Your opinion of transgender people

[Desperate Measures]

I oppose your idea of healthcare but how to pay for gender reassignment surgery is a separate topic and really shouldn't reflect on what you think of transgenders as a whole. I'm sure there are a great many transgendered folk that would agree with your economic ideas. Not to mention that the majority of transgendered people have no plan whatsoever to get SRS.

The problem is that social issues are tied to economic issues. I greatly dislike the religious right and I wish they would gtfo of the Republican Party. Similarly, I am deeply opposed to the Democratic Party on economic, foreign policy, and defense issues but generally do not care about their social positions. The homosexual community in the United States is overwhelmingly aligned with the Democrats, and in my opinion this alignment is due to social issues, and not issues which I consider to be far more important. I can and do respect those with differing economic positions as long as they have given due consideration to their views and can discuss them intelligently. Those who support a party's economic views due to social considerations (religious right/homosexuals) will get no respect from me.

Here is my point: for the transgenders, I don't have a problem with you per se, but if you align with a party without considering important non-social issues, if you try to get your party to collectivize an incredibly expensive benefit that only your small group will benefit from, and if you frame those who oppose this collectivization as bigots, then I will not support you. If that indeed makes me a bigot, so be it.

My point was that transgenders come from all walks of life, not just the democratic party. Grouping us as a whole and saying you want support us due to your belief of what party you think we all belong to is ignorant. SRS is a small slice of the transgendered issue and who pays for it is a smaller slice still.

[The Lone Alliance]

What is "cisgender"?

The opposite of transgender; someone whose gender identity is the same as their assigned biological sex at birth.

No it's not, it's a word made up by two Transgender activists.

No really look it up, it's not a scientific term in the slightest. It only appeared in the 90s and is only a term really circulated on the internet.

"Science" does not use the term "Cis"

[Desperate Measures]

The opposite of transgender; someone whose gender identity is the same as their assigned biological sex at birth.

No it's not, it's a word made up by two Transgender activists.

No really look it up, it's not a scientific term in the slightest. It only appeared in the 90s and is only a term really circulated on the internet.

"Science" does not use the term "Cis"

Why does the origin matter? According to wiki it's been used in several peer-reviewed scientific articles. Words have all sorts of origins.

[Souseiseki]

The opposite of transgender; someone whose gender identity is the same as their assigned biological sex at birth.

No it's not, it's a word made up by two Transgender activists.

No really look it up, it's not a scientific term in the slightest. It only appeared in the 90s and is only a term really circulated on the internet.

"Science" does not use the term "Cis"

someone already said they got the term confused with something scientific before. science uses the "cis" prefix on many occasions.

but yes, it is a new word. what, do you think heterosexual and homosexual always existed? do you think all words have always existed forever? this is actually kind of ridiculous. are you going to say it's not an accurate description?

fuck, do you think the word transgender always existed? it must have been coined at some point. stop using a made up word!

[Oneracon]

The opposite of transgender; someone whose gender identity is the same as their assigned biological sex at birth.

(1) No it's not, it's a word made up by two Transgender activists.

(2) No really look it up, it's not a scientific term in the slightest. It only appeared in the 90s and is only a term really circulated on the internet.

(3) "Science" does not use the term "Cis"

1. Yes, but it still is a word coined to mean "gender identity and biological sex that match"
2. That was true originally, but a simple search of Google Scholar will show that is now otherwise
3. "Science" does use the term cis quite often actually in a variety of different fields. It comes from the Latin preposition cis meaning "on the side of".

[Grenartia]

except, you know, if it did happen everyone would benefit

Sorry, no. I derive no benefit from Chaz Bono feeling good about him/herself and feel no urge to contribute to his/her cosmetic surgery. If you would benefit from it, please by all means upload a copy of the check you sent to a charity which pays for transgender operations.

Its not cosmetic. Its medically necessary.

[Sentinel Optik]

Sorry, no. I derive no benefit from Chaz Bono feeling good about him/herself and feel no urge to contribute to his/her cosmetic surgery. If you would benefit from it, please by all means upload a copy of the check you sent to a charity which pays for transgender operations.

Its not cosmetic. Its medically necessary.

Necessary in what way? What if I wanted a penis enlargement because I always felt that I should have a 14-incher? Should society pay for it? What if I say in really convincing terms that my identity was totally dependent on having a large penis, and everyone (especially women) would benefit from the procedure? Because you know, I'm a guy with a 14-incher trapped in a guy with a 12-incher's body.

I think this whole gender confusion thing could be better solved with medication than surgery. Like I said before, go ahead and do it if you really want, but if you're asking me to pay for it then you're inviting me to comment on it. You cannot ask for equality and a handout in the same breath, because then you will get neither.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Sorry, no. I derive no benefit from Chaz Bono feeling good about him/herself and feel no urge to contribute to his/her cosmetic surgery. If you would benefit from it, please by all means upload a copy of the check you sent to a charity which pays for transgender operations.

i meant by UHC, which i assumed is what you were ranting about by proxy

but yeah, now you're sorta approaching the bigoted line. when you say cosmetic surgery i hope you're not referring to...

"WPATH standards of care posted:
“Sex reassignment is not “experimental”, “investigative”, “elective”, “cosmetic”, or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.”

Pfallin, 1993 posted:
“In over 80 qualitatively different case studies and reviews from 12 countries, it has been demonstrated during the last 30 years that the treatment that includes the whole process of gender reassignment is effective.”

GIRES (2006) "Atypical gender development - A review" posted:
“The hormonal, surgical and psychological procedures of transition reduce the dissonance between the psychological identification as male or female, on the one hand, and the phenotype and associated gender role on the other. Such
treatments are regarded as highly successful.”

Lawrence, 2002 posted:
2002 Lawrence study of MtF patients gives 3% of 232 participants giving quality of life after SRS as either “unchanged” or “worsened” - Only 1 participant responded with “worsened”, 7 with “unchanged”. “No participants reported consistent Regret"

Lawrence, 2002 "Factors associated with satisfaction or regret following male-to-female SRS" posted:
“Even patients who develop severe surgical complications seldom regret having undergone surgery. The importance of surgery can be appreciated by the repeated finding that quality of surgical results is one of the best predictors of the overall outcome of sex reassignment”

In short, this is seen as one of the most effective treatment for trans people and it literally saves lives. I also have a lot of data on the increased risk of suicidality of trans people who are not allowed access to treatment, and data on how GID is an isolated diagnosis - It is not a sign of delusions or other severe mental illness. Cole et al (1997) study into co-morbidity will provide this data, if you want to take a look."

still shamelessly stolen from noreaus

I'm just going to leave this here.

[Hathradic States]

One, what the fuck is with the * at the end of trans?


Two, you are what you are physically, thinking you should be something else is inbetween weakness and attention mongering.

[Desperate Measures]

One, what the fuck is with the * at the end of trans?


Two, you are what you are physically, thinking you should be something else is inbetween weakness and attention mongering.

Ignorance is easily cured, you know.

[Hathradic States]

One, what the fuck is with the * at the end of trans?


Two, you are what you are physically, thinking you should be something else is inbetween weakness and attention mongering.

Ignorance is easily cured, you know.

As is life.

[Desperate Measures]

Ignorance is easily cured, you know.

As is life.

OK, then.

[Freelanderness]

Honestly what does it matter to me if someone wants to identify as a different gender, or on a different place? It has so little bearing on my life... yet so much on the individual in question. It would be the height of entitlement to deny them something so basic as identity.

[Hathradic States]

As is life.

OK, then.

Anyways, I still don't get the *. *sigh* Eh, probably important.


Though I find it weak, I still support their rights, same as everybody else.

[Nailed to the Perch]

The opposite of transgender; someone whose gender identity is the same as their assigned biological sex at birth.

No it's not, it's a word made up by two Transgender activists.

...yes, I know. And that is its definition. I hate to break it to you, but every word that has ever existed was "made up" by people. If being made up by people somehow invalidated a word's definition, we would have no choice but to communicate solely in vague grunts.

No really look it up, it's not a scientific term in the slightest.

I'm not sure how you're defining a "scientific term." If you mean "a term that appears in scientific literature," you are incorrect. If you mean "a term that wasn't made up by people," then...you're even more incorrect, since that continues not to be a thing. Either way, I'm not sure why a word's status as a "scientific term" matters here. "Noodle" isn't a particularly "scientific" term. That does not mean noodles somehow cease to be noodles.

It only appeared in the 90s and is only a term really circulated on the internet.

Another word from the 1990s: "blog." Also "hyperlink," "webcam," and "wiki." Do you come into any thread on blogging and explain that "blog" does not mean "a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries" because no one used that word before the 90s?

"Science" does not use the term "Cis"

"Cis" is, in fact, a Latin root used quite frequently in science. It is also used in other realms like, say, gender studies.

[The Steel Magnolia]

One, what the fuck is with the * at the end of trans?


Two, you are what you are physically, thinking you should be something else is inbetween weakness and attention mongering.

One, it's more inclusive of people who are non-binary than just transgender.

Two, you should really read up on gender. It's embarrassing when your views are a few decades out of date.

[Hathradic States]

One, what the fuck is with the * at the end of trans?


Two, you are what you are physically, thinking you should be something else is inbetween weakness and attention mongering.

One, it's more inclusive of people who are non-binary than just transgender.

Two, you should really read up on gender. It's embarrassing when your views are a few decades out of date.

One, I thank you for clearing that up.


Two, that's most of my views. Too left to fit in with the righties, too right to be accepted by the left.

[YellowApple]

I really could not care less about how an individual identifies him/herself sexually. It does not affect my view of an individual*. If an individual prefers to be referred to by a certain gender, then I will respect that and refer to that individual by his/her preferred gender.

* The one exception is romantic/sexual relationships involving myself; being a heterosexual male who desires to someday have biological children (and remain monogamous while doing so), I generally prefer a significant other who is biologically female. I am thus averse to participating in romantic and/or sexual relationships with transgender individuals, though I do not maintain any adversity toward individuals who do engage in such relationships.

[The Steel Magnolia]

One, it's more inclusive of people who are non-binary than just transgender.

Two, you should really read up on gender. It's embarrassing when your views are a few decades out of date.

One, I thank you for clearing that up.


Two, that's most of my views. Too left to fit in with the righties, too right to be accepted by the left.

Well as long as you admit it I don't care overmuch. It's ascientific, but I could care less about personal beliefs. It's the legislature I care more about.

[Hathradic States]

One, I thank you for clearing that up.


Two, that's most of my views. Too left to fit in with the righties, too right to be accepted by the left.

Well as long as you admit it I don't care overmuch. It's ascientific, but I could care less about personal beliefs. It's the legislature I care more about.

On that note, I think that the legislature can just get its nose out of other people's business.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Well as long as you admit it I don't care overmuch. It's ascientific, but I could care less about personal beliefs. It's the legislature I care more about.

On that note, I think that the legislature can just get its nose out of other people's business.

To an extent at any rate, though beyond that is difference in political ideologies.

[Bricoleurs]

The last thread got locked due to trolling (hint: try to be respectful in this thread, folks), but Tsar has allowed a successor thread.

So, NSG, are you supportive of trans* people? Do you recognize only two genders? Are you trans*?

I am supportive of all people's right to be happy, healthy, and feel recognized and valued for who they are. So yes, I support trans people.

And gender, being a cultural construction that is simply how we "name" ourselves, is as varied as we want it to be. In a global world where we should be inclusive of all people's identities, folks should be able to choose how they identify and what people call them.

I was assigned male at birth, and I identify as a masculine genderqueer person. While I "pass" as a cisgender man because of my style, I don't feel like one and I don't really feel the inclination to prove or demonstrate a male identity. I appreciate and value my feminine traits, and I believe that I am a stronger person for being raised by a family of strong women.

[Hathradic States]

On that note, I think that the legislature can just get its nose out of other people's business.

To an extent at any rate, though beyond that is difference in political ideologies.

Aye. Heh, for once we agree.

[Bricoleurs]

Well as long as you admit it I don't care overmuch. It's ascientific, but I could care less about personal beliefs. It's the legislature I care more about.

On that note, I think that the legislature can just get its nose out of other people's business.

At least you and I agree there. I think the government should get out of the business of gender entirely and let people write in their own...

[Hathradic States]

On that note, I think that the legislature can just get its nose out of other people's business.

At least you and I agree there. I think the government should get out of the business of gender entirely and let people write in their own...

It should stop interfering with the people's civil rights as a whole.