapy that results in someone not identifying as transgendered.

Whereas "gay conversion therapy" involves attempting to convince gay people that they are not actually gay, this would involve getting people who are not transgendered to accept that they are not actually transgendered-- which is completely scientific. This distinction doesn't preclude people, we assume, who are actually transgendered from undergoing therapy to convince them they're not-- which is what you refer to. But it does mean that every instance of such therapy cannot written off as invalid.

[Bojack Horseman]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

[Figueira]

Wolverine22 isn't quite as progressive as the Republican Governor of South Dakota.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue. 

[Hydera]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue. 

For some reason the existance of trans people really really offends him for some reason.

[Bojack Horseman]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue. 

For some reason the existance of trans people really really offends him for some reason.

It's more of the idea of men in women's bathrooms and women in men's bathrooms that offends me. I don't see this as a partisan issue, I don't see it as right vs. left, I see it as right vs. wrong.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue. 

For some reason the existance of trans people really really offends him for some reason.

It's more of the idea of men in women's bathrooms and women in men's bathrooms that offends me. I don't see this as a partisan issue, I don't see it as right vs. left, I see it as right vs. wrong.

I call bullsh**t right there.  How can you, a gay man... a gay man sexually attracted to other men, claim that it is okay for you, said gay man sexually attracted to other men, possibly have a problem with a "woman" using the men's bathroom?

Are you afraid you might be sneaking a peak and accidentally see a vagina?  Come the f**k on.

[This account no longer in use.]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue. 

For some reason the existance of trans people really really offends him for some reason.

It's more of the idea of men in women's bathrooms and women in men's bathrooms that offends me. I don't see this as a partisan issue, I don't see it as right vs. left, I see it as right vs. wrong.

Fun fact: There is such a thing as unisex bathrooms. What excuse do you have for your obsessive transphobia now?

[Bojack Horseman]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue. 

For some reason the existance of trans people really really offends him for some reason.

It's more of the idea of men in women's bathrooms and women in men's bathrooms that offends me. I don't see this as a partisan issue, I don't see it as right vs. left, I see it as right vs. wrong.

Fun fact: There is such a thing as unisex bathrooms. What excuse do you have for your obsessive transphobia now?

I don't have a problem with unisex bathrooms. That's fine. But men using women's bathrooms is just nonsensical. This is common sense. You shouldn't need a law to tell you this. But I also think this whole "gender is between your ears" thing is just more new age "Special Snowflake" bulls**it.

[Virginiá]

Why don't we just phase in unisex bathrooms over the next 10 - 15 years? Replace all gender-specific bathrooms over time so it's not a shock to society or anything. Obviously we can't say "women/transwomen" or "men/transmen" only - There is no way to enforce/regulate that. This country might as well just get on with this instead of arguing.

But, I have to say, let's not belittle each other here. Each side has a fair argument and to act like the other is just crazy and stupid is, frankly, insulting should really stop.

[Alcon]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue.  

For some reason the existance of trans people really really offends him for some reason.

It's more of the idea of men in women's bathrooms and women in men's bathrooms that offends me. I don't see this as a partisan issue, I don't see it as right vs. left, I see it as right vs. wrong.

Fun fact: There is such a thing as unisex bathrooms. What excuse do you have for your obsessive transphobia now?

I don't have a problem with unisex bathrooms. That's fine. But men using women's bathrooms is just nonsensical. This is common sense. You shouldn't need a law to tell you this. But I also think this whole "gender is between your ears" thing is just more new age "Special Snowflake" bulls**it.

I mean...you got asked a fair question: what would you say if someone objected to you using men's public bathrooms because you're gay?

[Hydera]

I am genuinely shocked that Daugaard vetoed that bill. I can't believe it.

Maybe it's a good time for you to reassess your views on the issue. 

For some reason the existance of trans people really really offends him for some reason.

It's more of the idea of men in women's bathrooms and women in men's bathrooms that offends me. I don't see this as a partisan issue, I don't see it as right vs. left, I see it as right vs. wrong.

Fun fact: There is such a thing as unisex bathrooms. What excuse do you have for your obsessive transphobia now?

I don't have a problem with unisex bathrooms. That's fine. But men using women's bathrooms is just nonsensical. This is common sense. You shouldn't need a law to tell you this. But I also think this whole "gender is between your ears" thing is just more new age "Special Snowflake" bulls**it.

What about transmen?

Should they be forced to use the women's bathroom despite looking like this?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Do you guys know of the phrase "safety in numbers" or what? It's like saying "oh why are the Democrats are made of blacks, gays, hispanics, students and public servants? Surely they all have separate needs and best part ways?". Like there's often friction between LGBT (and not just between LGB and T; but often between L and G and LG and B as well.) but there is very little point in splitting up in ever stupider little groups - of which the LGBTQSTUHDKBSKHB phenomena has partially caused. Why not come up with a phrase like Gender and Sexual Minorities (GSM) or something?

The reason transpeople come under the umbrella is that a lot of issues affecting transpeople effects LGB's as well. A large proportion of LGB's don't really conform to gender norms and the vast majority of T's will identify Gay or Bi over their lives. The same sort of discrimination that affects T's affects LGB's. The only difference, that Simfan is hung up about, is that T's need medical treatment; which does not strike me as a cavernous gulf. Certainly not something to strike a "divorce" over, anyway.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I think (and I've seen this with a lot of older gays) it can be very uncomfortable to have to hear the language of the trans movement in particular when it comes to the need to 'correct' or 'fix' or 'conform' the body through surgery and cosmetics. Those are emotive concepts for people who were and still are subject to pseudoscientific attempts to 'fix' their sexual orientation to 'match' their physical sex.

that's… kind of the opposite? the equivalent to "gay conversion therapy" is trans conversion therapy, which is just as loathed by the trans community

No. Simfans post touches upon what I'm getting at here quite well. Do you understand that people who have been subjected to hormone treatment as an 'ill' to treat homosexuality might find it uncomfortable to talk about hormone treatment as a 'good' to 'fix' trans people?

that's the wrong comparison to make though.

a) trans people have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get access to hrt. it's very much not something that's forced on us, it's something we have to actively fight to get
b) the "alternative" to letting and helping trans people transition is, again, pseudopsychological "therapy" that is functionally identical to gay conversion therapy

Let me respond to point (b) briefly (I'm assuming you didn't see my previous post considering we posted almost simultaneously)-- do you reject the possibility that there are people who may experience feelings of gender dysphoria without actually being transgendered? If one is not actually transgendered, would therapy to help them accept this conclusion be wrong? Would it be "pseudo-psychological"? If we took this reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would end up with the claim that it would be wrong, or pseudo-psychological, to tell anyone that they weren't transgendered.

This is why, at the very least, it is necessary to draw a distinction between gender dysphoria and being transgendered. The former involves feeling one's "true gender" is different from their biological sex. The latter involves that actually being the case. If we accept this distinction then we must accept that, in cases where people experience gender dysphoria without being transgendered, there can exist "non-pseudo-psychological" therapy that results in someone not identifying as transgendered.

Whereas "gay conversion therapy" involves attempting to convince gay people that they are not actually gay, this would involve getting people who are not transgendered to accept that they are not actually transgendered-- which is completely scientific. This distinction doesn't preclude people, we assume, who are actually transgendered from undergoing therapy to convince them they're not-- which is what you refer to. But it does mean that every instance of such therapy cannot written off as invalid.

i'm certainly inclined to believe that's a possibility - the reverse (someone being trans without feeling dysphoria) is certainly relatively common

the thing is, again, what you're describing is basically already the status quo: people do have to go through a lot of therapy to make sure they're "actually trans" before they get anywhere near hormones or srs, nobody gets pushed towards transitioning.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Do you guys know of the phrase "safety in numbers" or what? It's like saying "oh why are the Democrats are made of blacks, gays, hispanics, students and public servants? Surely they all have separate needs and best part ways?". Like there's often friction between LGBT (and not just between LGB and T; but often between L and G and LG and B as well.) but there is very little point in splitting up in ever stupider little groups - of which the LGBTQSTUHDKBSKHB phenomena has partially caused. Why not come up with a phrase like Gender and Sexual Minorities (GSM) or something?

The reason transpeople come under the umbrella is that a lot of issues affecting transpeople effects LGB's as well. A large proportion of LGB's don't really conform to gender norms and the vast majority of T's will identify Gay or Bi over their lives. The same sort of discrimination that affects T's affects LGB's. The only difference, that Simfan is hung up about, is that T's need medical treatment; which does not strike me as a cavernous gulf. Certainly not something to strike a "divorce" over, anyway.

There should be a single unified Anti-Patriarchy Movement (feel free to suggest a better name) including feminists, LGBT activists, and every ally who agrees with the cause of tearing down oppressive gender norms (which many straight cis men could and should agree with as well).