Well, it would be unfair (of me) to say categorically that a reluctance to transition, even in the face of exigent circumstances (eg, serious family concerns), automatically nullifies a claim of being TG. (Read: People are willing to go through hell for their children’s sake.)
I wonder what Kroc means by “fully transition to living as a female full time.”
Are any such rules in place at this time? (I know there’s no such prohibition in the NCAA, and am 99% sure there isn’t one in the Olympics either.)
How much of this, in your opinion obviously (and any other ladies who want to chime in feel free), determines your world view?
As in, if you had never experienced those things, how differently would you think you viewed the world?
Those are inherently female experiences, so I guess I’m trying to get a rough idea how much you (or anyone) thinks those experiences make someone’s emotional and intellectual processes different.
Honest question:
You have two back to back appointments. The first is a female rape victim with PTSD, and second a male rape victim with PTSD. Neither have any gender identity issues, they are cis and fine with it.
Do you approach the first session with each the exact same or are you going to start each session a bit differently between the two?
(This is NOT a “got cha” question at all, I’m actually curious.)
Oh, I’m not sure. It’s very difficult to scroll back in here and I’m posting between patients, but am I not reacting to an article stating that the Olympics is looking at the issue? Isn’t that what we’re discussing, the fairness or unfairness of participation at the highest levels of competitive sport? And of course trickling down from there to less elite situations; high school and such.
I was thinking as I ran that maybe it would be helpful if we all stated our positions as they stand currently, in a general sense, because there seem to be a lot of assumptions and the thread has taken so many odd turns.
Here is mine:
I am FOR any expansion of rights that does not infringe in any way on the larger society’s rights. An example would be gay marriage - the marriage of people I either approve of or don’t in no way impacts the sanctity of my marriage. I am for it. I am for the allowance of TG people in bathrooms, because it in no way impairs my access to privacy. FTM can’t use urinals and women’s rooms always have stalls. Danger exists currently, so that doesn’t impact the decision IMO. Compassion should have free reign here. From my perspective this is a libertarian view rather than a liberal view.
I am AGAINST the prioritization of one group over the others, or larger society. So when people in general are disadvantaged in order for X Group to be advantaged, I am against unless there is very compelling reason for the change (adding “rights” that potentially take away from others). Leveling the playing field for disadvantaged groups may meet the bar for me; depends. Compassion should be exercised with care here.
I don’t care who marries who. The government has zero place to tell people who they can marry. That said, I think people should be encouraged to not do business with people they dont’ want to. Yes I think bakers and the like should proudly say they won’t make cakes for same sex couples. That way I don’t have to do business with them. I think racists should be encouraged to put up signs that tell potential customers they are racist, so I can avoid spending my money with a racist.
I see trans people the same way I see bodybuilders who use gear to get gorilla big. Whatever floats your boat and makes you happy, even better if you have the guidance of a health practitioners to make sure you’re doing it “right”.
I think the idea government has to be involved in any way, shape or form in where someone takes a fucking piss is absurdly embarrassing, and we as a culture should be ashamed of ourselves that it was an issue on either side. The resounding hypocrisy on both sides truly just shows that we aren’t anywhere near as advanced as some would claim. Statistically speaking children are more at risk sleeping over a family member’s house than in a public bathroom.
Individuals have rights, rights are negative, inherent and require no action from another. I believe in rights, and that all people have the same rights, irrelevant if their government respects that or not. And it is incumbent upon people to exercise and protect those rights, which if done properly doesn’t bother anyone else because we all have the same rights.
My understanding of the consensus opinion is, FTM TGs don’t gain any sort of competitive advantage by transitioning, then competing against cis-gendered males. Questions of athletic fairness are limited to MTF TGs competing against cis-gendered females.
See, I agree with every word of this.
I am more liberal, however, when it comes to the protection and advancement of children, which is a “leveling” thing. So, for example, in weighing grades and such for college admission I am FOR classifying and accordingly weighting high schools, slightly advantaging kids who went to very poor rural or inner city high schools. Those kids probably lack the AP and extracurriculars the affluent school kids have, which are also part of the admissions formula.
I don’t think this weighting is the law. But I could be entirely mistaken.
Hmm, not sure. First session is an intake, and there’s a lot of information to gather. “I was raped” is going to be dealt with sort of clinically (not a lot of attention given) and we move along, unless they fall apart, in which case the intake is suspended and I move into crisis stabilization mode. Regardless, I am most likely going to treat them the same in first session, though I adapt myself to whatever is coming at me in terms of tone and non-verbals regardless of gender; sort of chameleon-like. So it’s hard to say.
In subsequent sessions? I probably am going to treat the rape differently. I honestly don’t know whether I do this because of inherent differences between men and women or because of social differences. Rape is so loaded, particularly for men, I think it would be more the latter.
I don’t know what the consensus is, but that would be my assumption.
Speaking for myself, it’s impossible to answer because being female is all I’ve ever known. One of the reasons I love TN is that it gave me my first non-romantic-partner look into the workings of the adult male mind. But look at the diversity there! Who represents the norm? You? ED? Pushharder? Nephorm? Your emotional and intellectual processes are very different from one another’s.
I guess that is kind of the point I was expecting. Which is also part of my other question.
Why would we treat the rape of a woman different than the rape of a man, generally speaking? (Think in terms of if we could possibly remove individualism from the “how we treat people suffering from this” equation.)
One would think in the impossible situation I just outlined, the sexualized assault upon a person’s body and violation of consent would yield similar results in similar people. (Again, I obviously know individuals are individuals and aren’t very similar.) But I sit here thinking that the rape of a woman would be more significantly detrimental to her sense of self, and the rape of a man more detrimental to his sense of belonging to the world.
As in her pain is more pointed towards her and his more pointed towards the world…
I know I’m wrong here, but I wonder if I have these assumptions because of instinctual gender roles, social norms, both or if I am just talking/thinking out of my ass.
Either way, this is the type of road I go down when I actually think on the trans “issue”. I don’t normally think on it,because I don’t care what people do, and would prefer they are happy. If a doctor is working with them, and I’m not paying for it… Who the hell am I to argue?
[quote=“countingbeans, post:2035, topic:210559”] But I sit here thinking that the rape of a woman would be more significantly detrimental to her sense of self, and the rape of a man more detrimental to his sense of belonging to the world.
[/quote]
INTERESTING. Because I would assume, as a woman, that a man would be more tormented by the failure to protect himself, by having let someone “make him [their] bitch.” Whereas a woman is less blamed, both internally and externally, for having been overpowered. There’s also the probability that a male was raped by another male, so the homosexual element, which is problematic for straight men.
However, “girls push anger in and boys push anger out” is standard [generalizing] thinking in my field, which aligns with your view.
Agreed, but I’m making my assessment based on the fact a man will project this, and over compensate externally much more than a woman assumedly would. I think it was Kroc who said something along the lines of “why do you think I pushed this ultra masculine thing to the limit?”
Assuming neither victim falls into the pit falls of depression and addiction, I would assume a male would be more likely to use that shame and self doubt, torment, to motivate himself to never, ever fail again at anything. Perhaps overdoing it in trying to be the best in everything he tries to do, so he can sit back and say “fuck you” to the world that wronged him.
And a woman would be generally more “satisfied” with a less materialistic and open vindication, and seek out more so a “living well is the best revenge” case of emotional and personal success. She knows she’s survived and prospered in the face of evil, that will be her “fuck you” without the need to show the world, like the man assumedly would.
Again, I’m making a lot of broad assumptions and generalizations here, all in the name of thinking on gender and it’s role in our ever changing society.
I feel like it is social pressure that creates this being problematic rather than the person being confused more often than not.
HA, So I’m not totally talking out of my ass… Nice
Maybe I need to walk this back. I feel like women are much more apt to admit publically they have been raped then men.
Also, I’ve picked rape here mainly because I can’t think of a more significant trauma for a person where the majority live to face the tortured life it leaves the victim.
Beans: I was thinking about an answer to your question but not coming up with anything substantive. And I think it’s because of exactly what Emily said: I have no way of knowing how much the experiences of being a woman have shaped my views of the world because I have never known anything else.
See, I think that’s one of the differences then, haha.
For example, ways I think the unique male experiences shape my perspective:
sex drive. I don’t think many would argue that generally speaking men are more driven to seeking out sex, more often, then women. And for the most part more likely to not care about a relationship with a partner as much as a woman.
Parenting. I think women (in general, again) tend to be more effective parents mainly because they have more empathy and an entirely different connection with their children than the father. (I think dual parent households are infinitely better than single parent, but that isn’t what I’m talking about here.) Men can and do make great fathers, but I think a great father is entirely different than a great mother, and it’s the unique experience of female puberty, subsequent periods and growing the baby as a part of you that makes the connection so profound.
I think I’d be a lot less aggressive, adventurous and relentless if I were a woman, and I think that is based both in hormones and instinctual gender roles. Women are “tied down” with the “burden” of carrying the children, and feeding them (breasts) for a significant amount of time. Men have none of that responsibility built in. Which in my mind means it’s more “natural” for a woman to give a shit about other people than a man automatically would.
WHo knows, I could be wrong here.
Not addressing any personal remarks to ED or Emily - Just thinking out loud about a few of your points and the culture war.
@ Bolshevik utopia - I’m assuming you’re saying that far lefties seem to be all about civil rights, but they tended to be pretty blind to the civil rights abuses that happened in the former USSR. At the time, they were largely unable to criticize communism, and they were boldly upending things to bring it (or socialism) about. Now we have economic crisis in so many socialized nations. France is scrambling trying to cover it’s rear right now. And Europe is sort of this big social experiment in what happens when secular atheism becomes the cultural norm. So far, they aren’t able to reproduce themselves, which is the first sign that a culture will not endure. I’m paraphrasing Haidt here.
The feeling that people on the left see only things to change? See only the flaws? There’s been a constant reference to racism, sexism, bigotry here. The liberal hero narrative is all about, “Here we are, heroic liberals freeing the world from oppression and misery! Get out of our way, you oppressors!” Of course, people on the right are much more likely to say, “Much about our culture and traditions are really good. And in your need to bring about “progress and change” you’re f-ing some stuff up. We have a pretty amazing country, with more wealth and freedom that the world has ever seen, so hearing you all see only a “complex matrix of oppression” doesn’t resonate.”
As for the rest of the world… Well, we humans are mostly doing really well if we can just avoid violence.
Re: Cultural change. We’re in a period of really rapid change. I think this is one reason the country is so polarized. We can only go so far with “Hey, white male, this matrix of oppression? It’s all your fault.”
Beans, diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone!
Big high five. So much of what you said resonates with me. Socially liberal, small government.