LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[SiuiS]

Oop. Wrong thread.

{ scrubbed }

[noparlpf]

It's from his "letter from Birmingham jail". Not sure if it's too political to post here considering it was just a few years ago and ancient historical politics are even sometimes problematic...

[golentan]

*sigh* I don't get it... What have I done wrong this time?

All I will say is the characterization of certain things as "unholy," or "holy" for that matter, is best not suited for here.

[SowZ]

This sounds like the beginning of a terrible idea. Prostate cancer is the only thing I can think off, and faking that would be difficult, since there's a simple blood test that can tell you whether you have it or not. And if you could fake the blood test (which might be possible), there's a biopsy and MR to pass as well. Even if you pass all that, you would probably not receive estrogen, since the side effects are too severe, and you are more likely to be offered radiation or surgery as first-line treatments. Although they may offer an orchiectomy (removal of testicles, which of course means no more androgens).

As a person whose father died of prostate cancer, I'm not well disposed to even the suspicion that someone is trying to trick hir way into receiving treatment for something quite different, thereby diverting resources from people who may die of cancer to someone who is who is somatically healthy. I hope I misread your intentions, and if I didn't I hope you reconsider.

SiuiS - are you saying that MLK's position is that unless I paralyze my mind and listen blindly to your strategic and tactical judgment of the situation, I am a worse enemy than the WBC? Because if that's his position, then my position is that he's full of ****. I think it's far more likely that the quote is moderated by other quotes elsewhere.

{ scrubbed }

I'm sorry your dad died of prostrate cancer. Mine died of bile duct. That doesn't mean I resent Transexuals getting a sex change because I wish that money had been spent on cancer research. That's a fairly spiteful way of looking at medicine and insurance providers if I am reading you right. Unless you are just talking about people lying about conditions rather than upset that insurance companies cover SRS.

{ scrubbed }

All I will say is the characterization of certain things as "unholy," or "holy" for that matter, is best not suited for here.

It was clearly said in jest.

It's from his "letter from Birmingham jail". Not sure if it's too political to post here considering it was just a few years ago and ancient historical politics are even sometimes problematic...

{ scrubbed }

[golentan]

Clearly to you. In light of how often it's happened completely unironically, I tend to take zurvan's condemnations of LGBT matters at face value.

[SowZ]

Clearly to you. In light of how often it's happened completely unironically, I tend to take zurvan's condemnations of LGBT matters at face value.

Zurvan was saying he was crushing on one of the other acolytes and the other acolyte was male. I assumed that Z was using self-deprecating humor about his crush on said acolyte as opposed to sincerely condemning his own feelings. I could be wrong about his intentions or the context of the story, I suppose. The unholy thoughts thing I read as more talking about sexual thoughts during church in general as opposed to specifically talking about homosexual thoughts. That was just my reading, however.

[Mono Vertigo]

Hey there, the last couple pages contain quite a few posts that might dwell a little too into political and religious matters, so I suggest we turn to less charged topics.


@Mystic Muse and Asta Kask: not 100% what the point of the original question is, but if that's what we thought it is, it's not a good idea. Even if the medication might be identical for both conditions, the dosing might not be, and following (broadly) the principle that the dosing is what makes the poison, you might get in trouble (or at least not the results you're seeking).
I've said it a lot already, but I'll say it again: you're better off asking a health professional. If not IRL, do it somewhere on the Internet that allows it.
(And I'm not very hot personally on pretending to have a different disease/disorder than the one you actually have even if the intentions are very understandable. If I misunderstood the intentions, please accept my deepest apologies.)

[SiuiS]

I'm not interested in the actual letters of the man nor the actual civil rights movement. The quote was used because it addresses a similar context; the idea that supposed friends who are trying to protect their own interests as friends over the interests of the group they've friended are as bad or worse than open antagonists.

I point to the fact that an ally would completely shut down a line of conjecture because a technical point makes them look bad, and that it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Anarion]

I'm going to repeat a point I said earlier. There are different stages of debate and decision-making. When you're thinking and weighing options, that's a fine time for many opinions. Even hostile thoughts should be welcome at that time, imo because they help to understand the consequences of various decisions. That's the time for someone who claims to be an ally to urge caution, care, and moderation.

On the other hand, decisions can only be debated so long. Eventually, they are made. Whether they're individual ("I choose to come out") or group consensus ("the movement chooses to spend money on X thing"), there is a time when decisions must become action.

At that time, when options have already been weighed and action is happening, a person who claims to be an "ally" while opposing the action has ceased to be an ally. The person decrying the decision might still be right, keep in mind, they're simply no longer an ally.

[Zurvan]

Clearly to you. In light of how often it's happened completely unironically, I tend to take zurvan's condemnations of LGBT matters at face value.

Yeah in such position any kind of sexual thought is bad(and technically unholy) but after my past comments here I don't condemn your reaction.

Had to sing christmas songs today But one of them was Carol of the Bells

[SiuiS]

Had to sing christmas songs today But one of them was Carol of the Bells

I was going to ask for a moment, "how do you sing a carol of bells?" But then I remembered it's an actual song and one of my favorites

[Mystic Muse]

[For the record, it was basically entirely a question of curiosity. I have absolutely no intention of committing insurance fraud. I plan on getting HRT at some point in the near future , and have been debating what to tell my extended family is going on. I was basically lookimg for something else I could claim I have, but will avoid going that route and just see how many of them decide to cut me out entirely.

[Zurvan]

[For the record, it was basically entirely a question of curiosity. I have absolutely no intention of committing insurance fraud.

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds.

[SowZ]

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds.

It's why it's better to give people the benefit of the doubt without knowing the details.

[Mystic Muse]

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds.

Look, I'm sorry that this came across as trying to trick an insurance company. That wasn't my intention at all.

[Coidzor]

I was going to ask for a moment, "how do you sing a carol of bells?" But then I remembered it's an actual song and one of my favorites

I too think of this whenever someone mentions it.

[Kesnit]

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds.

Except Mystic Muse did get accused of planning insurance fraud on the last page...

[Anarion]

Look, I'm sorry that this came across as trying to trick an insurance company. That wasn't my intention at all.

It's probably better to be honest with family members anyway. If you make something up, all it takes is one person to do a little research into it and find some inconsistency, then they'll tell everyone else and they'll be more upset at you for lying than for what you're actually doing.

[Mystic Muse]

It's probably better to be honest with family members anyway. If you make something up, all it takes is one person to do a little research into it and find some inconsistency, then they'll tell everyone else and they'll be more upset at you for lying than for what you're actually doing.

Depending on the family member in question, that might not be the case at all, sadly.

[Asta Kask]

Or are you talking about someone faking a different disease in order to get their SRS done? If so, I don't see any indication of that in the previous poster at all. The question was asked about other conditions, but it didn't sound like an implication of faking said conditions to me at all. I think you are assuming the worst in someone without a good reason. But maybe I'm just really naive and am reading it with too nice a lens, I don't know.

It sounded like that to me, and there has been a tendency in the LGBTA support thread to think of doctors as antagonists, not as people who try to do their jobs. For instance, there was a person who had a potentially lethal condition that could be worsened by hormone treatment. The GP wanted to postpone treatment until a specialist had been consulted, and the person was understandably distraught and said this in the support thread. Most people there agreed that the doctor was indeed a mean meany-head and that this was an example of gatekeeping. That's an easy position to take if you don't have to face the possibility that your actions killed a patient. My parents were doctors and believe me, that's not something you just shrug off.

Did Mystic Muse imply that ze was going to fake a condition? I'm not the only one who thought that, and since there is a market for gender-changing rings at eBay, and people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet, it seems to me that there's a great deal of desperation in the trans community. I understand that desperation. I am not a stranger to mental agony. I still do not think that viewing doctors as antagonists or incompetents is a good idea.

However, I agree that I overreacted and I will apologize to Mystic_Muse.

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

I'm not interested in the actual letters of the man nor the actual civil rights movement. The quote was used because it addresses a similar context; the idea that supposed friends who are trying to protect their own interests as friends over the interests of the group they've friended are as bad or worse than open antagonists.

How do you know they are trying to protect their own interests, and aren't motivated by genuine concern? Are you a mind-reader?

{ scrubbed }

[For the record, it was basically entirely a question of curiosity. I have absolutely no intention of committing insurance fraud. I plan on getting HRT at some point in the near future , and have been debating what to tell my extended family is going on. I was basically lookimg for something else I could claim I have, but will avoid going that route and just see how many of them decide to cut me out entirely.

And I agree that I overreacted, and I am sorry about that. Prostate cancer seems to be main indication for men, breast cancer for women.

I am sorry that I caused this kerfuffle. Those of you who read the Random Banter thread know that I have been under a lot of pressure lately. Sometimes I crack. That is not an excuse, but it is an explanation.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm sorry that I posted vaguely enough that it came across that I was going to commit insurance fraud. It was honestly just curiosity combined with me wondering if there's anything I could BS my extended family into believing I had. Since there's not, that plan is getting abandoned.

This really should be so much easier and simpler than it's going to be.

Good thing I live a couple hundred miles away from most of them now, so even if there is a problem...

[Asta Kask]

I'm sorry that I posted vaguely enough that it came across that I was going to commit insurance fraud. It was honestly just curiosity combined with me wondering if there's anything I could BS my extended family into believing I had. Since there's not, that plan is getting abandoned.

The only other thing I can think of off-hand is dopamine antagonists, which can cause lactation and breast growth (I assume here you are MtF - if you are not then I apologize). Risperidone in particular is notorious for this, and it can be prescribed for anxiety or irritability in autistic children (or schizophrenia, but you may not want to say you have that). It would probably not be a first-hand treatment, but if you've tried many of the conventional drugs, and say that you are afraid of benzo because you feel you may get addicted... it would probably fly for a casual net inspection.

[SowZ]

It sounded like that to me, and there has been a tendency in the LGBTA support thread to think of doctors as antagonists, not as people who try to do their jobs. For instance, there was a person who had a potentially lethal condition that could be worsened by hormone treatment. The GP wanted to postpone treatment until a specialist had been consulted, and the person was understandably distraught and said this in the support thread. Most people there agreed that the doctor was indeed a mean meany-head and that this was an example of gatekeeping. That's an easy position to take if you don't have to face the possibility that your actions killed a patient. My parents were doctors and believe me, that's not something you just shrug off.

Did Mystic Muse imply that ze was going to fake a condition? I'm not the only one who thought that, and since there is a market for gender-changing rings at eBay, and people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet, it seems to me that there's a great deal of desperation in the trans community. I understand that desperation. I am not a stranger to mental agony. I still do not think that viewing doctors as antagonists or incompetents is a good idea.

However, I agree that I overreacted and I will apologize to Mystic_Muse.



First of all there's an interesting question here - what if these white people had been right? What if the controversial methods had triggered a race riot? They didn't, but we can see that with the benefit of hindsight. What about controversial methods like raping white women to strike at the man? The leader of the Black Panthers thought this was a good method in his youth. Could I criticize that? What about the controversy within the black community about what methods to use? If I'm not allowed to criticize the methods used, how do I determine what person to support?



Second: The Westboro Baptist Church was a bad example. There was a candidate for the US presidential elections in 2012 who thinks that homosexual behavior is incompatible with a stable, sound state. He thinks that gays do not have a right to privacy and that the anti-sodomy laws should be strengthened. There was a non-trivial risk that he would become "the most powerful man on Earth", i.e. President of These United States. Are you saying that if I disagree with, e.g., the "DIE CIS SCUM!" idiocy (surely a controversial, risky - and IMO bloody useless - method) I'm worse than that man? Explain that to me. Please. Explain to me how I and people like me are a greater threat to the LGBTA movement than a president who thinks marriage should be only between a man and a woman only is less of a threat than I am.

Third: The term you are looking for is pluralis majestatis. It is also called pluralis majestaticus and pluralis excellentiae. The general use of the term is called 'nosism'.



How do you know they are trying to protect their own interests, and aren't motivated by genuine concern? Are you a mind-reader?

To see if these fair-weather friends are worse than than the WBC - and this is the moment they should enter the stage - have yourself a thought experiment. You can snap your fingers and make every fair-weather ally in the US a fanatical member of the WBC. If you are correct in saying that these allies are worse than open antagonists, you should do it. It would, apparently, advance the cause of LGBTA people in the US. I don't think that's true. Do you?



And I agree that I overreacted, and I am sorry about that. Prostate cancer seems to be main indication for men, breast cancer for women.

I am sorry that I caused this kerfuffle. Those of you who read the Random Banter thread know that I have been under a lot of pressure lately. Sometimes I crack. That is not an excuse, but it is an explanation.

{ scrubbed }

[SiuiS]

First of all there's an interesting question here - what if these white people had been right? What if the controversial methods had triggered a race riot?

1. This isn't about race. If you can't keep it abstract enough to not be political, don't bring it up.
2. It doesn't matter if the people asking for moderation "were right". There is no "were right". There is going to be stress and strife, end of story, full stop; you are causing social upheaval. That's not going away. It still needed to be done, and the poor reaction of the people who are in power and trying to stomp out change is not the fault of the oppressed. "Look what you made me do" has never been a valid excuse.

They didn't, but we can see that with the benefit of hindsight. What about controversial methods like raping white women to strike at the man? The leader of the Black Panthers thought this was a good method in his youth.

What if a member of the PTA was once in prison?
What if my mailman once thought poor people should be euthanized?
Do we ban PTAs and never admit they had a valid purpose? Do we eliminate the mail service?

You're not criticizing methods used. You're attacking people for bringing up something abstract because one time one jerk got the concrete expression wrong. And you're being over the top villain about it.

Third: The term you are looking for is pluralis majestatis. It is also called pluralis majestaticus and pluralis excellentiae. The general use of the term is called 'nosism'.

The term is actually the general you, when using the pronoun as if speaking to an individual but addressing one side of a conceptual disagreement or conversation. The royal you is not the correct you.

How do you know they are trying to protect their own interests, and aren't motivated by genuine concern?

I know you're motivated by self interest because in response to saying 'this is an interesting concept' you accused me openly of promoting corrective and punitive rape, began telling people to be less active as activists because of that association, and responded to criticism by insisting my motivation was to have you martyr your children for some hypothetical gay agenda, throw up your hands and accuse me of being he unreasonable one. You actively shut down a conversation through guile, deceit, fast talking and rhetorical philibustering, declared yourself to be on the moral high ground, and stopped talking period to avoid discussion about what had happened and why it was wrong.

If an ally is my ally only when I say nice things and don't want to actively make the world a better place, they're not my ally. They're dead weight trying to keep me from moving using guilt and manipulation. And as for other allies and antagonists? I will continue doig what I always advocate doing; assess the situation based on it's unique merits and decide then, rather than following a rule that may not apply.

[Asta Kask]

*shrug*

You will always have my passive support, but apparently my help is not wanted. I may not be an ally, but I will always be a friend.

Good bye.

[SiuiS]

Your help is wanted, Anders. Baseless accusations, hyperbolic rhetoric, and shut downs to make a vague point is not help. It is not support. It is an attack.

That you would rather walk away indignant than critique your own methods is why I'm against having you critique someone else's so violently.

[Asta Kask]

Ok. Clarification time - your conditions for accepting my help are not compatible with my ideals about intellectual honesty. I think you are promoting a culture of groupthink and yes-mannishness (?). I would reserve the right to criticize idiotic ideas like "DIE CIS SCUM!"*. If that is not in keeping with your ideas for the movement then I cannot be an ally. If I have to accept that LGBTA people always know what is best for them, and are always above criticism then I must bow and take my leave.

*Incidentally, there were quite a number of trans people who agreed with me that this was a stupid idea. Do they also harm the movement? Are they also worse threats than a man with a non-trivial chance of becoming in 2012, who won the Iowa caucus and is running again in 2016? Because that attitude would risk setting some really nasty human emotions in motion. You may have to think about the term 'purge' in a non-trans context.

[Anarion]

Ok. Clarification time - your conditions for accepting my help are not compatible with my ideals about intellectual honesty. I think you are promoting a culture of groupthink and yes-mannishness (?). I would reserve the right to criticize idiotic ideas like "DIE CIS SCUM!"*. If that is not in keeping with your ideas for the movement then I cannot be an ally. If I have to accept that LGBTA people always know what is best for them, and are always above criticism then I must bow and take my leave.

*Incidentally, there were quite a number of trans people who agreed with me that this was a stupid idea. Do they also harm the movement? Are they also worse threats than a man with a non-trivial chance of becoming in 2012, who won the Iowa caucus and is running again in 2016? Because that attitude would risk setting some really nasty human emotions in motion. You may have to think about the term 'purge' in a non-trans context.

Good lord, the point is that questioning has a time and a place. If you do it in a safe space and have open discussion, it's fine. If you call someone out in the middle of a hostile environment, you are harming them. Use your head, and stop talking about intellectual honesty. Nobody is telling you not to think, they're telling you that being an ally means that sometimes what you think is best has to take a back seat to supporting people.

[Serpentine]

A clarification I think might help: when we talk about allies, are we talking about being an ally to a whole movement or concept (e.g. Civil rights, trans people should be treated with respect) or to a specific group or organisation (e.g. The black panthers, a specific trans person you disagree on something with? That is, is it possible to be an ally to the civil rights cause while not being an ally to the Black Panthers? To be an LGBT ally, do I have to stay silent if a trans person attacks a friend of mine for being cis or be cast out as the enemy?
There was an article a while ago that discussed this without drawing a distinction in the article itself, but when an argument flared up clarified in the comments that what she meant was that if you disagree strongly with what *she* said on a regular basis you should remove yourself as an ally to *her*, but that didn't mean you could no longer be an ally to the cause in general and/or to other sections of the movement. Do you also make this distinction?

[Anarion]

A clarification I think might help: when we talk about allies, are we talking about being an ally to a whole movement or concept (e.g. Civil rights, trans people should be treated with respect) or to a specific group or organisation (e.g. The black panthers, a specific trans person you disagree on something with? That is, is it possible to be an ally to the civil rights cause while not being an ally to the Black Panthers? To be an LGBT ally, do I have to stay silent if a trans person attacks a friend of mine for being cis or be cast out as the enemy?
There was an article a while ago that discussed this without drawing a distinction in the article itself, but when an argument flared up clarified in the comments that what she meant was that if you disagree strongly with what *she* said on a regular basis you should remove yourself as an ally to *her*, but that didn't mean you could no longer be an ally to the cause in general and/or to other sections of the movement. Do you also make this distinction?

I agree with you. I distinguish any person or group and I think one can be an ally or friend to some while not being to others, including helping a movement while antagonizing people in it or vice versa. I'm not sure which one we're talking about as a group though. The original question from a couple pages back was about being a general movement ally, so that maybe? But we've kinda shifted now.

Regardless, I think the mechanism is the same. Whether the collective decision of a movement or the individual decision of a person, there is a time for questioning and debate, and a time when a decision has been made, for better or for worse.