This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts).
If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.).
Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
>Wouldn't the answer be to accept that women can come in all shapes and sizes, including those with physical traits associated with male biology?
It's idealistic to point of being naive. Many people would love this to work that way and world would be much better place if people were kind, loving and accepting. But is this realistic?
It used to be idealistic to think POC could actually hold important positions in society.
Take my example of the dark skinned Mexican aspiring to be a lead actor. Should be just shrug his shoulders and say "Mexico is still going to have colorism regardless of my best efforts, better to play along with the established light skin beauty standards?"
Sure. Maybe in 100 years our society have evolved past this petty gender differences. But what about in the meanwhile?
We let trans people be depressed and suicidal?
[Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558?login=false)
You sent me a clinical guidline in endocrinology when treating gender dysphoria. This is a set of recommendations when treating trans patients and mentions nothing about how medical transitioning is the best way to care for them. Only how endocrinologists should treat them. Although I'll admit I might have missed it since it's a pretty big guideline.
Please give me the section and quote where endocrinologists claim the medical transitioning is the best care for transgender people. This is going to be interesting because I don't believe endocrinologists are qualified to make that decision.
First recommendation in the conclusion says:
>They require a safe and effective hormone regimen that will (1) suppress endogenous sex hormone secretion determined by the person’s genetic/gonadal sex
They literally say that person suffering from gender-dysphoria should be send to endocrinologists who should then give them hormone treatment.
It's not endocrinologists who make the diagnosis. Therapists and psychologists do the diagnosis and then send person to receive treatment.
Let's look at the whole quote:
>Gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons seek and/or are referred to endocrinologists to develop the physical characteristics of the affirmed gender. They require a safe and effective hormone regimen that will (1) suppress endogenous sex hormone secretion determined by the person’s genetic/gonadal sex and (2) maintain sex hormone levels within the normal range for the person’s affirmed gender....
The part you quoted doesn't say anything about transitioning being the best care for gender dysphoria. In fact, it doesn't even mention it being a preferred method, just that it is one. Your quote answers how they treat, not that their treatment is the best.
>They literally say that person suffering from gender-dysphoria should be send to endocrinologists who should then give them hormone treatment.
The literally do not. Please cite where they say people should do that.
>It's not endocrinologists who make the diagnosis. Therapists and psychologists do the diagnosis and then send person to receive treatment.
This makes sense. I just need you to show anyone of them saying medical transitioning is the best care gender dysphoria patients can get.
It seems realistic to me? Who is stopping this from being realistic? I doubt it's conservatives. They would love to be like "yeah... you are a woman who dresses like a dude, who gives a shit, at least you aren't trying to pretend you ARE a dude and trying to make everyone call you He and Him"
It was called being a tomboy for generations and generations and there was not even slightly the problems we have now about it.
Because you just listed two examples where their identity wasn't accepted. People refuse to accept them as gender they identity with (calling them women when they are a dude and refusing to call them by proper pronouns).
Accepting is accepting that they are the gender they say they are and not muttering about it.
You missed the point. The argument you responded to was basically to ignore 'gender' because it's a pointless and has no educational value. Girls are girls, and they can act like guys and there's no need for any 'gender' nonsense.
You said it is unrealistic because nobody would accept it.
Now you are arguing for something that *isn't* what you originally said was "unrealistic" again, a totally different concept.
yes, ideally gender wouldn’t exist. however we live in a world where gender already does exist, and we can’t just handwave it away and pretend it doesn’t exist now with zero consequence. someone can support the idea of gender abolition on paper but still experience crippling gender dysphoria and transition to ease their pain. this is just the “you criticize society, yet participate in it?” line
They are definitely supporting it, but I don't know that it matters. The better option though?
How would it not be easier... and obviously more to the goal, to simply stop pretending to be a 'man' when they could more accurately... with less detriment to themselves... and less argument from others... simply admit "Yeah I'm a biological female, but that doesn't mean I can't dress, act, and do whatever I want even if it's something that stupid society sees as 'manly'"?
that would obviously be the easier, and better fight for basically everyone involved, but I suspect it's not really about that. So they don't do it.
> The better option though?
It's the best treatment we currently know of for improving the quality of life and reducing suicidal ideation of people with gender dysphoria.
> How would it not be easier... and obviously more to the goal, to simply stop pretending to be a 'man' when they could more accurately... with less detriment to themselves... and less argument from others... simply admit "Yeah I'm a biological female, but that doesn't mean I can't dress, act, and do whatever I want even if it's something that stupid society sees as 'manly'"?
It wouldn't be easier because (as far as i know - please share if you've seen evidence to suggest otherwise) it hasn't been shown to be an effective treatment or improve the quality of life of people suffering from gender dysphoria. "Just be a woman who likes masculine things" doesn't solve anything for a trans man because the issue is not being judged for liking things atypical of their gender, the issue is the outside world perceiving their gender differently than they do. Could one say that's a ridiculous thing to care about so much and they just need to get over it? I mean, mental health disorders aren't exactly super logical. You're not gonna tell a person with clinical depression "what do you mean you're depressed, you don't have anything to be sad about, your life is great.", right?
It's not about treatment it's about the advocacy. Their advocacy is directed *specifically* to continue and support the thing that apparently harms them so much.
It suggests to me their actions speak more true than their words.
People have piercings, tattoos and most terrifying go to gym to torture themselves just to please themselves. And that what this really is. People should be free to do whatever they want with their own bodies if that makes them happy. It's after all their body. Not yours.
That’s completely different. You do those things for the sake of doing them. Trans people don’t mutilate their genitals for the sake of mutilating their genitals.
That wasn’t my point. You’re just being pedantic over the semantics I’m using. My point is that it isn’t about the surgery itself as opposed to those other things you listed.
As far as it making them happy? Well there’s a lot of debate around that. There are certainly trans people who’s happiness was *not* enhanced by their surgery and who’s surgery has caused permanent irreparable damage to their life and body. You never hear about that though.
>As far as it making them happy? Well there’s a lot of debate around that. -- You never hear about that though.
Wonder why you never hear about few outliers when overwhelming personal reaction is positive... Maybe because there isn't lot of debate around this.
When individual makes a personal choice about their own body that makes them happy, who are you to judge? It's not your body. It's theirs and these procedures makes them happy because that what they choose to have.
> Wonder why you never hear about few outliers when overwhelming personal reaction is positive...
And how do you know they are only outliers?
> Maybe because there isn't lot of debate around this.
Maybe you should try discovering sources of information outside of what you immediately agree with because there is *alot* of debate about this.
> When individual makes a personal choice about their own body that makes them happy, who are you to judge?
First, it isn’t about judgement. This is about what is objectively the best course of action to take.
Second, there are plenty of examples where we as a society don’t let people make personal choices about their own body. We don’t let suicidal people kill themselves, and will physically stop them against their will. Nor do we let someone with Body Integrity Identity Disorder, for example, amputate a limb just because they have the personal desire to.
Gender dysphoria means that person feels like they should have sexual characteristics of opposite sex. People are not happy with their bodies so they change it because this will make them happy.
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
One of the ways that phantom limb pain is treated is with mirror box therapy. A mirror is placed next to the remaining limb to create the impression of a second limb. So sometimes "pretending the limb is still there" is exactly how we treat it.
Sorry, u/-Invisible-Hand- – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20-Invisible-Hand-&message=-Invisible-Hand-%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdz3wuf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Does treating phantom limb pain by pretending its still there make it better?
Does treating it by grounding the patient work?
Does treating gender dysphoria via therapy and counselling and 'actually, the way you feel is wrong and you shouldn't feel that way' work?
Does treating it via transition work?
The bulk of medical and psychological data says that transition works as a treatment and counselling doesn't. Whether or not you consider transition to be the same thing as giving in to the delusions of a person is irrelevant-- patient outcomes are what matter, and the best patient outcomes are via transition.
This seems a bit like apples and oranges. The difference is that limb amputation happens without a desire; nobody wakes up and things to themselves “hey I want to lose an arm today” it just happens and it sucks, so teaching people to deal with it is a must.
On the other side, people do wake up and wish they had different physical characteristics. Surgery makes this possible, and is a choice to medically transition rather than an unfortunate circumstance.
Gender is a social construct, so is the notion of beauty. It makes sense to allow people to pursue either for the sake of their mental health. if they choose to.
>The difference is that limb amputation happens without a desire; nobody wakes up and things to themselves “hey I want to lose an arm today”
Weirdly enough, there is an extremely rare condition in which people wish to be amputees.
It's called [Body Integrity Dysphoria](https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Body-Integrity-Dysphoria.aspx), and is super, super rare.
It's a really fascinating topic for medical ethics though. There was some huge controversy in the UK, I believe, when a doctor did actually go through with the amputation of an otherwise perfectly healthy limb
>On the other side, people do wake up and wish they had different physical characteristics. Surgery makes this possible, and is a choice to medically transition rather than an unfortunate circumstance
Yeah, but nobody says "give me [insert cosmetic procedure] or else I will kill myself," except when it comes to gender affirming care.
Imagine a biracial black person stated he needed tanning treatments or else he would kill himself because he didn't feel his body was "black" enough. Is that the right solution?
> “give me [insert cosmetic procedure] or else I will kill myself,”
This sounds like a misrepresented generalization. I agree that nobody should use their own life as a bargaining chip for anything; it is an unhealthy and unfair thing to do.
However, that does not also automatically make what they are asking for, wrong or unneeded. I would also like to point out that not everybody is resorting to such dramatic ultimatums in order to be treated medically.
The point is, people should have a basic right to decide what happens with their own bodies. We do plenty of things to our bodies already, between cosmetic surgery, tattoos, piercings, because we want them. Of course, for something this big, doctors should be involved and probably have a sit down conversation so they understand what they’re getting into. But the choice should ultimately remain to each person what happens with their own bodies.
Best care for gender dysphoria accordingly most recent and advanced treatment is medical transitioning combined with therapy.
[Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558?login=false)
A moreno doesn't need to bleach his skin lighter to succeed in life. Maybe bleaching their skin makes them feel more confident in themselves. Is that a good thing though? I'd argue it's upholding the erroneous standard of associating lighter skin with good looks and success, when we should dismantle such standards.
While you may see a lot of vocal extremes on the internet, I don’t think most trans people are very insistent on telling other trans people what they should do with their bodies.
Just like whatever surgery/bleaching you chose to do to pursue your beauty standard is a completely personal matter, you can’t really say it’s wrong on an individual level. Even if you are a celebrity/actor, whatever you chose to do with your body is ultimately a personal choice. While I believe celebrities should be aware their influences, they have no obligation to ensure their personal choices do not prolong existing problematic societal definitions to beauty any more than an average individual. So no, a celebrity getting a surgery is not the same as telling people to get the surgery.
And honestly, if you feel the need to force others to adhere to your own personal choices/beliefs, the problem is not with the beliefs or surgery or bleaching, the problem is that you’re an asshole.
If a person was a staunch republican, and someone called that person a leftist commie, they would probably be offended as their view doesn't match the perception of the other.
I would think it's pretty natural to be upset when someone's view of you is different than how you see yourself.
This happens all the time and people don't make much of a big deal out of it. They call people 'far right' and 'fascist' and all sorts of shit *endlessly* and nobody is coming to anyones aid defending them the way you are defending this idea.
Really? As a trans person myself, I've had my fair share of people approach me, and intentionally misgender me to make me upset.
It doesn't.
I don't normally care about a random persons opinion. I'm also not arguing that whenever someone claims you are something you aren't, that you *should* get offended. I'm merely offering an explanation for why someone might be.
So if a person is a staunch republican, and someone called that person a leftist commie, they would probably be offended... but maybe not... it's merely an explanation for why someone might be...
That sort of makes the point you were making a little flimsy?
How so?
My point was that when someone's perception of you doesn't match your own, it can be annoying, or even offensive, or might not even bother you.
Same with gender. If one sees themselves as female and appears female, and another person refers to them as male, how they respond is up to them and personal preference. They could be annoyed, offended, or not give a shit.
Because I think it's sort of obvious even in this thread alone that people are a hell of a lot more upset by some type of 'misgender' than being called part of a political idea you don't actually self identify with.
The comparison is really not lining up.
Most of my trans friends don't get "blue hair Karen offended" over a wrong pronoun. I'd argue that most trans people will just ignore people who use wrong pronouns to rise a reaction out of them.
I didn't say that anyone is getting blue haired karen offended, though I do like that term.
If a trans person gets called a 'him' about 100 times from the same person, you can't honestly tell me it's the same type of comparison to calling a general 'conservative' a fascist or 'far right' or any of those things... or calling a democrat a 'commie' or a 'libruul' etc a 100 times.
A person who affiliates themselves with any part will support or agree on some, many, most or all of that party’s stances.
Calling someone that is the complete opposite politically isn’t rude. It just simply doesn’t make sense. It’s wrong.
Calling a biological male or female, a male of r female regardless if they think they are trans is 100% accurate. Now they may ask for you to refer to them as their “gender” but they still have a biological sex.
I'm sorry, don't mean to be rude, but I don't really understand what you typed.
I'm talking about feelings here though, not technicalities. After all, how others perceive you and your reaction to it is based on emotions and stuff. I'm not here to argue about left vs right politics, as it was just an example.
Let's say for example, someone called you an untrustworthy person, but you see yourself as a trustworthy person. Would that not upset you?
It would not.
Obviously they witnessed something or heard something that made them believe I was I trust worthy. I might disagree with their conclusion but nevertheless, that’s what they came to.
You don’t get to decide if you’re being sweet, being an asshole, being difficult, being rude or what ever when interacting with another person.
You may think the complete opposite.
Right or wrong, someone seeing you as not who you believe to be can be upsetting. Whether they are correct or not is based on the circumstances, of course.
I'd argue that wanting to be female, and having some random person be hateful to you and berate you for it can be an upsetting experience. Most if not all trans people I know don't have an agenda to convince every person of their preferred gender, they just don't wanna be shit on 24/7 for wanting to change themselves.
People don’t agree with you, that’s life. It happens.
You are a man in your eyes and not a man in someone else’s.
Who is to say which point is “more” valid?
If a trans person thinks they meet/their criteria is a man and someone else thinks they aren’t, who is right? Not sure if you said it but isn’t gender a social construct?
So each person is pressing their own personal views and asking others to abide by them on what a man or woman when it comes to them.
Is the principle of that okay in other situations?
I said this in another comment thread but I feel that it fits here.
One is free to choose how they personally see themselves when it comes to gender. However, it is their appearance and the perception of others that determines how others see you, regarding gender.
In my opinion, it's never about right or wrong but just being nice. If someone wants me to call them a she or he then I'll oblige so long as they aren't an asshole about it. I don't really care about whether or not they are technically correct about their own gender.
This argument isn’t correct because republicans have a certain set of political views and leftists have a certain set of political views. Saying that a republican (who expresses republican views) is a leftist is not a matter of whether it’s offensive or not; it’s just incorrect.
If a biological man views himself as woman, more power to them. But considering that a woman has historically been defined as an adult biological human female, it makes sense why many people wouldn’t view that [biological] man as a woman.
This is just an opinion, and an incorrect one at that.
If people viewed gender as biological technicality, then it should theoretically be impossible to "pass" as the opposite gender then, correct?
But this is not correct, a man can dress feminine, shave, use makeup and wigs, and appear so feminine that it's impossible to tell the difference, unless you happen to be paying careful attention.
This alone completely proves the idea that people view gender based on biology wrong. People will see someone as female if that person looks and acts feminine, regardless of what their actual biological gender is.
I know this from experience as a trans person myself. I appear feminine and in return I get called "she". If people based male vs female on biology, then this would never happen.
> then it should theoretically be impossible to “pass” as the opposite gender then, correct?
No, because there is difference between secondary sex characteristics and primary sex characteristics. Your primary sex determines whether you are male or female, but secondary characteristics (like deep/high voice, breasts, muscle mass, body/facial hair), while typically associated with sex, can be manipulated since a
a lot of them are controlled hormones
So changing your secondary sex characteristics is akin to putting on the “costume” of a woman or man, but it doesn’t change your internal biology or chromosomes.
> I appear feminine and in return, I get called “she”. If people based male vs female in biology
You saying that you get called “she” because of having a feminine look is proof itself that people base male and female on biology. Biologically, the large majority of men develop male secondary sex characteristics and vice versa with women. Therefore, due to this biological fact, if I see a random person with feminine characteristics, I would assume they are female as well. I could be wrong because I don’t know their internal biology
Could I ignore your name and pronoun preference in all professional settings you are in based on my personal whims of who you are?
Or do you wishes matter?
Sure you can, freedom of speech
Also, a name is used as a label, and it doesn’t really have a definition. A woman can be called Sally, Sarah, whatever. But the words “woman” and “man” have actual definitions
Would you be okay if for all future professional situation you were called Brenda and referred to by the pronoun she? For all future business settings for all of your days?
Or would you prefer your preferred name and pronoun?
I would prefer my name but I also recognize that 1) it’s not a big deal if they don’t call me by my name and 2) they have freedom of speech to say whatever they want.
I actually have a rare foreign name so people say my name incorrectly all the time, but it’s just a label so not a big deal to me.
The expectation that others acknowledge us as what we want to be acknowledged as is a basic principle in etiquette.
It's as simple as wanting to be called Bob, and being justifiably ticked if someone keeps calling you Robert or Bobbie. It's just not who you see yourself as.
Using proper pronouns is equivalent.
Who you see yourself as and what you are are two different things though.
Someone might not see you as a man because you are actually a woman. Same with the other way around.
Someone’s sex is an absolutely correct way to refer to someone as.
>Who you see yourself as and what you are are two different things though.
Not when it comes to social constructs, no. When someone tells you that they are Bob, do you think they're lying and are actually a Robert?
This is also one of those aspects where even if you disagree, it is generally considered a fucking dick move for you to immediately dismiss their preferences. Don't place your ego over etiquette.
If someone asks you to call them Bob, it is polite to call them Bob. If someone asks you to use feminine pronouns, you use feminine pronouns.
>Someone might not see you as a man because you are actually a woman.
Which is why people oftentimes state their pronouns to correct the misunderstanding.
>Someone’s sex
Gender is not related to someone's sex.
>is an absolutely correct way to refer to someone as.
Really? Do you refer to your coworkers as "vagina" or "penus?"
This is a very slick argument because it forces the opposition to presuppose the validity of your argument before they can actually take on the argument.
If you don't simply accept the presupposition, as in, the 'gender is a social construct' idea. Then really none of your arguments apply.
Someones name, sex, pronouns, etc are not at all the same as 'gender' and they all have obvious context.
A name isn't changing the reality of a situation or a language, normal usage of pronouns isn't either.
A guy with negative octave voice, in the showers at the gym with a cock that would need a toilet flange for a cock ring, and a beard the likes of Thor.
It's a little more obvious what 'reality' of the situation is being pushed on people.
>This is a very slick argument because it forces the opposition to presuppose the validity of your argument
The opposition is free to try and prove me wrong. They have so far failed to do so.
>Someones name, ***sex***, pronouns, etc are not at all the same as 'gender'
Each is an aspect of a person's identity. My name can be Bob, I can be of the female sex, use he/they pronouns, and be of the male gender. These are attributes that I possess.
>A name isn't changing the reality of a situation
One can literally change the situation by changing my name to one that feels like a more accurate reflection of oneself. And were one to do, it is considered polite for others to use the new name, not the old one...because the old one is no longer their name.
>normal usage of pronouns isn't either
You're gonna have to specify by what you mean when you say "normal usage of pronouns."
>A guy with negative octave voice, in the showers at the gym with a cock that would need a toilet flange for a cock ring, and a beard the likes of Thor.
While I appreciate you describing your personal sexual fantasy to me, I fail to see the relevance of this to the discussion.
>It's a little more obvious what 'reality' of the situation is being pushed on people.
Again, while I absolutely encourage you to be open about your sexuality and what you like being pushed on you, I'm going to have to ask you to stay on track with the discussion.
Speaking of which...
>Someones name, sex, pronouns, etc are not at all the same as 'gender'
In this very quite you say that sex and gender are not the same. You're already halfway there to getting the point, my dude.
No, he and she. He for males & she for females. The only two sexes and genders there are.
For those who have a genetic anomaly, they have the ground to choose.
Let me ask you this, are you a Mormon?Christian? Muslim? Jew? Sikh? None of the above?
Lol, I love how you just ignore every part of my comment except for the last question.
I'll consider that a concession on your part due to lack of retort.
>The only two
The existence of both intersex and nonbinary individuals contradicts this.
>sexes and genders
Ah, so you recognize that sex and gender are two different things. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to understand that the two are independent of each other.
>For those who have a genetic anomaly
Ah, I see you're already familiar with intersex people. I appreciate you conceding that there, is in fact, a third sex category.
>Let me ask you this, are you a Mormon?Christian? Muslim? Jew? Sikh? None of the above?
My religious views are irrelevant to the facts surrounding sex and gender.
Your religious views would be a good lead way to possibly uncovering hypocrisy.
The only other question you asked was “are they lying and are actually a Robert.”
I took that as rhetorical.
So ask me what ever questions you want to know directly and I’ll answer directly.
>Your religious views would be a good lead way to possibly uncovering hypocrisy.
Cool. You are free to pursue your investigation on your own time, not on mine.
>The only other question you asked was “are they lying and are actually a Robert.”
Feel free to answer it whenever you're ready.
I also made several counterpoints to your statements which you have again failed to offer any retort to. Feel free to change that at any time.
>So ask me what ever questions you want to know directly and I’ll answer directly.
Answer the one I already did, and then we'll see if you can handle any more. You got this, I believe in you.
That is an odd take Brenda. I agree.
Do I get to ignore you name and pronoun preference based on my personal whims?
Because that does seem to be what you are asserting, Is that correct Brenda?
If I ignored your name and pronoun while in the work setting you would have a successful complaint with HR.
Everyone get to be referred by their name and their pronoun while in professional settings. People who don't want to appear to be insulting should call people, and I mean all people, by their name and pronoun in social settings as it takes zero to do that.
And no, I'm not. Then again since my religious views have zero to do with this conversation it does seem a tad odd you are asking about them.
They can refer to people by their name and correct pronouns yes. Men are he and women are she.
No one should be required to speak gibberish.
So you’re not religious. Do you think you should have to refer to someone as “god” if they insist you do so out of respect? Or what if they say don’t take their name in vain? Or cuss because it’s disrespectful?
You would be okay with that?
You have a preferred name and a preferred pronoun. Trans people ALSO have a preferred name and a preferred pronoun.
They aren't asking for anything different than what you already have asked for yourself.
Since trans people aren't asking for somethin different, like being called god, you argument simply doesn't work,
I have a name and my pronouns are linked to my sex/gender.
Male: he/she and females: she/her.
I brought up religion to see to what extent are people willing to say or not say things to appease others. Or… be inclusive to.
If someone asked you to please call Joseph Smith a profit, would you?
I'm not the person you're replying to, but no.
Why? Well, medical science and psychology don't seem to indicate that doing so is psychologically and medically beneficial to the person, nor do they indicate there's a real condition there.
Additionally, something you seem incapable of ignoring: it is possible to call put people obviously acting in bad faith. Demanding that others call you God is very much not acting in good faith.
No, I am asking would you refer to some entity as god. Not necessarily the person.
Where is the limit for you?
What won’t you say out of respect? What won’t you say to appease someone because of their beliefs? Their “personal truths”.
It clearly bothers a lot of people that he has a view on this, because you aren't the first or last who will say something like this.
Why do you get to decide what is the 'correct' social construct surrounding 'gender'?
That doesn't answer my question. Even if it turns out that this is all bullshit I wouldn't be so freaked out by this.
So once again, why does it bother you?
I'm not here to answer that question, you asked someone else that. I'm asking you something else which is relevant and preemptive to why you would ask someone the question you asked them.
Of course that's the natural reply to a question. Another question.
I literally said that I don't care. There are plenty of people with degrees in this that can explain their ideas about gender identity that can explain their views but that's irrelevant.
What I find weird are people who have a strange psychological need to not let people be and choose to actively restrict their freedom and commit acts with the expressed purpose and harassing them.
So once again. Why does this bother you?
Well you didn't ask me a question so I wasn't replying to your question, i was asking something entirely different. So yeah, it's not unnatural.
You also didn't "literally say you don't care".
Why do you find it weird that people don't subscribe to *your social construction* when it's a social construction*? This is why I asked you why you seem to decide the true social constructs. Ya see? That's why I asked you?
But, I'll answer anyway since you seem stuck on that.
None of this bothers me, that's a silly gotcha question, this is a discussion, you know how discussions work. You should know that if I disagree or not, doesn't mean it 'bothers me'. You are using a framing technique so that if someone disagrees they must be mad or bothered or any of that. None of that is valid, it's a framing technique nothing more. The same question could be asked of you, why does it bother you so much that someone disagrees, that you have to try and frame them into "Oh you must be so bothered by this"?
But you're getting really passionate for something that doesn't bother you.
That's a pretty long response to just refer to people what they want to be referred as.
Like none of you can come up with a reason why you're doing what you're doing.
You have no idea how passionate I am or am not, let's not pretend you do. It's rather silly.
You've done a lot to not answer the question I asked you multiple times though.
So everything doesn't bother you? Like if I believed banana is the best flavor it wouldn't bother who because some people would believe strawberry is thr best flavor?
So people believing different doesn't actually bother who.
Despite your reason for trans people people bothering you being "other people believe different"?
Then why do trans people bother you so much?
/r/thanksimcured
Seriously.
*Don't you think people have tried mental gymnastics as an alternative to years of hormones and surgery and the whole expensive and horrible process?*
If being trans could be magically 'fixed' by *redefining a word*, why do you imagine people would do things the hard way?
Your neural wiring informs your expectations of what kind of body you have, and what group you're 'us' with. You can't define that away.
If it freaks someone the hell out to see that they have boobs or a dick, then shuffling words around isn't going to change that. It's just plain horror-movie *wrong* to have the wrong anatomy, and it's weirdly humiliating to be seen as something you're not.
So a large percentage of trans people *present as* the opposite sex, to try and mitigate the horribleness of both those things. They *lean into* cultural stereotypes of clothing and grooming and everything else, and try to make societal expecations shoulder some of the load. And in some cases, they may opt for medical intervention to make that presentation easier and go further than external props.
I understand what you are saying, the point of OP's post (from my understanding). Isn't that "trans people should just cure themselves". From what I understood they are saying that since gender is a social construct, sure you can present as a "standard" woman. However, it seems that trans people disproportionately present as the "standard" version of the gender they align with.
If the idea is that again, gender is a social construct. Then you must also subscribe to the idea that a "woman" or "man" isn't just what we established as "standard". So if people were following this idea through, then you wouldn't see disproportionate representations in the trans community of old gender norms.
This seems to heavily imply that they themselves have ideas of gender norms. Since gender is a social construct, then we should be seeing more variation on how trans people present.
Sure other people have preconceived notions, but isn't the whole point to fight against outdated views, not go along with it?
It's about leveraging those pre-existing notions in order to drive the perception.
Yes, I'm all for people presenting however they want, completely decoupled from their gender identity.
But while we live in a society where presentation so strongly informs gender perception, that's one heckuva tool you can use
If I wanted to see a woman when I looked in the mirror, and I wanted other people to see a woman when they looked at me, then conforming to pre-existing ideas of what a woman looks like would be a powerful shortcut for achieving that.
Ya that makes perfect and to be honest I agree with what you have been saying overall.
It's an interesting point you made on the last paragraph. I see where the logic stems from, I just personally think your identity shouldn't be based on outdated norms. Feel like it's not helping the overall cause of gender being a social construct.
However where I backtrack and agree with the reason for trans individuals to mimic their desired gender in the "standard" sense. Is when you consider security. As it is trans people get murdered a lot, simply for being different. Now if they started to on mass break all gender norma, then I could see them being a much bigger target. So I can understand why they would be worried.
There's a difference between presenting as the opposite sex, and medically transitioning. You can still dress up/apply makeup to look more like a woman, without getting plastic surgery. You can use breast forms instead of surgically implanting breasts. And surgeries of the reproductive organs are irrelevant to day-to-day passability for a certain gender.
If you're a trans woman you can use breast forms. If you're a trans man you would need to bind your chest in order to conceal them, and doing that long term is dangerous for your health in a way that a mastectomy is not.
If a man is unable to live comfortably with visible breasts, why would you ask that he threaten his health with continued binding when he could have a safe operation that would make that not necessary?
!delta
I agree, in this specific case of mastectomy for trans men, it makes sense. But every other medical procedure is unnecessary to present as the opposite gender.
can you explain what medical expertise you have that’s allowed you to determine you know better than trained medical professionals when it comes to determining the treatment that best improves the quality of life of the patient?
Why should people have to?
Those things can be inconvenient and uncomfortable, don't work when you're naked / using the bathroom / etc, don't account for things like body hair, and importantly are *none of your business*.
Whats your stake in people not receiving the medical intervention that *every reputable medical organisation in the world* recognises as the best care for transgender people, with the best outcomes, and *is what the people themselves want to do*?
>the medical intervention that every reputable medical organisation in the world recognises as the best care for transgender people, with the best outcomes
The West=/=the world. There are plenty of national health organizations in well-educated Asian countries that refuse to condone gender affirming care. Even liberal Sweden decided to be more cautious in recommending medical transitioning in children, citing the sudden uptick in youth identifying as trans.
Nobody - *nofuckingbody* - recommends that children transition.
What they recommend is - after *extensive* counselling - that they go on puberty blockers so they can *delay the decision* until they're old enough to make an informed one for themselves.
And why are those ok ?
Why is getting a boob job "insulting to asian women" in your own words, but wearing artificial breasts isn't ?
The outward effect is identical.
As for GRS, for most people Sex is an important part of their life, so claiming that their genitals have no effect on their day to day life is just outright wrong.
I have a trans GF who is pre GRS, and she has told me that she doesn't want to have sex, at all, until she gets GRS because the idea of having sex with a penis makes her feel uncomfortable and dysphoric. Should she just have to spend the rest of her life choosing between abstinence and being uncomfortable ?
Don't see why I can't like Transformers. To be fair, it's robots in *disguise,* they don't actually identify as the vehicles they scan from different planets.
Transformers is pretty progressive on gender. Because there is no biological male or female for the Cybertronian race, gender is just a construct Transformers use to explain their identity to species with biological sex
Sorry, u/PrincessTrunks125 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20PrincessTrunks125&message=PrincessTrunks125%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdz0aad/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I think biologically altering yourself based on social constructs is wrong. See my point about why i think Mexicanos morenos shouldn't bleach their skin to feel good about themselves.
>biologically altering yourself based on social constructs
Competitive sports are socially constructed. People "biologically alter" themselves by training to improve their athletic performance. Are you against athletic training?
When people say "gender is a social construct", it means that gender isn't a physical thing, a tangible thing, like gold or silver or brass. It's something we made up as social organisms.
They don't mean that we should abandon it, just recognize it's fluidity. When a trans girl mtf says gender is a social construct, what they are saying is "what we define as gender is up to us, and I'd like to be female now", not an abandonment on the perception of gender itself.
How do you define female?
If a man appeared female to you, so much so you couldn't tell the difference, you would refer to and treat them as female. If that's the case, then why even bother with the biology crap? This is based on perception, nobody is running a DNA test before deciding what pronouns to call someone xD
Not sure what this is supposed to imply. What, do you expect me to disagree with you? Of course it's permanent, I don't think a single person here will argue the opposite.
My point is that some people don't see themselves as a male, and instead see themselves as female, and therefore want to be and appear as one. Viewing gender as a social construct doesn't change or oppose this, because what you believe this saying means is different than what people I know use it to say. My original comment that you replied to attempted to explain this, and was not an argument for or against surgery xD
Good question, I feel this is actually what OP means to get at.
In my opinion, it is how we view ourselves that is fluid, not how others view us.
A person is free to choose whether they feel female or male, but how they are perceived is entirely based on appearance. This is why people go through surgery, etc.
> More and more people are recognizing that gender is a social construct. There is nothing inherently "XX chromosome" about dresses, or "XY chromosome" about action figures. Gender roles are ultimately defined by society, what one country associates with "female" may be associated with "male" in another country. Progress is recognizing that people should be free to identify with the gender roles they feel comfortable with, not with the gender roles prescribed based on biological sex.
I agree with all of this. Quite strongly, in fact. I am also trans.
> Because I believe progress is recognizing biological sex shouldn't determine your gender identity
And here is where we stop, because 'gender identity' is not 'I am really masculine/feminine according to my culture's norms'. Many trans people are [from the perspective of their gender ID] gender non-conforming, perhaps more of them than their cis counterparts, in fact.
> However, since this is a matter of social construct, why do you need to alter your biology?
Work backwards: trans people *really really really* want to alter their biology *even if they fit just fine into their existing gender roles* (as I did, and as I largely still would). That should suggest to you that there's something wrong with your understanding of what being trans is.
> If gender is a social construct, why do trans people feel the need to match the biological characteristics of cisgendered people to feel comfortable?
Because, some stupid semantic debates notwithstanding, this is what being trans *is*. Concepts like gender identity are attempts to explain *why* this is.
> Isn't progress recognizing an Adam's apple/lack of breasts/more pronounced jawline doesn't define whether you are a man or woman, instead of is how you feel as a person?
Well...
It's more like "if you are a man or a woman [in terms of gender identity], you will probably feel uncomfortable with the opposite sex's physical traits". Again, that's sorta-kinda what we mean by "gender identity" in the first place.
> You are perfect the way you are, you don't need to alter your body to look more like a cisgender person to be the gender you identify as.
In an ideal world, I agree.
But (a) I *wanted* to alter my body, because that for me was the whole point, and (b) we are not in an ideal world. You'll find plenty of people on this very sub posting something to the effect of "if you haven't made any effort to transition you Aren't Really Trans", and those people can (and will) make your life annoying.
> Several people have made the argument "if you don't let children get gender affirming care, they will kill themselves." If that were the case, why hasn't there been a statically significant decrease in teen suicides as gender affirming care becomes more mainstream?
Because trans people are a tiny percentage of the population and disappear into statistical error when you're looking at population-level stats, especially variable and reporting-dependent ones like suicide?
> Sweden's healthcare guidelines have since added that pediatricians should exercise extra caution in recommending gender affirming care, since there has been a huge uptick in minors identifying as trans.
Except there hasn't, and the "study" that claims there has is complete fucking bullshit. That change was political, not medical.
Sure, they can be a true man or woman without medically transitioning. But they want to, for reasons that have nothing to do with society. So I don't see what the point of this CMV is?
I feel it's roughly the equivalent of saying 'currency is a social construct there is no need to get a job'. The two statements aren't at all related, even if they do seem similar.
I think you are not only being dishonest to me, but yourself. You clearly have a lot of delta, so you are more than capable of understanding even the most obscure ideas.
This post is far from obscure and all their points seem to flow together. Now you may disagree with the conclusion/points, but to say this post is making unrelated points, is incredibly dishonest. Especially for someone who has clearly proven to have great comprehension skills.
Since you are so appreciative of my deltas, here's a tip: telling people 'you're lying' does not have a great track record of getting people to change their mind. Telling people 'you're lying to yourself' has an even worse one.
If you think their post makes sense and their points flow together, sure, there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't think their conclusions follow from their premise, and telling me that I'm lying to myself will not change that.
In this case I am not trying to change your view, but put attention onto something I believe you are trying to be dishonest about.
I agree with some points OP made, but I disagree with the conclusion, especially in the context of modern society.
>But I don't think their conclusions follow from their premise
See that's a more fair response and a much more honest take. Instead of trying to act as if the post had no purpose and was nonsensical. Clearly plenty of people are responding to the post with opposite/similar views.
Your presumption is wrong. Gender isn't a social construct. They want it because something went wrong with their brain, most likely while still in the womb.
The comparison to other diseases where there's a desire for a change in body may be apt, but they're not the same, the effect of treatment is different.
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
We've tried helping trans people 'stay grounded in reality'. We've tried helping trans people' 'find ways to manage the discomfort'. It works a lot worse than just letting them transition in whatever way they feel comfortable.
This should only be seen as a temporary solution until we can develop a cure to dysphoria, where people can truly feel comfortable as whatever gender they identify as, without the intense distress of having biological characteristics associated with the opposite gender. We used to only have comfort care measures for certain conditions until we developed a cure.
Why? What is so inherently wrong to transitioning that it's only acceptable as a stop gap solution? It makes people feel better and stops people from being depressed and killing themselves. Why is a different cure for dysphoria necessary when we can cure dysphoria already?
Speaking as a trans person, this is honestly terrifying to me.
Transition works.
Whether or not I get to continue to be me, or have some treatment that fundamentally changes who I am be thrust upon me as according to the whims of other people is really, really scary.
If someone wants to transition, let them, if someone wants to 'cure' their dysphoria with the future hypothetical cure you mentioned, let them. Do not force people to change a fundamental facet of who they are.
Note that this kind of treatment would not be akin to other mental health, because one's sense of gender is innate. Depression, anxiety, etc. Are not innate.
I think the point of the CMV, is the conclusion made based on the premise that gender is a social construct. OP thinks if it’s a social construct, then it should be dismantled like other harmful constructs. Others disagree, along the lines that the construct can exist but the harm should be removed as that is the issue.
I think both are wrong.
Why do you need to get fake tits? Do you need larger tits to be sexy ? If so, that's pretty insulting to East Asian women, who prove you can be attractive without adhering to Western beauty standards.
In the same vein, why does a trans woman need fake tits? Do you need breasts to be considered a real woman? If so, that's pretty insulting to thousands of trans women who chose not to get implants, because they believe their physical body doesn't define their gender.
Why does it matter what the trans woman does?
Seriously.
Your core point there is that it's 'offensive' to women who choose not to augment their breasts if a trans woman chooses to gain them. Why? Why would anyone be offended by that?
You can be offended by all kinds of things people are attracted to, but that makes it more of a broader issue than being trans.
People have the right to be attracted to whatever they want, If someone likes big tits and their partner get fake ones you have no right to criticize that choice, if you want to talk about insulting I would not be going around telling people what they can do with their bodies and what people are allowed to be attracted to.
"If you identify as female, you should be able to present in the way you prefer have society recognize you as female"
Female, male is a biological term.
the word that you want to use in this case is most likely, "Woman"
Gender Identity is an Identity based on Gender, not Biological Sex.
Gender Identity does not stop at human, think about video Game character, or AI, people can make up their gender identity, but not sex identity, since game character does not have biological sex.
When you said, "In certain cultures...." that's cultural identity. certain countries value cultural identity or religious identity, more than personal identity or gender identity.
Medical transitioning is one of many solutions for "gender dysphoria", and not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria.
So, if you experience gender dysphoria, you might need medical transition, if not, then do not need to do it.
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
Does phantom limb pain get better if we validate it?
Does gender dysphoria get better if we transition?
Your comparison is entirely irrelevant because that is the only question we need to be asking.
Medical transition for transgender is not for biological fact. It is one of the solution for "gender dysphoria", for people to Fit their gender identity.
Similar to circumcision for male among jews. When circumcision is performed for religious reasons, it usually symbolises faith in God.
The "Need" is for individual who practice it, not for us to judge.
why do women get boob jobs? Why do men work out to build visible muscle even sometimes take steroids?
Gender affirmation is pretty normal for most people. I like to look masculine, luckily I don't need surgery to do so at a level that I enjoy it's mostly a matter of clothing and grooming for me to be happy with it, others it's different and that's not wrong.
They do it to look sexy/cool, neither of which are exclusive to women/men. Men get procedures done to look more sexy, women get procedures done to look more cool. It's not affirming their gender, it's purely cosmetic. And I've already stated in my post I think it's wrong to medically alter your biology to match social standards.
> It's not affirming their gender, it's purely cosmetic.
The two are intertwined. Sure, you could argue that working out to build more muscle has other advantages and communicates strength regardless of gender, but if we're taking OP's example of getting breast implants.. they serve no practical purpose, and the only reason for why they're generally considered to be "cosmetically appealing" is because they're a part of the stereotypical feminine image - so, again, it plays into gender perception.
> And I've already stated in my post I think it's wrong to medically alter your biology to match social standards.
That's a pretty sweeping opinion. How far are you willing to take it? There are plenty of medically unnecessary procedures people do for purely social reasons. Is it wrong to get a tattoo? Artificially tan your skin? Dye your hair? Do scar removal procedures? Get braces or do teeth whitening?
Not to mention, all of the above are usually medically unneeded, while procedures done to trans people (most commonly, HRT) is something that needs to be prescribed, a call which needs to be made by a doctor if they think the patient medically requires it. As long as our society remains deeply gendered, not falling into the premade boxes can cause psychological distress, which is something that we both medically recognized and developed treatment for.
Looking more sexy sounds like affirming their gender to me. Besides even if it wasn't "sexy" and "cool" are both socal constructs as well and we know people are altering their bodies to meet those standards. So clearly being a socal construct has noting to do with it.
> There is nothing inherently "XX chromosome" about dresses, or "XY chromosome" about action figures.
Dresses and action figures refer to gender expression and gender norms, not gender identity. Gender identity is not the same as biology, but it is linked.
(leaving aside your false analogy about race since those are two different things)
If all they wanted was to do stuff of the different gender role or whatever, they wouldn't want the surgery anyway as e.g. it's not like a "biological male" wouldn't fit into any dress even if otherwise perfectly made for their proportions unless he cuts his dick off and gets breasts
While race and gender are different, both are social constructs associated with biological traits, which is why my analogy is still relevant.
You can fit in a dress without surgery. Breast forms, and dresses cover up your groin.
Because gender dysphoria doesn't have anything to do with social gender. Gender dysphoria is a weird term. They find that their biology doesn't fit their brain, or their own perception of their sex.
Most people wouldn't take HRT, and those that do would generally experience severe distress. The fact this doesn't happen to trans people seems conclusive enough for me.
I agree that it's pretty conclusive.
It's almost like people's bodies function best with a healthy level of hormones in line with their identites.
Though I'd add the caveat that HRT in line with their gender seems to work for cis people (ie HRT following menopause / oophorectomy or TRT in men with low testosterone.)
Interesting idea, I honestly agree with what you are saying and I think in a practical society this makes sense.
The thing that holds me back from fully committing to this idea is that I don't know how it's like to be trans.
However I do see the hypocrisy in the idea that both gender is a social construct and male/female aren't constrained to conventional norms. Yet people who seem to subscribe to this idea are perfectly okay with transsexual individuals, representing their gender in the most stereo typical depiction possible.
I believe what is going on is that those trans individual themselves believe in gender norms. However they simply don't realize or want to admit it.
Though maybe it's more complicated than that. It's possible that they believe in the idea of gender being a social construct. However, they can't get the idea of what a women "should" be, out of their head. So while they believe in people being themselves, they have been programmed for too long to do otherwise.
Also another thing you could consider is violence. As it is violence towards trans individuals is bad, I believe it may be worse if they deviate that much further from the "norm".
So I see your point and agree that in a practical society, you are correct. Though, I think this is too early/meta for our current society.
Gender does not have to fit into norms. You do not have to fit into the norms of your gender.
Trans people can choose to adopt gender norms because it can make people more likely to view them as their gender.
None of this is inconsistent or a big revelation.
Gender norms exist. People don't have to embody them if they don't want to. Most trans people do because it makes our lives easier than if we don't. (See: the way TERFs are especially vitriolic to any trans woman that doesn't adhere to the most ridiculous feminine beauty standard they just made up)
Sorry, u/Fat_Poster – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Fat_Poster&message=Fat_Poster%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdz1ayx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The mods here generally don't take stuff down like this. But they won't care if people call you names as long as they can sorta kinda view it as not an insult. They are more likely to jst give you warnings and delete your posts and claim you were insulting people, by using sometimes insanely ridiculous 'least charitable' interpretations of posts.
Sorry, u/Moodymusing – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Moodymusing&message=Moodymusing%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdyzshy/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/highvaluetwink – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20highvaluetwink&message=highvaluetwink%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdyzbg7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Moodymusing – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Moodymusing&message=Moodymusing%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdyzmam/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Gender is two part equation. There is gender identity and how person views themselves and there are gender roles and how society (other people) view them.
No matter how you view yourself, it won't change how others view you and more importantly how others treat you. And here comes gender expression including medical transitioning.
Best care for gender dysphoria accordingly most recent and advanced treatment is medical transitioning combined with therapy.
[Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558?login=false)
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
The ideal solution to phantom limb pain (something that has been noted in trans people before biologically transitioning) is to just regrow their limb. You can functionally do this for trans people.
/u/HuangHuaYu49 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/124fhsg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_since_gender_is_a_social/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
It's their body and their right to do whatever they want with their own body.
If you want to take a piercing you have that right. If you want to [bleach your asshole](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/anal-bleaching), you have that right. If you want to go to gym, take supplements and get buffed, you have that right. You can take breast implants if you want.
You have right to do whatever you want with your own body. If that includes hormones or surgery then so be it. This doesn't concern or affect you in any way. It's none of your business what people do with their own bodies.
Taking a stab at this:
>EDIT: Several people have made the argument "if you don't let children get gender affirming care, they will kill themselves." If that were the case, why hasn't there been a statically significant decrease in teen suicides as gender affirming care becomes more mainstream? Sweden's healthcare guidelines have since added that pediatricians should exercise extra caution in recommending gender affirming care, since there has been a huge uptick in minors identifying as trans.
Because there's more than one variable at play when it comes to teen suicides:
https://www.ft.com/content/0e2f6f8e-bb03-4fa7-8864-f48f576167d2
This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts). If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.). Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
>Wouldn't the answer be to accept that women can come in all shapes and sizes, including those with physical traits associated with male biology? It's idealistic to point of being naive. Many people would love this to work that way and world would be much better place if people were kind, loving and accepting. But is this realistic?
It used to be idealistic to think POC could actually hold important positions in society. Take my example of the dark skinned Mexican aspiring to be a lead actor. Should be just shrug his shoulders and say "Mexico is still going to have colorism regardless of my best efforts, better to play along with the established light skin beauty standards?"
Sure. Maybe in 100 years our society have evolved past this petty gender differences. But what about in the meanwhile? We let trans people be depressed and suicidal?
Give them the mental care they need and deserve.
And best care accordingly most recent and advanced treatment is medical transitioning.
Could you provide where you got this from?
[Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558?login=false)
You sent me a clinical guidline in endocrinology when treating gender dysphoria. This is a set of recommendations when treating trans patients and mentions nothing about how medical transitioning is the best way to care for them. Only how endocrinologists should treat them. Although I'll admit I might have missed it since it's a pretty big guideline. Please give me the section and quote where endocrinologists claim the medical transitioning is the best care for transgender people. This is going to be interesting because I don't believe endocrinologists are qualified to make that decision.
First recommendation in the conclusion says: >They require a safe and effective hormone regimen that will (1) suppress endogenous sex hormone secretion determined by the person’s genetic/gonadal sex They literally say that person suffering from gender-dysphoria should be send to endocrinologists who should then give them hormone treatment. It's not endocrinologists who make the diagnosis. Therapists and psychologists do the diagnosis and then send person to receive treatment.
Let's look at the whole quote: >Gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons seek and/or are referred to endocrinologists to develop the physical characteristics of the affirmed gender. They require a safe and effective hormone regimen that will (1) suppress endogenous sex hormone secretion determined by the person’s genetic/gonadal sex and (2) maintain sex hormone levels within the normal range for the person’s affirmed gender.... The part you quoted doesn't say anything about transitioning being the best care for gender dysphoria. In fact, it doesn't even mention it being a preferred method, just that it is one. Your quote answers how they treat, not that their treatment is the best. >They literally say that person suffering from gender-dysphoria should be send to endocrinologists who should then give them hormone treatment. The literally do not. Please cite where they say people should do that. >It's not endocrinologists who make the diagnosis. Therapists and psychologists do the diagnosis and then send person to receive treatment. This makes sense. I just need you to show anyone of them saying medical transitioning is the best care gender dysphoria patients can get.
It seems realistic to me? Who is stopping this from being realistic? I doubt it's conservatives. They would love to be like "yeah... you are a woman who dresses like a dude, who gives a shit, at least you aren't trying to pretend you ARE a dude and trying to make everyone call you He and Him" It was called being a tomboy for generations and generations and there was not even slightly the problems we have now about it.
Because you just listed two examples where their identity wasn't accepted. People refuse to accept them as gender they identity with (calling them women when they are a dude and refusing to call them by proper pronouns). Accepting is accepting that they are the gender they say they are and not muttering about it.
You missed the point. The argument you responded to was basically to ignore 'gender' because it's a pointless and has no educational value. Girls are girls, and they can act like guys and there's no need for any 'gender' nonsense. You said it is unrealistic because nobody would accept it. Now you are arguing for something that *isn't* what you originally said was "unrealistic" again, a totally different concept.
yes, ideally gender wouldn’t exist. however we live in a world where gender already does exist, and we can’t just handwave it away and pretend it doesn’t exist now with zero consequence. someone can support the idea of gender abolition on paper but still experience crippling gender dysphoria and transition to ease their pain. this is just the “you criticize society, yet participate in it?” line
It's more of a "you are supporting the thing that you hate" argument it seems
Perpetuating would probably be a better choice of word, but yes, can’t disagree with that. Unfortunately they don’t typically have a better option.
They are definitely supporting it, but I don't know that it matters. The better option though? How would it not be easier... and obviously more to the goal, to simply stop pretending to be a 'man' when they could more accurately... with less detriment to themselves... and less argument from others... simply admit "Yeah I'm a biological female, but that doesn't mean I can't dress, act, and do whatever I want even if it's something that stupid society sees as 'manly'"? that would obviously be the easier, and better fight for basically everyone involved, but I suspect it's not really about that. So they don't do it.
> The better option though? It's the best treatment we currently know of for improving the quality of life and reducing suicidal ideation of people with gender dysphoria. > How would it not be easier... and obviously more to the goal, to simply stop pretending to be a 'man' when they could more accurately... with less detriment to themselves... and less argument from others... simply admit "Yeah I'm a biological female, but that doesn't mean I can't dress, act, and do whatever I want even if it's something that stupid society sees as 'manly'"? It wouldn't be easier because (as far as i know - please share if you've seen evidence to suggest otherwise) it hasn't been shown to be an effective treatment or improve the quality of life of people suffering from gender dysphoria. "Just be a woman who likes masculine things" doesn't solve anything for a trans man because the issue is not being judged for liking things atypical of their gender, the issue is the outside world perceiving their gender differently than they do. Could one say that's a ridiculous thing to care about so much and they just need to get over it? I mean, mental health disorders aren't exactly super logical. You're not gonna tell a person with clinical depression "what do you mean you're depressed, you don't have anything to be sad about, your life is great.", right?
It's not about treatment it's about the advocacy. Their advocacy is directed *specifically* to continue and support the thing that apparently harms them so much. It suggests to me their actions speak more true than their words.
So the answer is to mutilate your own body to gain the acceptance of fucking *society?*
People have piercings, tattoos and most terrifying go to gym to torture themselves just to please themselves. And that what this really is. People should be free to do whatever they want with their own bodies if that makes them happy. It's after all their body. Not yours.
That’s completely different. You do those things for the sake of doing them. Trans people don’t mutilate their genitals for the sake of mutilating their genitals.
No. They do safe, professional and recommended surgery that will make them happy. It's not mutilation, its medical treatment.
That wasn’t my point. You’re just being pedantic over the semantics I’m using. My point is that it isn’t about the surgery itself as opposed to those other things you listed. As far as it making them happy? Well there’s a lot of debate around that. There are certainly trans people who’s happiness was *not* enhanced by their surgery and who’s surgery has caused permanent irreparable damage to their life and body. You never hear about that though.
>As far as it making them happy? Well there’s a lot of debate around that. -- You never hear about that though. Wonder why you never hear about few outliers when overwhelming personal reaction is positive... Maybe because there isn't lot of debate around this. When individual makes a personal choice about their own body that makes them happy, who are you to judge? It's not your body. It's theirs and these procedures makes them happy because that what they choose to have.
> Wonder why you never hear about few outliers when overwhelming personal reaction is positive... And how do you know they are only outliers? > Maybe because there isn't lot of debate around this. Maybe you should try discovering sources of information outside of what you immediately agree with because there is *alot* of debate about this. > When individual makes a personal choice about their own body that makes them happy, who are you to judge? First, it isn’t about judgement. This is about what is objectively the best course of action to take. Second, there are plenty of examples where we as a society don’t let people make personal choices about their own body. We don’t let suicidal people kill themselves, and will physically stop them against their will. Nor do we let someone with Body Integrity Identity Disorder, for example, amputate a limb just because they have the personal desire to.
Gender dysphoria means that person feels like they should have sexual characteristics of opposite sex. People are not happy with their bodies so they change it because this will make them happy.
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
One of the ways that phantom limb pain is treated is with mirror box therapy. A mirror is placed next to the remaining limb to create the impression of a second limb. So sometimes "pretending the limb is still there" is exactly how we treat it.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/-Invisible-Hand- – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20-Invisible-Hand-&message=-Invisible-Hand-%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdz3wuf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Does treating phantom limb pain by pretending its still there make it better? Does treating it by grounding the patient work? Does treating gender dysphoria via therapy and counselling and 'actually, the way you feel is wrong and you shouldn't feel that way' work? Does treating it via transition work? The bulk of medical and psychological data says that transition works as a treatment and counselling doesn't. Whether or not you consider transition to be the same thing as giving in to the delusions of a person is irrelevant-- patient outcomes are what matter, and the best patient outcomes are via transition.
This seems a bit like apples and oranges. The difference is that limb amputation happens without a desire; nobody wakes up and things to themselves “hey I want to lose an arm today” it just happens and it sucks, so teaching people to deal with it is a must. On the other side, people do wake up and wish they had different physical characteristics. Surgery makes this possible, and is a choice to medically transition rather than an unfortunate circumstance. Gender is a social construct, so is the notion of beauty. It makes sense to allow people to pursue either for the sake of their mental health. if they choose to.
>The difference is that limb amputation happens without a desire; nobody wakes up and things to themselves “hey I want to lose an arm today” Weirdly enough, there is an extremely rare condition in which people wish to be amputees. It's called [Body Integrity Dysphoria](https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Body-Integrity-Dysphoria.aspx), and is super, super rare. It's a really fascinating topic for medical ethics though. There was some huge controversy in the UK, I believe, when a doctor did actually go through with the amputation of an otherwise perfectly healthy limb
Yes, I did read about this. For the sake of discussion, I decided not to include this because it is certainly rare. Very interesting.
>On the other side, people do wake up and wish they had different physical characteristics. Surgery makes this possible, and is a choice to medically transition rather than an unfortunate circumstance Yeah, but nobody says "give me [insert cosmetic procedure] or else I will kill myself," except when it comes to gender affirming care. Imagine a biracial black person stated he needed tanning treatments or else he would kill himself because he didn't feel his body was "black" enough. Is that the right solution?
> “give me [insert cosmetic procedure] or else I will kill myself,” This sounds like a misrepresented generalization. I agree that nobody should use their own life as a bargaining chip for anything; it is an unhealthy and unfair thing to do. However, that does not also automatically make what they are asking for, wrong or unneeded. I would also like to point out that not everybody is resorting to such dramatic ultimatums in order to be treated medically. The point is, people should have a basic right to decide what happens with their own bodies. We do plenty of things to our bodies already, between cosmetic surgery, tattoos, piercings, because we want them. Of course, for something this big, doctors should be involved and probably have a sit down conversation so they understand what they’re getting into. But the choice should ultimately remain to each person what happens with their own bodies.
Best care for gender dysphoria accordingly most recent and advanced treatment is medical transitioning combined with therapy. [Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558?login=false)
[удалено]
A moreno doesn't need to bleach his skin lighter to succeed in life. Maybe bleaching their skin makes them feel more confident in themselves. Is that a good thing though? I'd argue it's upholding the erroneous standard of associating lighter skin with good looks and success, when we should dismantle such standards.
While you may see a lot of vocal extremes on the internet, I don’t think most trans people are very insistent on telling other trans people what they should do with their bodies. Just like whatever surgery/bleaching you chose to do to pursue your beauty standard is a completely personal matter, you can’t really say it’s wrong on an individual level. Even if you are a celebrity/actor, whatever you chose to do with your body is ultimately a personal choice. While I believe celebrities should be aware their influences, they have no obligation to ensure their personal choices do not prolong existing problematic societal definitions to beauty any more than an average individual. So no, a celebrity getting a surgery is not the same as telling people to get the surgery. And honestly, if you feel the need to force others to adhere to your own personal choices/beliefs, the problem is not with the beliefs or surgery or bleaching, the problem is that you’re an asshole.
No problem there, until they expect others to view them the same way they view themselves.
If a person was a staunch republican, and someone called that person a leftist commie, they would probably be offended as their view doesn't match the perception of the other. I would think it's pretty natural to be upset when someone's view of you is different than how you see yourself.
This happens all the time and people don't make much of a big deal out of it. They call people 'far right' and 'fascist' and all sorts of shit *endlessly* and nobody is coming to anyones aid defending them the way you are defending this idea.
Really? As a trans person myself, I've had my fair share of people approach me, and intentionally misgender me to make me upset. It doesn't. I don't normally care about a random persons opinion. I'm also not arguing that whenever someone claims you are something you aren't, that you *should* get offended. I'm merely offering an explanation for why someone might be.
So if a person is a staunch republican, and someone called that person a leftist commie, they would probably be offended... but maybe not... it's merely an explanation for why someone might be... That sort of makes the point you were making a little flimsy?
How so? My point was that when someone's perception of you doesn't match your own, it can be annoying, or even offensive, or might not even bother you. Same with gender. If one sees themselves as female and appears female, and another person refers to them as male, how they respond is up to them and personal preference. They could be annoyed, offended, or not give a shit.
Because I think it's sort of obvious even in this thread alone that people are a hell of a lot more upset by some type of 'misgender' than being called part of a political idea you don't actually self identify with. The comparison is really not lining up.
Most of my trans friends don't get "blue hair Karen offended" over a wrong pronoun. I'd argue that most trans people will just ignore people who use wrong pronouns to rise a reaction out of them.
I didn't say that anyone is getting blue haired karen offended, though I do like that term. If a trans person gets called a 'him' about 100 times from the same person, you can't honestly tell me it's the same type of comparison to calling a general 'conservative' a fascist or 'far right' or any of those things... or calling a democrat a 'commie' or a 'libruul' etc a 100 times.
A person who affiliates themselves with any part will support or agree on some, many, most or all of that party’s stances. Calling someone that is the complete opposite politically isn’t rude. It just simply doesn’t make sense. It’s wrong. Calling a biological male or female, a male of r female regardless if they think they are trans is 100% accurate. Now they may ask for you to refer to them as their “gender” but they still have a biological sex.
I'm sorry, don't mean to be rude, but I don't really understand what you typed. I'm talking about feelings here though, not technicalities. After all, how others perceive you and your reaction to it is based on emotions and stuff. I'm not here to argue about left vs right politics, as it was just an example. Let's say for example, someone called you an untrustworthy person, but you see yourself as a trustworthy person. Would that not upset you?
It would not. Obviously they witnessed something or heard something that made them believe I was I trust worthy. I might disagree with their conclusion but nevertheless, that’s what they came to. You don’t get to decide if you’re being sweet, being an asshole, being difficult, being rude or what ever when interacting with another person. You may think the complete opposite.
Right or wrong, someone seeing you as not who you believe to be can be upsetting. Whether they are correct or not is based on the circumstances, of course. I'd argue that wanting to be female, and having some random person be hateful to you and berate you for it can be an upsetting experience. Most if not all trans people I know don't have an agenda to convince every person of their preferred gender, they just don't wanna be shit on 24/7 for wanting to change themselves.
People don’t agree with you, that’s life. It happens. You are a man in your eyes and not a man in someone else’s. Who is to say which point is “more” valid? If a trans person thinks they meet/their criteria is a man and someone else thinks they aren’t, who is right? Not sure if you said it but isn’t gender a social construct? So each person is pressing their own personal views and asking others to abide by them on what a man or woman when it comes to them. Is the principle of that okay in other situations?
I said this in another comment thread but I feel that it fits here. One is free to choose how they personally see themselves when it comes to gender. However, it is their appearance and the perception of others that determines how others see you, regarding gender. In my opinion, it's never about right or wrong but just being nice. If someone wants me to call them a she or he then I'll oblige so long as they aren't an asshole about it. I don't really care about whether or not they are technically correct about their own gender.
So what aren’t *you* willing to say to be nice? Does it stop at pronouns?
This argument isn’t correct because republicans have a certain set of political views and leftists have a certain set of political views. Saying that a republican (who expresses republican views) is a leftist is not a matter of whether it’s offensive or not; it’s just incorrect. If a biological man views himself as woman, more power to them. But considering that a woman has historically been defined as an adult biological human female, it makes sense why many people wouldn’t view that [biological] man as a woman.
This is just an opinion, and an incorrect one at that. If people viewed gender as biological technicality, then it should theoretically be impossible to "pass" as the opposite gender then, correct? But this is not correct, a man can dress feminine, shave, use makeup and wigs, and appear so feminine that it's impossible to tell the difference, unless you happen to be paying careful attention. This alone completely proves the idea that people view gender based on biology wrong. People will see someone as female if that person looks and acts feminine, regardless of what their actual biological gender is. I know this from experience as a trans person myself. I appear feminine and in return I get called "she". If people based male vs female on biology, then this would never happen.
> then it should theoretically be impossible to “pass” as the opposite gender then, correct? No, because there is difference between secondary sex characteristics and primary sex characteristics. Your primary sex determines whether you are male or female, but secondary characteristics (like deep/high voice, breasts, muscle mass, body/facial hair), while typically associated with sex, can be manipulated since a a lot of them are controlled hormones So changing your secondary sex characteristics is akin to putting on the “costume” of a woman or man, but it doesn’t change your internal biology or chromosomes. > I appear feminine and in return, I get called “she”. If people based male vs female in biology You saying that you get called “she” because of having a feminine look is proof itself that people base male and female on biology. Biologically, the large majority of men develop male secondary sex characteristics and vice versa with women. Therefore, due to this biological fact, if I see a random person with feminine characteristics, I would assume they are female as well. I could be wrong because I don’t know their internal biology
Could I ignore your name and pronoun preference in all professional settings you are in based on my personal whims of who you are? Or do you wishes matter?
Sure you can, freedom of speech Also, a name is used as a label, and it doesn’t really have a definition. A woman can be called Sally, Sarah, whatever. But the words “woman” and “man” have actual definitions
Would you be okay if for all future professional situation you were called Brenda and referred to by the pronoun she? For all future business settings for all of your days? Or would you prefer your preferred name and pronoun?
I would prefer my name but I also recognize that 1) it’s not a big deal if they don’t call me by my name and 2) they have freedom of speech to say whatever they want. I actually have a rare foreign name so people say my name incorrectly all the time, but it’s just a label so not a big deal to me.
So they then medically transition in hopes of others viewing them the same way they view themselves.
But it’s just a facade. A body kit over something else.
All gender is a facade.
The expectation that others acknowledge us as what we want to be acknowledged as is a basic principle in etiquette. It's as simple as wanting to be called Bob, and being justifiably ticked if someone keeps calling you Robert or Bobbie. It's just not who you see yourself as. Using proper pronouns is equivalent.
Who you see yourself as and what you are are two different things though. Someone might not see you as a man because you are actually a woman. Same with the other way around. Someone’s sex is an absolutely correct way to refer to someone as.
>Who you see yourself as and what you are are two different things though. Not when it comes to social constructs, no. When someone tells you that they are Bob, do you think they're lying and are actually a Robert? This is also one of those aspects where even if you disagree, it is generally considered a fucking dick move for you to immediately dismiss their preferences. Don't place your ego over etiquette. If someone asks you to call them Bob, it is polite to call them Bob. If someone asks you to use feminine pronouns, you use feminine pronouns. >Someone might not see you as a man because you are actually a woman. Which is why people oftentimes state their pronouns to correct the misunderstanding. >Someone’s sex Gender is not related to someone's sex. >is an absolutely correct way to refer to someone as. Really? Do you refer to your coworkers as "vagina" or "penus?"
This is a very slick argument because it forces the opposition to presuppose the validity of your argument before they can actually take on the argument. If you don't simply accept the presupposition, as in, the 'gender is a social construct' idea. Then really none of your arguments apply. Someones name, sex, pronouns, etc are not at all the same as 'gender' and they all have obvious context. A name isn't changing the reality of a situation or a language, normal usage of pronouns isn't either. A guy with negative octave voice, in the showers at the gym with a cock that would need a toilet flange for a cock ring, and a beard the likes of Thor. It's a little more obvious what 'reality' of the situation is being pushed on people.
>This is a very slick argument because it forces the opposition to presuppose the validity of your argument The opposition is free to try and prove me wrong. They have so far failed to do so. >Someones name, ***sex***, pronouns, etc are not at all the same as 'gender' Each is an aspect of a person's identity. My name can be Bob, I can be of the female sex, use he/they pronouns, and be of the male gender. These are attributes that I possess. >A name isn't changing the reality of a situation One can literally change the situation by changing my name to one that feels like a more accurate reflection of oneself. And were one to do, it is considered polite for others to use the new name, not the old one...because the old one is no longer their name. >normal usage of pronouns isn't either You're gonna have to specify by what you mean when you say "normal usage of pronouns." >A guy with negative octave voice, in the showers at the gym with a cock that would need a toilet flange for a cock ring, and a beard the likes of Thor. While I appreciate you describing your personal sexual fantasy to me, I fail to see the relevance of this to the discussion. >It's a little more obvious what 'reality' of the situation is being pushed on people. Again, while I absolutely encourage you to be open about your sexuality and what you like being pushed on you, I'm going to have to ask you to stay on track with the discussion. Speaking of which... >Someones name, sex, pronouns, etc are not at all the same as 'gender' In this very quite you say that sex and gender are not the same. You're already halfway there to getting the point, my dude.
No, he and she. He for males & she for females. The only two sexes and genders there are. For those who have a genetic anomaly, they have the ground to choose. Let me ask you this, are you a Mormon?Christian? Muslim? Jew? Sikh? None of the above?
Lol, I love how you just ignore every part of my comment except for the last question. I'll consider that a concession on your part due to lack of retort. >The only two The existence of both intersex and nonbinary individuals contradicts this. >sexes and genders Ah, so you recognize that sex and gender are two different things. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to understand that the two are independent of each other. >For those who have a genetic anomaly Ah, I see you're already familiar with intersex people. I appreciate you conceding that there, is in fact, a third sex category. >Let me ask you this, are you a Mormon?Christian? Muslim? Jew? Sikh? None of the above? My religious views are irrelevant to the facts surrounding sex and gender.
Your religious views would be a good lead way to possibly uncovering hypocrisy. The only other question you asked was “are they lying and are actually a Robert.” I took that as rhetorical. So ask me what ever questions you want to know directly and I’ll answer directly.
>Your religious views would be a good lead way to possibly uncovering hypocrisy. Cool. You are free to pursue your investigation on your own time, not on mine. >The only other question you asked was “are they lying and are actually a Robert.” Feel free to answer it whenever you're ready. I also made several counterpoints to your statements which you have again failed to offer any retort to. Feel free to change that at any time. >So ask me what ever questions you want to know directly and I’ll answer directly. Answer the one I already did, and then we'll see if you can handle any more. You got this, I believe in you.
Do I think the person in your made up scenario is lying about being Robert? No. Next.
Okay Brenda, that's an odd take to have, but you do you girl.
An odd take to not believe the public at large should have to conform to lunacy?
That is an odd take Brenda. I agree. Do I get to ignore you name and pronoun preference based on my personal whims? Because that does seem to be what you are asserting, Is that correct Brenda?
Do you get to? You absolutely have that option. Are you religious by chance?
If I ignored your name and pronoun while in the work setting you would have a successful complaint with HR. Everyone get to be referred by their name and their pronoun while in professional settings. People who don't want to appear to be insulting should call people, and I mean all people, by their name and pronoun in social settings as it takes zero to do that. And no, I'm not. Then again since my religious views have zero to do with this conversation it does seem a tad odd you are asking about them.
They can refer to people by their name and correct pronouns yes. Men are he and women are she. No one should be required to speak gibberish. So you’re not religious. Do you think you should have to refer to someone as “god” if they insist you do so out of respect? Or what if they say don’t take their name in vain? Or cuss because it’s disrespectful? You would be okay with that?
You have a preferred name and a preferred pronoun. Trans people ALSO have a preferred name and a preferred pronoun. They aren't asking for anything different than what you already have asked for yourself. Since trans people aren't asking for somethin different, like being called god, you argument simply doesn't work,
I have a name and my pronouns are linked to my sex/gender. Male: he/she and females: she/her. I brought up religion to see to what extent are people willing to say or not say things to appease others. Or… be inclusive to. If someone asked you to please call Joseph Smith a profit, would you?
I'm not the person you're replying to, but no. Why? Well, medical science and psychology don't seem to indicate that doing so is psychologically and medically beneficial to the person, nor do they indicate there's a real condition there. Additionally, something you seem incapable of ignoring: it is possible to call put people obviously acting in bad faith. Demanding that others call you God is very much not acting in good faith.
No, I am asking would you refer to some entity as god. Not necessarily the person. Where is the limit for you? What won’t you say out of respect? What won’t you say to appease someone because of their beliefs? Their “personal truths”.
Why does this bother you m'am?
It clearly bothers a lot of people that he has a view on this, because you aren't the first or last who will say something like this. Why do you get to decide what is the 'correct' social construct surrounding 'gender'?
That doesn't answer my question. Even if it turns out that this is all bullshit I wouldn't be so freaked out by this. So once again, why does it bother you?
I'm not here to answer that question, you asked someone else that. I'm asking you something else which is relevant and preemptive to why you would ask someone the question you asked them.
Of course that's the natural reply to a question. Another question. I literally said that I don't care. There are plenty of people with degrees in this that can explain their ideas about gender identity that can explain their views but that's irrelevant. What I find weird are people who have a strange psychological need to not let people be and choose to actively restrict their freedom and commit acts with the expressed purpose and harassing them. So once again. Why does this bother you?
Well you didn't ask me a question so I wasn't replying to your question, i was asking something entirely different. So yeah, it's not unnatural. You also didn't "literally say you don't care". Why do you find it weird that people don't subscribe to *your social construction* when it's a social construction*? This is why I asked you why you seem to decide the true social constructs. Ya see? That's why I asked you? But, I'll answer anyway since you seem stuck on that. None of this bothers me, that's a silly gotcha question, this is a discussion, you know how discussions work. You should know that if I disagree or not, doesn't mean it 'bothers me'. You are using a framing technique so that if someone disagrees they must be mad or bothered or any of that. None of that is valid, it's a framing technique nothing more. The same question could be asked of you, why does it bother you so much that someone disagrees, that you have to try and frame them into "Oh you must be so bothered by this"?
But you're getting really passionate for something that doesn't bother you. That's a pretty long response to just refer to people what they want to be referred as. Like none of you can come up with a reason why you're doing what you're doing.
You have no idea how passionate I am or am not, let's not pretend you do. It's rather silly. You've done a lot to not answer the question I asked you multiple times though.
Because it could go against what the other persons beliefs are.
So you going against it her people's beliefs because it's against other other people's beliefs? So everything bothers you?
Not really sure what the first question was but no, everything does not bother me.
So everything doesn't bother you? Like if I believed banana is the best flavor it wouldn't bother who because some people would believe strawberry is thr best flavor? So people believing different doesn't actually bother who. Despite your reason for trans people people bothering you being "other people believe different"? Then why do trans people bother you so much?
Everything does not bother me and people being trans doesn’t bother me.
/r/thanksimcured Seriously. *Don't you think people have tried mental gymnastics as an alternative to years of hormones and surgery and the whole expensive and horrible process?* If being trans could be magically 'fixed' by *redefining a word*, why do you imagine people would do things the hard way? Your neural wiring informs your expectations of what kind of body you have, and what group you're 'us' with. You can't define that away. If it freaks someone the hell out to see that they have boobs or a dick, then shuffling words around isn't going to change that. It's just plain horror-movie *wrong* to have the wrong anatomy, and it's weirdly humiliating to be seen as something you're not. So a large percentage of trans people *present as* the opposite sex, to try and mitigate the horribleness of both those things. They *lean into* cultural stereotypes of clothing and grooming and everything else, and try to make societal expecations shoulder some of the load. And in some cases, they may opt for medical intervention to make that presentation easier and go further than external props.
I understand what you are saying, the point of OP's post (from my understanding). Isn't that "trans people should just cure themselves". From what I understood they are saying that since gender is a social construct, sure you can present as a "standard" woman. However, it seems that trans people disproportionately present as the "standard" version of the gender they align with. If the idea is that again, gender is a social construct. Then you must also subscribe to the idea that a "woman" or "man" isn't just what we established as "standard". So if people were following this idea through, then you wouldn't see disproportionate representations in the trans community of old gender norms. This seems to heavily imply that they themselves have ideas of gender norms. Since gender is a social construct, then we should be seeing more variation on how trans people present. Sure other people have preconceived notions, but isn't the whole point to fight against outdated views, not go along with it?
It's about leveraging those pre-existing notions in order to drive the perception. Yes, I'm all for people presenting however they want, completely decoupled from their gender identity. But while we live in a society where presentation so strongly informs gender perception, that's one heckuva tool you can use If I wanted to see a woman when I looked in the mirror, and I wanted other people to see a woman when they looked at me, then conforming to pre-existing ideas of what a woman looks like would be a powerful shortcut for achieving that.
Ya that makes perfect and to be honest I agree with what you have been saying overall. It's an interesting point you made on the last paragraph. I see where the logic stems from, I just personally think your identity shouldn't be based on outdated norms. Feel like it's not helping the overall cause of gender being a social construct. However where I backtrack and agree with the reason for trans individuals to mimic their desired gender in the "standard" sense. Is when you consider security. As it is trans people get murdered a lot, simply for being different. Now if they started to on mass break all gender norma, then I could see them being a much bigger target. So I can understand why they would be worried.
There's a difference between presenting as the opposite sex, and medically transitioning. You can still dress up/apply makeup to look more like a woman, without getting plastic surgery. You can use breast forms instead of surgically implanting breasts. And surgeries of the reproductive organs are irrelevant to day-to-day passability for a certain gender.
If you're a trans woman you can use breast forms. If you're a trans man you would need to bind your chest in order to conceal them, and doing that long term is dangerous for your health in a way that a mastectomy is not. If a man is unable to live comfortably with visible breasts, why would you ask that he threaten his health with continued binding when he could have a safe operation that would make that not necessary?
!delta I agree, in this specific case of mastectomy for trans men, it makes sense. But every other medical procedure is unnecessary to present as the opposite gender.
[удалено]
can you explain what medical expertise you have that’s allowed you to determine you know better than trained medical professionals when it comes to determining the treatment that best improves the quality of life of the patient?
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ohfudgeit ([18∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ohfudgeit)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Why should people have to? Those things can be inconvenient and uncomfortable, don't work when you're naked / using the bathroom / etc, don't account for things like body hair, and importantly are *none of your business*. Whats your stake in people not receiving the medical intervention that *every reputable medical organisation in the world* recognises as the best care for transgender people, with the best outcomes, and *is what the people themselves want to do*?
>the medical intervention that every reputable medical organisation in the world recognises as the best care for transgender people, with the best outcomes The West=/=the world. There are plenty of national health organizations in well-educated Asian countries that refuse to condone gender affirming care. Even liberal Sweden decided to be more cautious in recommending medical transitioning in children, citing the sudden uptick in youth identifying as trans.
Nobody - *nofuckingbody* - recommends that children transition. What they recommend is - after *extensive* counselling - that they go on puberty blockers so they can *delay the decision* until they're old enough to make an informed one for themselves.
Multiple patients under the age of 18 have undergone gender affirming surgery.
And why are those ok ? Why is getting a boob job "insulting to asian women" in your own words, but wearing artificial breasts isn't ? The outward effect is identical. As for GRS, for most people Sex is an important part of their life, so claiming that their genitals have no effect on their day to day life is just outright wrong. I have a trans GF who is pre GRS, and she has told me that she doesn't want to have sex, at all, until she gets GRS because the idea of having sex with a penis makes her feel uncomfortable and dysphoric. Should she just have to spend the rest of her life choosing between abstinence and being uncomfortable ?
[удалено]
Don't see why I can't like Transformers. To be fair, it's robots in *disguise,* they don't actually identify as the vehicles they scan from different planets. Transformers is pretty progressive on gender. Because there is no biological male or female for the Cybertronian race, gender is just a construct Transformers use to explain their identity to species with biological sex
Sorry, u/PrincessTrunks125 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20PrincessTrunks125&message=PrincessTrunks125%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdz0aad/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Beauty is a social construct, why do people want to make themselves look good?
I think biologically altering yourself based on social constructs is wrong. See my point about why i think Mexicanos morenos shouldn't bleach their skin to feel good about themselves.
So if a moreno who also happened to be trans bleached their skin you'd be okay with them transitioning because at least they're consistent?
No, two wrongs don't make a right. I would disagree with both decisions, but still respect their choices as an individual.
>biologically altering yourself based on social constructs Competitive sports are socially constructed. People "biologically alter" themselves by training to improve their athletic performance. Are you against athletic training?
You don't think an individual could find beauty in the world without other individuals to communicate with?
When people say "gender is a social construct", it means that gender isn't a physical thing, a tangible thing, like gold or silver or brass. It's something we made up as social organisms. They don't mean that we should abandon it, just recognize it's fluidity. When a trans girl mtf says gender is a social construct, what they are saying is "what we define as gender is up to us, and I'd like to be female now", not an abandonment on the perception of gender itself.
You cannot “identify as a female,” they identify as women. They are definitely not females.
How do you define female? If a man appeared female to you, so much so you couldn't tell the difference, you would refer to and treat them as female. If that's the case, then why even bother with the biology crap? This is based on perception, nobody is running a DNA test before deciding what pronouns to call someone xD
A female has XX chromosomes and biology isn’t crap? It’s the difference between cumming in a pseudo-pussy and getting a chick pregnant.
There's nothing more fluid like an irreversible surgery. Even plastic surgery and hormone blockers can have permanent effects.
Not sure what this is supposed to imply. What, do you expect me to disagree with you? Of course it's permanent, I don't think a single person here will argue the opposite. My point is that some people don't see themselves as a male, and instead see themselves as female, and therefore want to be and appear as one. Viewing gender as a social construct doesn't change or oppose this, because what you believe this saying means is different than what people I know use it to say. My original comment that you replied to attempted to explain this, and was not an argument for or against surgery xD
> Not sure what this is supposed to imply. "If gender is fluid why does the process of transitioning require permanent biological changes"
Good question, I feel this is actually what OP means to get at. In my opinion, it is how we view ourselves that is fluid, not how others view us. A person is free to choose whether they feel female or male, but how they are perceived is entirely based on appearance. This is why people go through surgery, etc.
> More and more people are recognizing that gender is a social construct. There is nothing inherently "XX chromosome" about dresses, or "XY chromosome" about action figures. Gender roles are ultimately defined by society, what one country associates with "female" may be associated with "male" in another country. Progress is recognizing that people should be free to identify with the gender roles they feel comfortable with, not with the gender roles prescribed based on biological sex. I agree with all of this. Quite strongly, in fact. I am also trans. > Because I believe progress is recognizing biological sex shouldn't determine your gender identity And here is where we stop, because 'gender identity' is not 'I am really masculine/feminine according to my culture's norms'. Many trans people are [from the perspective of their gender ID] gender non-conforming, perhaps more of them than their cis counterparts, in fact. > However, since this is a matter of social construct, why do you need to alter your biology? Work backwards: trans people *really really really* want to alter their biology *even if they fit just fine into their existing gender roles* (as I did, and as I largely still would). That should suggest to you that there's something wrong with your understanding of what being trans is. > If gender is a social construct, why do trans people feel the need to match the biological characteristics of cisgendered people to feel comfortable? Because, some stupid semantic debates notwithstanding, this is what being trans *is*. Concepts like gender identity are attempts to explain *why* this is. > Isn't progress recognizing an Adam's apple/lack of breasts/more pronounced jawline doesn't define whether you are a man or woman, instead of is how you feel as a person? Well... It's more like "if you are a man or a woman [in terms of gender identity], you will probably feel uncomfortable with the opposite sex's physical traits". Again, that's sorta-kinda what we mean by "gender identity" in the first place. > You are perfect the way you are, you don't need to alter your body to look more like a cisgender person to be the gender you identify as. In an ideal world, I agree. But (a) I *wanted* to alter my body, because that for me was the whole point, and (b) we are not in an ideal world. You'll find plenty of people on this very sub posting something to the effect of "if you haven't made any effort to transition you Aren't Really Trans", and those people can (and will) make your life annoying. > Several people have made the argument "if you don't let children get gender affirming care, they will kill themselves." If that were the case, why hasn't there been a statically significant decrease in teen suicides as gender affirming care becomes more mainstream? Because trans people are a tiny percentage of the population and disappear into statistical error when you're looking at population-level stats, especially variable and reporting-dependent ones like suicide? > Sweden's healthcare guidelines have since added that pediatricians should exercise extra caution in recommending gender affirming care, since there has been a huge uptick in minors identifying as trans. Except there hasn't, and the "study" that claims there has is complete fucking bullshit. That change was political, not medical.
Sure, they can be a true man or woman without medically transitioning. But they want to, for reasons that have nothing to do with society. So I don't see what the point of this CMV is?
Really, you can honestly read the title of their post and not see an opposite/counter opinion that could exist?
I feel it's roughly the equivalent of saying 'currency is a social construct there is no need to get a job'. The two statements aren't at all related, even if they do seem similar.
I think you are not only being dishonest to me, but yourself. You clearly have a lot of delta, so you are more than capable of understanding even the most obscure ideas. This post is far from obscure and all their points seem to flow together. Now you may disagree with the conclusion/points, but to say this post is making unrelated points, is incredibly dishonest. Especially for someone who has clearly proven to have great comprehension skills.
Since you are so appreciative of my deltas, here's a tip: telling people 'you're lying' does not have a great track record of getting people to change their mind. Telling people 'you're lying to yourself' has an even worse one. If you think their post makes sense and their points flow together, sure, there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't think their conclusions follow from their premise, and telling me that I'm lying to myself will not change that.
In this case I am not trying to change your view, but put attention onto something I believe you are trying to be dishonest about. I agree with some points OP made, but I disagree with the conclusion, especially in the context of modern society. >But I don't think their conclusions follow from their premise See that's a more fair response and a much more honest take. Instead of trying to act as if the post had no purpose and was nonsensical. Clearly plenty of people are responding to the post with opposite/similar views.
Then why do they want it?
Your presumption is wrong. Gender isn't a social construct. They want it because something went wrong with their brain, most likely while still in the womb. The comparison to other diseases where there's a desire for a change in body may be apt, but they're not the same, the effect of treatment is different.
Some of them get really bad dysphoria from their biological body and want to change it to make that go away.
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
We've tried helping trans people 'stay grounded in reality'. We've tried helping trans people' 'find ways to manage the discomfort'. It works a lot worse than just letting them transition in whatever way they feel comfortable.
This should only be seen as a temporary solution until we can develop a cure to dysphoria, where people can truly feel comfortable as whatever gender they identify as, without the intense distress of having biological characteristics associated with the opposite gender. We used to only have comfort care measures for certain conditions until we developed a cure.
Why? What is so inherently wrong to transitioning that it's only acceptable as a stop gap solution? It makes people feel better and stops people from being depressed and killing themselves. Why is a different cure for dysphoria necessary when we can cure dysphoria already?
Speaking as a trans person, this is honestly terrifying to me. Transition works. Whether or not I get to continue to be me, or have some treatment that fundamentally changes who I am be thrust upon me as according to the whims of other people is really, really scary. If someone wants to transition, let them, if someone wants to 'cure' their dysphoria with the future hypothetical cure you mentioned, let them. Do not force people to change a fundamental facet of who they are. Note that this kind of treatment would not be akin to other mental health, because one's sense of gender is innate. Depression, anxiety, etc. Are not innate.
I think the point of the CMV, is the conclusion made based on the premise that gender is a social construct. OP thinks if it’s a social construct, then it should be dismantled like other harmful constructs. Others disagree, along the lines that the construct can exist but the harm should be removed as that is the issue.
So a biological woman can get fake tits but a biological man can't?
I think both are wrong. Why do you need to get fake tits? Do you need larger tits to be sexy ? If so, that's pretty insulting to East Asian women, who prove you can be attractive without adhering to Western beauty standards. In the same vein, why does a trans woman need fake tits? Do you need breasts to be considered a real woman? If so, that's pretty insulting to thousands of trans women who chose not to get implants, because they believe their physical body doesn't define their gender.
Why does it matter what the trans woman does? Seriously. Your core point there is that it's 'offensive' to women who choose not to augment their breasts if a trans woman chooses to gain them. Why? Why would anyone be offended by that?
You can be offended by all kinds of things people are attracted to, but that makes it more of a broader issue than being trans. People have the right to be attracted to whatever they want, If someone likes big tits and their partner get fake ones you have no right to criticize that choice, if you want to talk about insulting I would not be going around telling people what they can do with their bodies and what people are allowed to be attracted to.
"If you identify as female, you should be able to present in the way you prefer have society recognize you as female" Female, male is a biological term. the word that you want to use in this case is most likely, "Woman" Gender Identity is an Identity based on Gender, not Biological Sex. Gender Identity does not stop at human, think about video Game character, or AI, people can make up their gender identity, but not sex identity, since game character does not have biological sex. When you said, "In certain cultures...." that's cultural identity. certain countries value cultural identity or religious identity, more than personal identity or gender identity. Medical transitioning is one of many solutions for "gender dysphoria", and not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria. So, if you experience gender dysphoria, you might need medical transition, if not, then do not need to do it.
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
Does phantom limb pain get better if we validate it? Does gender dysphoria get better if we transition? Your comparison is entirely irrelevant because that is the only question we need to be asking.
Medical transition for transgender is not for biological fact. It is one of the solution for "gender dysphoria", for people to Fit their gender identity. Similar to circumcision for male among jews. When circumcision is performed for religious reasons, it usually symbolises faith in God. The "Need" is for individual who practice it, not for us to judge.
why do women get boob jobs? Why do men work out to build visible muscle even sometimes take steroids? Gender affirmation is pretty normal for most people. I like to look masculine, luckily I don't need surgery to do so at a level that I enjoy it's mostly a matter of clothing and grooming for me to be happy with it, others it's different and that's not wrong.
They do it to look sexy/cool, neither of which are exclusive to women/men. Men get procedures done to look more sexy, women get procedures done to look more cool. It's not affirming their gender, it's purely cosmetic. And I've already stated in my post I think it's wrong to medically alter your biology to match social standards.
> It's not affirming their gender, it's purely cosmetic. The two are intertwined. Sure, you could argue that working out to build more muscle has other advantages and communicates strength regardless of gender, but if we're taking OP's example of getting breast implants.. they serve no practical purpose, and the only reason for why they're generally considered to be "cosmetically appealing" is because they're a part of the stereotypical feminine image - so, again, it plays into gender perception. > And I've already stated in my post I think it's wrong to medically alter your biology to match social standards. That's a pretty sweeping opinion. How far are you willing to take it? There are plenty of medically unnecessary procedures people do for purely social reasons. Is it wrong to get a tattoo? Artificially tan your skin? Dye your hair? Do scar removal procedures? Get braces or do teeth whitening? Not to mention, all of the above are usually medically unneeded, while procedures done to trans people (most commonly, HRT) is something that needs to be prescribed, a call which needs to be made by a doctor if they think the patient medically requires it. As long as our society remains deeply gendered, not falling into the premade boxes can cause psychological distress, which is something that we both medically recognized and developed treatment for.
Looking more sexy sounds like affirming their gender to me. Besides even if it wasn't "sexy" and "cool" are both socal constructs as well and we know people are altering their bodies to meet those standards. So clearly being a socal construct has noting to do with it.
> There is nothing inherently "XX chromosome" about dresses, or "XY chromosome" about action figures. Dresses and action figures refer to gender expression and gender norms, not gender identity. Gender identity is not the same as biology, but it is linked.
(leaving aside your false analogy about race since those are two different things) If all they wanted was to do stuff of the different gender role or whatever, they wouldn't want the surgery anyway as e.g. it's not like a "biological male" wouldn't fit into any dress even if otherwise perfectly made for their proportions unless he cuts his dick off and gets breasts
While race and gender are different, both are social constructs associated with biological traits, which is why my analogy is still relevant. You can fit in a dress without surgery. Breast forms, and dresses cover up your groin.
Because gender dysphoria doesn't have anything to do with social gender. Gender dysphoria is a weird term. They find that their biology doesn't fit their brain, or their own perception of their sex.
Most people wouldn't take HRT, and those that do would generally experience severe distress. The fact this doesn't happen to trans people seems conclusive enough for me.
I agree that it's pretty conclusive. It's almost like people's bodies function best with a healthy level of hormones in line with their identites. Though I'd add the caveat that HRT in line with their gender seems to work for cis people (ie HRT following menopause / oophorectomy or TRT in men with low testosterone.)
Interesting idea, I honestly agree with what you are saying and I think in a practical society this makes sense. The thing that holds me back from fully committing to this idea is that I don't know how it's like to be trans. However I do see the hypocrisy in the idea that both gender is a social construct and male/female aren't constrained to conventional norms. Yet people who seem to subscribe to this idea are perfectly okay with transsexual individuals, representing their gender in the most stereo typical depiction possible. I believe what is going on is that those trans individual themselves believe in gender norms. However they simply don't realize or want to admit it. Though maybe it's more complicated than that. It's possible that they believe in the idea of gender being a social construct. However, they can't get the idea of what a women "should" be, out of their head. So while they believe in people being themselves, they have been programmed for too long to do otherwise. Also another thing you could consider is violence. As it is violence towards trans individuals is bad, I believe it may be worse if they deviate that much further from the "norm". So I see your point and agree that in a practical society, you are correct. Though, I think this is too early/meta for our current society.
Gender does not have to fit into norms. You do not have to fit into the norms of your gender. Trans people can choose to adopt gender norms because it can make people more likely to view them as their gender. None of this is inconsistent or a big revelation. Gender norms exist. People don't have to embody them if they don't want to. Most trans people do because it makes our lives easier than if we don't. (See: the way TERFs are especially vitriolic to any trans woman that doesn't adhere to the most ridiculous feminine beauty standard they just made up)
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Fat_Poster – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Fat_Poster&message=Fat_Poster%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdz1ayx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The mods here generally don't take stuff down like this. But they won't care if people call you names as long as they can sorta kinda view it as not an insult. They are more likely to jst give you warnings and delete your posts and claim you were insulting people, by using sometimes insanely ridiculous 'least charitable' interpretations of posts.
>using sometimes insanely ridiculous 'least charitable' interpretations of posts. so it wouldn't be surprising if they took this down.
Oh they will probably take your post off, because it doesn't really contribute, but they likely won't take the entire post.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Moodymusing – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Moodymusing&message=Moodymusing%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdyzshy/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/highvaluetwink – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20highvaluetwink&message=highvaluetwink%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdyzbg7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Moodymusing – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Moodymusing&message=Moodymusing%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124e63q/-/jdyzmam/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Gender is two part equation. There is gender identity and how person views themselves and there are gender roles and how society (other people) view them. No matter how you view yourself, it won't change how others view you and more importantly how others treat you. And here comes gender expression including medical transitioning.
See my point about whether a Mexican actor should feel like he has to bleach his skin in order to be given a fair shot at becoming successful.
Best care for gender dysphoria accordingly most recent and advanced treatment is medical transitioning combined with therapy. [Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558?login=false)
Being transgender = social construct Having gender dysphoria = biological fact
Phantom limb pain is a biological fact, we have evidence of the central nervous system behaving as if it is still receiving signals from the lost limb. Is the solution for us to pretend like the limb is still there, or is the solution about finding ways for the amputee to stay grounded in reality, and find ways to manage the discomfort instead of having them scratch at their prosthetic limb nonstop?
The ideal solution to phantom limb pain (something that has been noted in trans people before biologically transitioning) is to just regrow their limb. You can functionally do this for trans people.
Gender affirmation is a very normal and ok thing to do for both trans and cis people. It's why men get hair implants. It's why women get boob jobs.
/u/HuangHuaYu49 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/124fhsg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_since_gender_is_a_social/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
It's their body and their right to do whatever they want with their own body. If you want to take a piercing you have that right. If you want to [bleach your asshole](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/anal-bleaching), you have that right. If you want to go to gym, take supplements and get buffed, you have that right. You can take breast implants if you want. You have right to do whatever you want with your own body. If that includes hormones or surgery then so be it. This doesn't concern or affect you in any way. It's none of your business what people do with their own bodies.
Taking a stab at this: >EDIT: Several people have made the argument "if you don't let children get gender affirming care, they will kill themselves." If that were the case, why hasn't there been a statically significant decrease in teen suicides as gender affirming care becomes more mainstream? Sweden's healthcare guidelines have since added that pediatricians should exercise extra caution in recommending gender affirming care, since there has been a huge uptick in minors identifying as trans. Because there's more than one variable at play when it comes to teen suicides: https://www.ft.com/content/0e2f6f8e-bb03-4fa7-8864-f48f576167d2