"She Shouldn't Be Transitioning"

[LeaP]

I dunno... Sometimes men can make you feel like a 2nd class citizen.

At Autozone ...

Totally! It drives my wife absolutely nuts when she asks a question and the response is directed to me. I have a bad habit (from introversion) of looking or even walking away when my wife engages an SA in a store for example. She'll ask a question. I'll be looking somewhere else - maybe even have my back to the SA - and the answer will be directed at me! She added me to her business checking account. They put MY name first on the correspondence! She's primary on the cell phone account. They wouldn't make a change without MY permission! There's tons of these, big and small. The car thing is particularly funny (well, not really). She's completely into cars and she's a really, really skilled driver. I don't know anything about cars and have absolutely no interest in them. She drives a sports car, manual. I drive an old pickup. We go to a dealer and guess who gets the tech talk and sales pitch?

On topic, this goes to judgements about transition, too. People want you to fit their stereotype before they will give you their approval. As if you needed it.

Lea

[elizabethamy]

"I got diagnosed as a transsexual" is a way of telling the world that your situation is truly medical, not imaginary. It might strictly speaking be a falsehood, but it's an understandable one. I was just spectacularly relieved when I first read the news that DES Sons have a high incidence of GID. Aha, I thought, it's medical, I can't help it, I'm not crazy.

A few months later, it really doesn't matter to me that I'm a DES Son and that biologically that might be the "why" of my GID. The issue now is what to do about GID. But it sure is easier to frame a description of one's struggle in medical terms, because it just kind of makes everyone think of you as less weird.
So it's okay, in my view, to say that "you have been diagnosed," even if you know that you've really diagnosed yourself.

[Aprilrain]

The penis must be a second brain that us girls are missing out on...

I thought it was their only brain

Exactly. His bad choices, his consequences to deal with. What infuriated me is that he used his situation as springboard to tell the world that transition is wrong for everyone. Apparently his ego is so big that he's not responsible for his own life and mistakes. Colossal jerk!

typical male!

Actually, I can see how someone might get caught up in this whole game and have SRS when it wasn't really appropriate. Maybe you are stereotypical cross-dresser, you start taking hormones, your mind changes, becomes almost female, you look on SRS as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You somehow feel that everything will be wonderful. Of course, it isn't, everything is the same, except that now you're a second class woman, in a society where women are already second class. The only reason to have SRS is if your appendage disgusts you and you can't live wiv it. Otherwise I'd say it's very low on the TS agenda. More to do wiv how you appear in public. Lots of guys like a bit extra, so it ain't really a disadvantage in the dating game, especially if otherwise you come over as really female. You have to be really, really sure to have SRS. Any doubts at all, don't do it. You do it for you, not for other people. It won't make you more attractive to men, in fact it will cut off a big proportion of dating partners. OK, you want a real man, but how many real men will go wiv an ersatz woman. Short time maybe, but long time - well you have a lot of competition out there from the GGs, you'd have to be something pretty special. I wouldn't say it's impossible, there are women who have done it, but as I say they were pretty special. For the majority of us, just getting a guy is the first problem, then getting him to stay is the second problem, then getting him to stay long time is the third problem. If they're wiv U to start wiv maybe they like that little bit extra, and if you dump it maybe they'll dump you. Think very, very carefully, before you dump you're competitive advantage. When you become, or are perceived as, a woman you fall outside the male perspective as a competitor, but you fall into a whole new ball game. There are few good men out there, but there are an awful lot of females chasing them.

I didn't realize "Dr." Phil was a CDer and was posting on this site! how lucky we should all feel to have such experienced words of "wisdom"

I really can't see some CDer "getting caught up in the whole game". I'm not saying its not possible but highly unlikely. Its a long, arduous, painful and $$$$$$EXPENSIVE "game" to get caught up in and no reputable SRS DR is going to preform that surgery without the proper letters, if for no other reason than to protect his/her own ass. the rest of your post reads like a TG fantasy fiction novel and isn't even worth addressing.

[jillleanne]

Who's paying? If the taxpayer is picking up the tab like here in Ontario, then yes definitely an asssessment needs to be done to ensure the person is suffering from GID seriously enough to harm themselves because of it. Otherwise what they do is their business and we have no right to tell them otherwise.

[Vickie_CDTV]

It is funny folks mention Autozone, because I remember years ago I had the opposite experience with a girlfriend at the time (seems the few women I have been involved with were all knowledgeable about cars and could fix them.) She went in and asked for a headlight, the guy ignored me (I never talked to him) and got her the headlight. They go out to the parking lot to make sure it was the right one. She asks the guy for a screwdriver or whatever and proceeds to dismantle whatever was in the way and replace it. When she was all done she looked at the guy from the store and says, "Boyfriends... they don't know anything about cars". I hate to say it but it made even me laugh at the time, one of my fond memories of her.

So, the guys at Autozone are not all jerks

[Sammy777]

Actually, I can see how someone might get caught up in this whole game and have SRS.
Otherwise I'd say it's [SRS] very low on the TS agenda.

Lots of guys like a bit extra, so it ain't really a disadvantage in the dating game,
If they're wiv U to start wiv maybe they like that little bit extra, and if you dump it maybe they'll dump you.
It [SRS] won't make you more attractive to men, in fact it will cut off a big proportion of dating partners. OK, you want a real man, but how many real men will go wiv an ersatz woman.

This is a very serious subject and not to be taken lightly.
The suicide rate among post SRS women is very high. There are reasons for this.

Yes this is a very serious subject, not some "game" to us.
And obviously one you know nothing about.

VERY LOW on the agenda? Really?
Apparently to you dating ranks much, much higher on the list then wanting SRS to TS'.

<sarcastic rant> Oh yes, Don't bother with that pesky SRS, just stay some porn industry driven fantasy BECAUSE that will get you plenty of men as opposed to trying to compete with real women for them. Because face it without your willie men aren't going to want someone LIKE YOU when they can get REAL girls! </sarcastic rant>

I would just LOVE to know what you consider "hi" [besides yourself] and where you are getting your information from. The suicide rate for pre-ops is very high but drops drastically post-op. Probably to no more or less then the average is for women.

It is very clear you do not have a clue and the only PATSY here is you because no one is buying into your warped fantasy driven bullshit.

[Rachel Flowers]

If they're going private, then yeah, let them do whatever they want.

It's a standard requirement Kerstin in all professions that you never just "give the patient/client/student/etc what they want". I don;t just put whatever the client tells me on their tax return, I have a legal, moral and professional duty to save them from themselves by only doing what can be legally justified.A doctor has similar allbeit less clearly defined obligations to decline elective treatment where it isn't appropriate.

[LeaP]

It's a standard requirement Kerstin in all professions that you never just "give the patient/client/student/etc what they want". I don;t just put whatever the client tells me on their tax return, I have a legal, moral and professional duty to save them from themselves by only doing what can be legally justified.A doctor has similar allbeit less clearly defined obligations to decline elective treatment where it isn't appropriate.

There it is - the medicalization of choice in a nutshell. Our reality, their decision. I won't speak to the accounting point, as I don't think it's comparable anyway. Medicine has a process to deal with this. It's informed consent. With an informed patient, views of what's "appropriate" from the doctor's perspective need not apply.

Lea

[Miranda-E]

Well-taken.

Also, there's a point of view that maintains that the medical gatekeeping role is more about defending the cisgender population than it is about treating transsexuals.

Lea

probably the best comment in the thread.

[msginaadoll]

I think it is possible for some people to get caught up in the fog of cding and start thinking that maybe they should go further. People get swept up at times whether it is in overusing credit cards, drugs, etc. I have seen some cds who start thinking that maybe hormones will make them present easier, maybe a little shot of silicone here and there..... People do not always use good judgement, heck a lot of people have terrible judgement, look at all the murder, robbery etc out there. Sure maybe it is your right to change or modify your body anyway you want. What I want to feel what its like to be legless, cut my leg off doc. I think that at times someone does need to step in and make sure that people dont make stupid or wrong decisions. Some may disagree. But at least then make sure that the individual cant sue the doctor, etc when they start facing regrets.

[LeaP]

I think it is possible for some people to get caught up in the fog of cding and start thinking that maybe they should go further. People get swept up at times whether it is in overusing credit cards, drugs, etc. I have seen some cds who start thinking that maybe hormones will make them present easier, maybe a little shot of silicone here and there..... People do not always use good judgement, heck a lot of people have terrible judgement, look at all the murder, robbery etc out there. Sure maybe it is your right to change or modify your body anyway you want. What I want to feel what its like to be legless, cut my leg off doc. I think that at times someone does need to step in and make sure that people dont make stupid or wrong decisions. Some may disagree. But at least then make sure that the individual cant sue the doctor, etc when they start facing regrets.

Can we inject some reality here? The rate of post-operative SRS regret is the lowest in medicine, to my knowledge. Lower than NON-elective surgery. Regardless of whether the SOC are followed or not. The SOCs don't have to be followed. If someone is determined, they can get hormones cross-border and surgery in Asia. Crossdressers rarely pursue hormones and almost never pursue surgery. Those that do pursue hormones are usually chasing herbals that don't do anything for the vast majority anyway. Just who are you protecting - theoretical people who *might* do something? And at whose expense? Answer: those who actually need to pursue it. The logic is backwards.

Are you seriously suggesting treating transsexuals in the same fashion as people with amputation obsessions? That's incredibly offensive. The rare patient with body identity disorder presents up front asking for amputation.

Lea

[Sophie_C]

These are why the SOC exist. Charles Kane is a perfect example of that. For the protection of all true trans people, you must ensure that people with significant mental issues or things clouding their judgement aren't allowed to transition, de-transition and de-legitimatize their right to be who they are. I'm all for people being thorough and tough, otherwise you'll get a situation where people end up badmouthing, falsely representing the community (less than 0.01% of women who fully transition, transition back) sueing, and then the requirements for transitioning end up being completely over-the-top, ruining it for everyone.

[NathalieX66]

I don't argue with anyone that needs to transtition. I have faith in WPATH standards of care. http://wpath.org/publications_standards.cfm

It's interesting to personally know quite a few who are transitioning. I am not quite like them. They have their needs, I have mine. I speak ill of nobody. I support whoever is going down that path.

[Barbara Ella]

I am very new to cross dressing, and the subject of transitioning is very far away from me even having on my mind right now. That said, i cannot disagree with someone wanting to transition. If they want to do this, they can provide it. If they are using public health, then they must meet criteria set up to make sure they are of sound enough mind to fully understand and carry it through properly. Standards exist for very good reasons to protect society.

Our feelings exist for very good reasons, and i believe they should typically be honored.

Babes

[LeaP]

These are why the SOC exist. Charles Kane is a perfect example of that. For the protection of all true trans people, you must ensure that people with significant mental issues or things clouding their judgement aren't allowed to transition, de-transition and de-legitimatize their right to be who they are. I'm all for people being thorough and tough, otherwise you'll get a situation where people end up badmouthing, falsely representing the community (less than 0.01% of women who fully transition, transition back) sueing, and then the requirements for transitioning end up being completely over-the-top, ruining it for everyone.

Those "significant medical issues" to-date have included such things as having the correct sexual orientation and presenting the approved set of dysphoria symptoms. The "true" transsexual had to have the right story and the right presentation. Historically, they had to give up their families and pledge to never contact them, transition socially without hormones, undergo years and years of duplicative therapy, and agree never to reveal their transsexual history. Currently, transsexuals endure a stigmatizing mental illness diagnosis and for what? To prove that what they are is valid to someone else's standard? Identity - transsexuality - is not a mental illness. Should people have to prove they really have a female identity to marry? Should they have to have therapy or a "real life experience" trying to get pregnant before undergoing a tubal ligation to make sure they have no regrets? Maybe men should have to prove they're really men before going into the military ... after all, we shouldn't be sending women into combat, should we?

I'm NOT advocating stupidity, blind decisions, or anything similar. I simply think informed consent is MORE than adequate for the purpose. Charles Kane is a straw man, a statistical anomaly who would have done whatever it took to transition as he had the money to do so anyway. And he USED the medical establishment. That physician did not follow the SOCs, but the SOCs, contrary to popular belief, are not scripture. They are guidelines that therapists and physicians adapt as needed to patient circumstances.

Lea

[Julogden]

I feel that it's no one else's business as to why someone wants to transition. I feel that any procedure should be an option for anyone that wants it, for whatever reason, assuming the person is of sound mind and their reason isn't for nefarious purposes. Of course, if we're talking elective surgery, then they'll have to pay for it themself. And if one regrets it after the fact, it's too bad. If you make the decision as a rational adult, be prepared to live with the results.

Insurance should cover those who are transitioning due to GID or if one is intersexed, IMO, all others, no.

Carol

[Miranda-E]

its hilarious that the idea that people transition on a whim is so common when so many here cant even sack up and buy shoes face to face, tell their partner, or just live in fear of being seen in a dress in their own home town.

[NathalieX66]

its hilarious that the idea that people transition on a whim is so common when so many here cant even sack up and buy shoes face to face, tell their partner, or just live in fear of being seen in a dress in their own home town.

Being transsexual is not a whim, the feelings never go away. For some, there is a brain wiring issue.

[Elizabeth Ann]

Like most of us, I have a strong libertarian streak. I think most of us would believe that alternative lifestyles should not only be tolerated and protected, but that they enrich the society they grace.

Still, there are many limits to our lives that many of us believe are useful, ranging from motorcycle helmet laws to suicide. This apparently paternalistic approach also works the other way. There are, for example, certain consumer rights and warranties that you cannot waive. A common theme running through these limits is the inability of the individual to have perspective. The motorcyclist thinks he never will have an accident, the suicide survivor wonders what they could have been thinking.

Is informed consent enough? I don't know. Perhaps the majority seeking transition know themselves well enough for it to be sufficient. But this community has many very tortured and fragile souls who could perhaps benefit from the perspective of others. Sure, medical gateways are difficult limits on personal freedom, but somehow, we need to balance the costs and benefits of this. What proportion of "mistakes" would be tolerable?

In our legal system, we have chosen a very extreme solution. Two mistakes are possible: convicting an innocent person, and letting a guilty person go free. Our rule of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" says we are willing to make the second mistake if it prevents the first. Transition may be similar. Perhaps limits that make it harder for some to transition might be worthwhile if there is a danger that mere informed consent allows some mistakes.

Liz

[Aprilrain]

Transition takes a long time is emotionally and physically painful and cost thousands of dollars the likelihood of some pink fog enveloped CDiing dreamer having the endurance to see transition through is minnimal at best. The likelihood of a cisgendered non-CDing person going through with transition is so vanishingly small as to be basically non existent. Charles Kane is probably the only example of the later ever! That being said why not follow the standards of care? What's the big deal? These days you can start hormones almost imidiatly (not that they help that much as far as passing goes) there is no requirement for a therapist letter to get FFS, and most docs will do BA with informed concsent. Is it really that big of a deal to wait a year to have SRS? For Most people it takes years to save up for it anyway! There really aren't any gatekeepers anymore, I realized this very early in my transition and accepted the responsibility for my actions. The only person who is going to suffer if I make a "mistake" is me. As far as transition regrets go of the stories I have read the major theme seems to be a lack of acceptance from family and friends and a lower quality of life due to loss of carreer. Also I think older transitioners are at greater risk of feeling as if they missed out on too much of their lives as a female. While these problems are very real and need to be taken in to consideration they do not spell mistake to me, GID often becomes a do or die situation the TS feels they MUST transition to live even if that life is much harder than the old one. Recently I read about a person who transitioned while taking heavy doses of anti anxiety meds ie Valium or the like. It's probably unwise to pursue transition while on mind altering substances, it seems to me to be irresponsible of a health care professional to recommend someone such as this for surgery. This is an issue of comorbidity however the person who transitioned and now regrets their decision admitted to "doctor shopping" so who's to blame?

[Sophie_C]

Those "significant medical issues" to-date have included such things as having the correct sexual orientation and presenting the approved set of dysphoria symptoms. The "true" transsexual had to have the right story and the right presentation. Historically, they had to give up their families and pledge to never contact them, transition socially without hormones, undergo years and years of duplicative therapy, and agree never to reveal their transsexual history. Currently, transsexuals endure a stigmatizing mental illness diagnosis and for what? To prove that what they are is valid to someone else's standard? Identity - transsexuality - is not a mental illness. Should people have to prove they really have a female identity to marry? Should they have to have therapy or a "real life experience" trying to get pregnant before undergoing a tubal ligation to make sure they have no regrets? Maybe men should have to prove they're really men before going into the military ... after all, we shouldn't be sending women into combat, should we?

I'm NOT advocating stupidity, blind decisions, or anything similar. I simply think informed consent is MORE than adequate for the purpose. Charles Kane is a straw man, a statistical anomaly who would have done whatever it took to transition as he had the money to do so anyway. And he USED the medical establishment. That physician did not follow the SOCs, but the SOCs, contrary to popular belief, are not scripture. They are guidelines that therapists and physicians adapt as needed to patient circumstances.

Lea

Hmm, I don't believe what you indicated that "traditionally" had to be done is listed anywhere in the SOC. And, I do agree on the idea of them as guidelines, which exist for better or for worse.

One thing you aren't taking into account, though, is how lucky we are that Charles Kane is from England. If he had been from the US and caused a serious lawsuit, the requirements for transitioning would be 100x as bad as they are now, since doctors are forced to err on the side of safety, radically so, when insurance is involved. And, insurance is permanently involved whenever there's a lawsuit.

This is why I say it's important for them to exist. It's not that I want things to remain "tough". I don't want them to get even worse after some anomaly like Charles Kane with a crazed mind an a fat checkbook puts up a huge lawsuit, forcing doctors to have ridiculous requirements (say, like a 5-10 year RLE??).

Better a little tough for some non-flexible doctors now, than completely terrible for everyone later on.

[LeaP]

Hmm, I don't believe what you indicated that "traditionally" had to be done is listed anywhere in the SOC. And, I do agree on the idea of them as guidelines, which exist for better or for worse.

One thing you aren't taking into account, though, is how lucky we are that Charles Kane is from England. If he had been from the US and caused a serious lawsuit, the requirements for transitioning would be 100x as bad as they are now, since doctors are forced to err on the side of safety, radically so, when insurance is involved. And, insurance is permanently involved whenever there's a lawsuit.

This is why I say it's important for them to exist. It's not that I want things to remain "tough". I don't want them to get even worse after some anomaly like Charles Kane with a crazed mind an a fat checkbook puts up a huge lawsuit, forcing doctors to have ridiculous requirements (say, like a 5-10 year RLE??).

Better a little tough for some non-flexible doctors now, than completely terrible for everyone later on.

The SOCs have been refined over time, of course. They are not universally used, though referencing them has become the norm. The description I gave is the context behind the earlier comment on defending the cisgender population. And much of what I described was still being applied by physicians as recently as the 90s.

A lot of this relates to the cis focus on "The Magic Sex Change" - the complete horror of SRS and their invariable fascination with it. An extreme to be guarded against at all possible costs! A tragedy beyond description! Yet most transsexuals will tell you that it's one of the lesser points of transition - an important last step for some, not even a thought for some others. Transition happens before the surgery. We're told in our society to keep our hands (politically and medically) off women's bodies, but not transsexual women's bodies. Reproductive rights are an individual choice, hence a woman may elect a tubal or hysterectomy, but SRS must be guarded because of the possibility of "mistake," with hand-wringing over the poor post-op's inability to father children. Life altering personal choice is permitted in a million areas of life - except for transsexuals. The angst is all about the binary. All or nothing, and - MY GOD! - the concern is always about MtFs because, after all, the worst thing on Earth is that man become a woman. THAT mistake has to be guarded against above all others!

The legal argument is over-wrought. Doctors, hospitals & clinics, medical device manufacturers, drug companies, et al - are sued all the time in this country already. It's one of THE most heavily litigated professions. There's an argument over whether it changes medicine and to what degree (e.g., more unnecessary testing) - or whether modern medicine simply seeks more diagnostic certainty anyway because it can. A Charles Kane case in the US would be another blip from a process and cost perspective.

Lea

[Aprilrain]

The SOCs have been refined over time, of course. They are not universally used, though referencing them has become the norm. The description I gave is the context behind the earlier comment on defending the cisgender population. And much of what I described was still being applied by physicians as recently as the 90s.

A lot of this relates to the cis focus on "The Magic Sex Change" - the complete horror of SRS and their invariable fascination with it. An extreme to be guarded against at all possible costs! A tragedy beyond description! Yet most transsexuals will tell you that it's one of the lesser points of transition - an important last step for some, not even a thought for some others. Transition happens before the surgery. We're told in our society to keep our hands (politically and medically) off women's bodies, but not transsexual women's bodies. Reproductive rights are an individual choice, hence a woman may elect a tubal or hysterectomy, but SRS must be guarded because of the possibility of "mistake," with hand-wringing over the poor post-op's inability to father children. Life altering personal choice is permitted in a million areas of life - except for transsexuals. The angst is all about the binary. All or nothing, and - MY GOD! - the concern is always about MtFs because, after all, the worst thing on Earth is that man become a woman. THAT mistake has to be guarded against above all others!

The legal argument is over-wrought. Doctors, hospitals & clinics, medical device manufacturers, drug companies, et al - are sued all the time in this country already. It's one of THE most heavily litigated professions. There's an argument over whether it changes medicine and to what degree (e.g., more unnecessary testing) - or whether modern medicine simply seeks more diagnostic certainty anyway because it can. A Charles Kane case in the US would be another blip from a process and cost perspective.

Lea

Lea, yeah ok sure and another yeah but still what is your point?
It's really easy to get the requisite 2 letters now a days. And again what's the big deal with waiting a year? It will take at least 2 years to get rid of ones facial hair! And be realistic no one goes from living as a man to living as a woman over night. Woman's lives are way more sophisticated than men's it takes time to learn all that stuff that woman learned as girls. And I have to believe the many post ops who say that transition does not end with SRS, though I disagree with those who say it starts with it as if everything I have done up to that point was unnecessary.

[LeaP]

Lea, yeah ok sure and another yeah but still what is your point?

Glad you asked. It's not the medical treatment per se (so much, or anymore) - it's the differential treatment, which is a key part of the cultural apparatus that institutionalizes how trans people are viewed. This is a political and social point.

Lea

[Elizabeth Ann]

Lea, yeah ok sure and another yeah but still what is your point?

Glad you asked. It's not the medical treatment per se (so much, or anymore) - it's the differential treatment, which is a key part of the cultural apparatus that institutionalizes how trans people are viewed. This is a political and social point.

Lea

I am a little confused about this. Transitioning is treated differently than other changes by an individual. How is it not a unique and significant change? Even from my sympathetic CDing vantage point, it seems to be a very big deal.

Perhaps you do not like the way in which treatment of trans people is institutionalized, but surely you are not against the institutionalization itself? Would you rather approaches to their treatment be ad hoc and subject to the subjective whim of the public? Institutionalizing a process does convey some rigidity, which can also be used as protection from "the tyranny of the majority."

Liz