Peak Trans

ceadaoin. wrote: »

All I'm seeing here is gender stereotypes. These kids should be allowed to wear what they want and like what they want without being told that it's actually possible to literally change sex, because it isn't. Why can't it be ok for a boy to like sparkly princess dresses and for a girl to like karate and jeans without them having to "live as" the opposite gender? Sometimes my daughter wears a princess dress and sometimes a super Mario outfit, sometimes she plays with Barbie's and sometimes it's Lego. Some of these idiots would have her labelled as gender fluid when she is just a child who doesn't understand why some things are "for boys" and vice versa.

Studies have shown that gender non conformity as a child is a likely indicator that the child is gay, not transgender. If they are still convinced they are really another gender at 16+ then fine but if left to it without being set on the path of social transition and puberty blockers, they more than likely won't.

That is interesting. Do you have a link or 2 I can store away for a lazy Sunday morning with a coffee?

P_1 wrote: »

Again a very fair point. My world view would view forcing anything on another person who does not consent to that as being abusive. With advanced apologies for any presumptions made I'd imagine you would be of a similar mindset. A parent being supportive of their child if their child expresses a wish to explore their gender is fine, a parent forcing their male child to wear a dress so the parent can feel "woke" is not.

I'd say it depends entirely upon on context. There are numerous things I have done for my child without his consent, things he has been vehemently opposed to, like having to force him to wash himself, basic hygiene, have him do his homework, enrol him in activities which I know will help his personal development. Many, many ways in which I will force him to do things he doesn't want to do because as far as I'm concerned, my duty as a parent is to guide him, not have him simply guide himself, because he doesn't have the knowledge that I do or the maturity or the capacity yet to understand so much of the world and the things that I as his parent and as an adult understand to a much greater degree than he can at any given point in his development from childhood to adulthood. I would be more concerned with guiding him in exploring history, science, religion, geography, arts and literature and so on, rather than encouraging him to explore himself and his gender identity. I prefer that he would explore outwards rather than inwards so to speak. That way he understands the world around him, rather than expecting that the world should understand him, so to speak.

For example, he's an avid reader of David Walliams books, and Walliams first books was The Boy In The Dress. I'd recommend any parent should encourage their children read that book a lot sooner than I'd recommend any parent should encourage their children to read My Princess Boy. At least The Boy in the Dress is a fun read for both adults and children alike, and a lot easier to relate to real life experiences for children and adults than what I would consider a handbook written for narcissists. I can understand other people, whether they be parents or not would be of a different opinion.

Yes using the transphobia label was unfair to paint people asking valid questions was a bad call and my apologies for that. I'll make no apologies for painting those who used transphobic terms with it though.

I've never heard of the "transtender" term, must ask some of my friends about that. It strikes me as being somewhat similar to the biphobia that exists with some gay men and women.

Ah no to be fair I think there are times when it's a legitimate perspective of someone's opinion, but I don't think it does anyone any favours when these terms are thrown around so lightly. If something is transphobic, people will generally see it for what it is, but one of the things with throwing the label out there willy nilly is that the term itself loses it's barb, and then just isn't taken seriously as it once was.

Honestly I don't know will your friends have heard of it because it's still very much in the realms of bloggers, vloggers and social media 'influencers' like Kalvin Karrah, Miss London and so on. In opposition of course they are labelled with terms like truscum/transmed and a couple of other choice terms. Internet Infamy gives rise to some really awful people.

That is simply a byproduct of the circle I associate with. There is no malice intended in the use of the phrase "cis". We simply use it as an adjective. I can see how it can be problematic though given how it has become politicized the other side of the Atlantic.

Oh sure, and I do understand that some people use it with no intent to be malicious whatsoever, but it's been tainted by a minority of utter fcukwits and tbh I don't think anyone has any interest in "reclaiming" a word that originated in gender studies academics in the 70's. 'Cis' has legitimate use as an antonym of 'trans' in a medical and scientific context, not so much in a social context - cis and trans fatty acids for example, but that's generally not the context it's used in everyday conversation, or both sides bitching at each other is probably more accurate.

Now that is the $64,000 question. Genuinely I have no answer for it. All I can go by is what friends of mine who have gone through it have told me of their experience. No more, no less. Based on what they have told me I would lean towards the "letting the individual decide" side of the argument but I (or at least I'd like to think I can) see the valid questions those on the other side of it would have.

Oh sure, and that's one of the things your friends have now that they didn't have when they were children - experience. The other thing your friends have that they didn't have when they were children is they have a much greater understanding of the financial implications of their decisions for themselves and for others. You're probably aware already of the costs of transitioning, and their means are going to be a determinant factor in just how far they can go, and whether or not they can afford the necessary hormone treatments that they are required to be on for the rest of their lives. The other thing your friends may well be far more acutely aware of than when they were children are the health and social implications. Medical insurance doesn't, and won't cover everything, and that's if an adult is fortunate enough to be able to afford medical insurance in the first place. There's only so much of that a child will understand, because that's all they can understand, because they're a child and have no experience of adulthood, and that's why parents are there to guide them, rather than the parents allowing themselves to be guided by the child.

I'd be broke if I were to allow my child explore his love of all things that cost a small mortgage. He's got expensive taste, and he can explore his love of all things expensive when he's an adult and can afford to fund his own exploration himself! I'm guessing he won't nearly be quite so eager to explore anything when he has to fund it himself :pac:

As a final thought, I'd like to direct people's attention to who is funding the recent anti-trans movement and the sudden rise to prominence of TERF thinking. Spoller alert, it's the same American types who funded the No side of our two recent refernda. Just ask yourself these two questions, why are they funding this and if they're advocating for something is it all that great an idea to go along with it?

Both sides are two cheeks of the same arse really - one as politically motivated as the other. Politics isn't really my bag, identity politics even less so. I'm not interested in who's funding what, but rather I'm more interested in their ideas, as it's on that basis I'll determine whether or not their ideas are something I could support or not. There have been many times I've lent my support to ideas only to later regret supporting those ideas. That applies to any idea really - seemed like a good idea at the time, turned out later it was an awful idea, and if I can say that as an adult, I certainly wouldn't think children could ever possibly be in any position to make those kinds of decisions for themselves until they are adults and have some more experience of being an adult under their belts.

P_1 wrote: »

That is interesting. Do you have a link or 2 I can store away for a lazy Sunday morning with a coffee?

Sure


https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/whats-missing-from-the-conversation-about-transgender-kids.html

http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html?m=1

https://www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Steensma-2013_desistance-rates.pdf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cutting this to spare people on the phones the giant scrol

First of all you sound like a bloody awesome parent

I've asked about and they know of the term, bloody hell the twittersphere is a strange, strange place indeed. Though it has led me to lose a lot of respect I had for Graham Linehan.

The financial implications really do need to be more transparent. I'm unsure if the hormones needed are covered under the LTI scheme or not. If they aren't, will there be a backlash if they were introduced for example.

You have the right idea ignoring the politics behind it. I wish I had that idea, now all I have is a headache and a renewed sense for arguing!

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

And so it begins...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/barber-who-discriminated-against-transgender-man-by-refusing-give-him-short-back-and-sides-ordered-to-pay-him-5k-37157793.html

How can the barber be at fault here?

How do you mean? is there a difference between male and female hair that he couldnt have done it?

HappyAsLarE wrote:

How can the barber be at fault here?

I read that earlier, couldn't believe it, very dangerous precedent imo.
Seemed very innocent. They had a no female hair cutting agreement with a local salon and the incident occurred weeks before "he" started the hormone therapy.
Mad world altogether.

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

And so it begins...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/barber-who-discriminated-against-transgender-man-by-refusing-give-him-short-back-and-sides-ordered-to-pay-him-5k-37157793.html

How can the barber be at fault here?

I'm fine with it tbh. No such thing as male or female hair. Hair is hair.

If a man has long hair and goes into a hairdresser they wouldn't turn him (or his money!) away. But women who want a short back and sides often get turned away from a barbers. To me its irrelevant genderising of gender neutral stuff.

It's annoying for women who do want a simple male haircut to have to go and pay multiple times the price of what a barber charges for the same cut because a barber refuses to cut it.

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Fair point.

I guess the barbers would fear of what a woman would deem a good enough standard of hair cut.

Maybe, but a woman going in and saying short back and sides or asking for a number 2 all over is asking for the very same as a man, including the same standard. Now if she walked in asking for a blue rinse, wash and set, the barber had every right to send her up the road to the hairdressers, because it's a particular style that they might not be practised in, just like when all the 80's men got permed mullets, it was the hairdressers that had the training to do them..

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Except it wasn’t really a mistake was it...

Was about to say..

Whats the mistake

ceadaoin. wrote: »

People are usually pretty good at identifying what sex another person is, it's an inbuilt thing. This person was correctly identied as a female by the barber. It's hard to override those instincts and there may not have been any malice in it at all. I still think there's no reason not to cut their hair though if they are asking for a standard cut that the barber would be used to doing.

They have a deal with a local hairdresser not to cut women's hair..

The barber was new..

What was he supposed to do..