LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[Astrella]

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.

Because they CAN be. Doctors are people, people who have their own prejudices and bigotries. Trans people have literally died because medical professionals refused them help (Tyra Hunter), almost every trans friend I know (including myself) has been mistreated by medical professionals before, please do not blame us for being weary and careful around them.

[Kesnit]

The thing is, there IS an atmosphere of group-think and "yes-man-ishness" in a lot of organizations (including the support thread). I've kept my mouth shut on more than one occasion because it seemed I was the only one who wasn't going along with the prevailing attitude. I've also been accused of being insensitive when I have spoken up, if what I said went against group-think. And I'm a full-fledged member of the LGBTAI+ community - and have been a part of that community for longer than a lot of others (and longer than some people have been alive).

I'm not saying I'm always right. What I am saying is that speaking up and asking questions is not wrong, even in "safe space." Because there is a huge risk that "safe space" will become a synonym for "giant feedback loop."

Asta brought up "people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet," and he's right. When I first came out as trans, I was in an ftm group on LiveJournal. There was a lot of discussion there about compounding pharmacies that would sell t without all the hassle of going to a doctor and getting blood tests. It was even in the FAQ for the group. Now several years later, it turns out testosterone replacement therapy can cause serious medical issues - including death. (OK, it wasn't the t; it was the interaction of t and other medical issues. Separately, neither issue caused the complications. Together, they could kill.) Or to get personal, I found out after several years that taking a "normal" dose of t sends my testosterone levels sky-high (far above what is safe). My doctor put me on what is effectively a half-dose, which stabilized my numbers. Had I been self-medicating, I'd still be in the dangerous category since I was taking what everyone else takes. So would it be bad for someone to say "uh, you shouldn't be messing around with your body chemistry without checking with someone knowledgeable"?

Because they CAN be. Doctors are people, people who have their own prejudices and bigotries. Trans people have literally died because medical professionals refused them help (Tyra Hunter), almost every trans friend I know (including myself) has been mistreated by medical professionals before, please do not blame us for being weary and careful around them.

Then let me add one person to your list of trans people who have NOT been mistreated by medical professionals. I've been to 3 different doctors in 2 ciites specifically to get prescriptions for t. (When I started, I was going to a clinic that specializes in the LGBT community. I moved several years later and found a new doctor. Then I moved back, but my new insurance didn't cover the place I used to go, so had to find a new doctor.) I've been to hospitals and walk-in clinics in 2 cities for illness unrelated to being trans, but still acknowledged my trans status, and never had a bad experience.

I'm not saying no doctors are jerks about it. I am saying that lumping all doctors under "enemy" is starting from a wrong assumption. (And yes, I know you said doctors "CAN be," not "are." But the rest of your statement seems to say you assume all doctors will treat you badly.)

[Asta Kask]

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.

Which would work well if the LGBTA movement was a heterogenous, cohesive, well-defined, hierarchical organization with a chain of command and a clear way of making decisions and disseminating them. That is not the movement I see (nor is it one I particularly want to encounter). Within a day of me criticizing the "DIE CIS SCUM!" idiocy, I was told that I was a bad ally for this criticism. Apparently the movement is lightning-quick in making decisions (this was in a safe space and open discussion, by the way.)

And I have heard transgender* people criticize the movement for sacrificing transgender* interests in order to further LGB interests (the 'T'-gambit, if you will). Sounds to me that there are people you need to take by the ear and remind them that when a decision has been made, for better or for worse, the time for discussion and criticism is over.

Because they CAN be. Doctors are people, people who have their own prejudices and bigotries. Trans people have literally died because medical professionals refused them help (Tyra Hunter), almost every trans friend I know (including myself) has been mistreated by medical professionals before, please do not blame us for being weary and careful around them.

How many people have died because they resorted to quack treatments and bad supplements, or disregarded the very real danger of taking hormones without proper monitoring? Does this mean trans people can't trust each other? Yes, there are bad doctors - and the Dunning-Kruger is alive and well in the medical profession. The answer is not to treat doctors as glorified vending machines. I'm not saying all safeguards are motivated - the requirement to live for two years 'under the radar' before hormonal treatment can start seems particularly moronic - but as I said, I've seen a GP being heavily criticized for not wanting to prescribe medicines that might exacerbate an existing, life-threatening condition. The mere thought of consulting a specialist was anathema to the LGBTA thread. Am I allowed to criticize this, or is this another taboo subject?

*or possibly transgendered - call me when the movement reaches a decision on this critical point.

[Astrella]

*snip* (not in the mood for an argument)

[Jormengand]

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.

Nobody, and that means nobody, gay or straight, trans or cis, should ever be told to shut up on the basis of their sexuality or gender. Being an ally means that you say the best thing to help people, whether or not that's what they want to hear notwithstanding. What people want to hear can kill them.

Or did you ever wonder why "Die cis scum" ever was a stereotype of trans people in the first place?

[Zurvan]

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

I was being sarcastic.

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

I'm really sorry I wasn't paying attention.

[Asta Kask]

Or to get personal, I found out after several years that taking a "normal" dose of t sends my testosterone levels sky-high (far above what is safe). My doctor put me on what is effectively a half-dose, which stabilized my numbers. Had I been self-medicating, I'd still be in the dangerous category since I was taking what everyone else takes. So would it be bad for someone to say "uh, you shouldn't be messing around with your body chemistry without checking with someone knowledgeable"?

Drug interactions are not your friend.

In Sweden there are actually two additional layers of safety there - pharmacists are supposed to check the doctor's prescriptions against whatever other drugs the person is taking. And the computer is supposed to flash a red light if it detects a drug interaction. Or you can just skip that and buy crap on the Internet.

And of course, natural supplements can screw things up too. For instance, St. John's Wort sometimes increases the breakdown of many different drugs including estrogen and testosterone. So if you take St. John's Wort in the hope that it will cure your depression (it has some effect, but not as good as existing drugs and the possible side effects aren't funny), you may need to adjust your dose.

Another example of a relevant drug interaction is ketoconazole. That's an anti-androgen that may decrease the breakdown of estrogen and testosterone. Again, dose adjustments may be indicated - but regular measurements will be necessary to be sure. Otherwise you may end up with sky-high levels of hormones.

Learning is fun.

[Mono Vertigo]

[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.

Damn. Please accept my sincerest apologies, then.

To answer more directly your actual question: that's an interesting plan. Problem is, they will likely find out the truth sooner or later anyway, so you're going to have to measure the risks of lying to them and being exposed later.
(If you want to be a smartass, you might explain generically "I have hormonal problems". That is the truth, strictly speaking. Of course, that's not the whole truth and they might consider it the same as a straight lie...)

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.

That's a big part of the reason I made that (wrong) assumption, if explanations can make it better somehow. Sorry again.

[Anarion]

I'm a little bit concerned about this discussion, so I'm going to only respond narrowly to the points that were directly addressed to me.

Which would work well if the LGBTA movement was a heterogenous, cohesive, well-defined, hierarchical organization with a chain of command and a clear way of making decisions and disseminating them. That is not the movement I see (nor is it one I particularly want to encounter). Within a day of me criticizing the "DIE CIS SCUM!" idiocy, I was told that I was a bad ally for this criticism. Apparently the movement is lightning-quick in making decisions (this was in a safe space and open discussion, by the way.)

And I have heard transgender* people criticize the movement for sacrificing transgender* interests in order to further LGB interests (the 'T'-gambit, if you will). Sounds to me that there are people you need to take by the ear and remind them that when a decision has been made, for better or for worse, the time for discussion and criticism is over.

You meant homogeneous, it IS a heterogeneous movement. And you're right that often decisions aren't clear or subgroups agree on one thing while disagreeing with another sub-group. There are, nevertheless, some decisions reached on group consensus while others remain open to debate and disagreement.

More importantly, every situation where someone disagrees with somebody else is not a situation where "urging moderation" amounts to being a bad ally. Including when somebody told you that. Sometimes there's just debate and people say over the top things or make accusations.

This is why I brought this up originally urging SiuiS to consider the MLK letter with greater nuance. It's referring to a very specific situation and it's not talking about debate at all. It's talking about when people are already taking action and being criticized for it in public discourse by those who purport to be their friends. The close LBGTAI+ comparison to that is to loudly criticize a gay friend in front of his/her bigoted parents. Wrong place, wrong time.

Nobody, and that means nobody, gay or straight, trans or cis, should ever be told to shut up on the basis of their sexuality or gender. Being an ally means that you say the best thing to help people, whether or not that's what they want to hear notwithstanding. What people want to hear can kill them.

Or did you ever wonder why "Die cis scum" ever was a stereotype of trans people in the first place?

I didn't actually say that. One, if you go double check, I said that a safe place is the right place for everyone to question and disagree. Second, if I'm telling anyone to shut up, it's on the basis of when/where they're making statements, not on the basis of their sexuality or gender.

[SiuiS]

Ok. Clarification time - your conditions for accepting my help are not compatible with my ideals about intellectual honesty.

{ scrubbed }

The thing is, there IS an atmosphere of group-think and "yes-man-ishness" in a lot of organizations (including the support thread).

{ scrubbed }

I've also been accused of being insensitive when I have spoken up, if what I said went against group-think.

That's not always a bad thing. Some people are too sensitive on some topics. But frank discussion does not have to be the opposite of consideration.

Asta brought up "people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet," and he's right.

Again, obfuscation. There were many people saying it was unwise and to check with a doctor, and the reveal was that the person was getting their exact same prescribed medications cheaper by choosing a vendor rather than self-medicating.

It's easy to compress a complex subject like that into a soundbyte to make a point. "Lady sues mcdonalds because she spilled her coffee" is just as wrong and says just as little about what actually happened as "person wanted to buy hormones online" says about the actual event.

The existence of outside context does not forgive misusing and mischaracterizing. In fact, someone who claims a love of logic and rationality should know better than to out-and-out lie by using emotionally deceptive arguments.

I don't want to say your thoughts and experiences aren't worth examining! I think they are and it would be fruitful. But again, the existence of these other discussions does not mean I have to condone such terrible behavior because one can rationalize them as being tangentially related. The use of these interesting and valid other topics is akin to forcing someone to learn about Isaac Newton when baking, because he got hit by an apple and apple pies are baked, so they are totally relevant topics to each other.

This is why I brought this up originally urging SiuiS to consider the MLK letter with greater nuance. It's referring to a very specific situation and it's not talking about debate at all.

{ scrubbed }

[Jormengand]

I didn't actually say that. One, if you go double check, I said that a safe place is the right place for everyone to question and disagree. Second, if I'm telling anyone to shut up, it's on the basis of when/where they're making statements, not on the basis of their sexuality or gender.

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

Find for me, quote for me, any of these supposed "conditions" I advocated that aren't compatible with your ideals.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=294
This entire post was basically telling him that if he didn't agree with you, he could GTHO. Not cool.

You've made up a whole bunch of **** and accused, me, the thread, trans people in general. But you have no idea what conditions I'm actually advocating for.

{ scrubbed }

You shut me up with insults and slander before you heard them, and are to busy defending your moral high ground to see that you've made assumptions and mistakes.

{ scrubbed }

Practice what you preach. There is nothing intellectual nor honest about your own actions and positions. Fix that and you'll be worth listening to. As it is, you're angry, irrational, and justifying a whole lot of holier-than-thou off of a quote you completely misinterpreted the use of. You want to feel hurt and slink away to justify your position, cool. You want to have a conversation about facts, and things that actually happened instead though, that would be a lot better.

{ scrubbed }

In the meantime, you're painting wih an awful big brush. "All the trans people in the thread" doesn't seem to include me, since we were on the same side of a lot of these discussion points you're making strawmen out of to rationalize your assaulting. Am I not trans enough to count? Am I only trans if I make silly hippy dippy mistakes for the skeptic to correct? Am I not part of the thread unless I let you patronize me?

{ scrubbed }

[Astrella]

Not every opinion is valid, there are plenty of opinions that are toxic, harmful and only hurt people. And not every opinion gets an equal voice, it's not a fair playing ground.

And that's what people mean: an ally should be considerate of the fact that due to not belonging to minority in question their opinion and voice already gets more time and attention in society overall. The best thing an ally can do is empower and bring attention to the minority's voices. (And that's not telling allies to shut up, it's asking them to think when them speaking instead of the minority can be helpful.)

And, for clarity, I'm not referring to the situation here, but making a general statement cause I see it a lot: not wanting to hear the same tired opinion about how you should be a nice minority, not wanting to hear the same "devil's advocate" argument for the hundred time, not wanting to hear someone bigotry is NOT silencing, a minority not wanting to deal with stuff like that does not even come close to a minority actually being silenced.

And you know what? Someone who tells me I should just stop transitioning and get one of those magical gender changing rings because I disagreed with him about how to medically classify being trans is not an ally to me.

[Jormengand]

Not every opinion is valid, there are plenty of opinions that are toxic, harmful and only hurt people. And not every opinion gets an equal voice, it's not a fair playing ground.

And that's what people mean: an ally should be considerate of the fact that due to not belonging to minority in question their opinion and voice already gets more time and attention in society overall. The best thing an ally can do is empower and bring attention to the minority's voices. (And that's not telling allies to shut up, it's asking them to think when them speaking instead of the minority can be helpful.)

And, for clarity, I'm not referring to the situation here, but making a general statement cause I see it a lot: not wanting to hear the same tired opinion about how you should be a nice minority, not wanting to hear the same "devil's advocate" argument for the hundred time, not wanting to hear someone bigotry is NOT silencing, a minority not wanting to deal with stuff like that does not even come close to a minority actually being silenced.

That's fine. I realise that. But blindly knocking aside every dissenting opinion, even to the point of harming yourself and those you seek to protect, which is what's happening here, is not on.

Also, I don't think "their opinion and voice already gets more time and attention in society overall" is really true. When I say something in a room full of straight cis people, everyone listens; when Asta speaks in a room full of trans people, I listen and other people tell him to shut up and start agreeing with them.

[Astrella]

Does cis society generally respect trans people's opinions about trans stuff though?

[Delusion]

In general, allies speaking over the oppressed group is much much bigger danger than the oppressed group not listening to allies. The reason allies should not speak over the members of oppressed group about the groups oppression should be obvious. That way lay organisations like Autism speaks and diagnoses like Autogynephilia. That way lie tone policing.

Like I have never heard any trans person use "DIE CIS SCUM" without being sarcastic, yet I have heard 'allies' use that phrase to repeatedly silence trans people who have criticised them.

[SiuiS]

That's fine. I realise that. But blindly knocking aside every dissenting opinion, even to the point of harming yourself and those you seek to protect, which is what's happening here, is not on.

Please show how this is what is happening here.

E: not sarcastic. Honest request. :)

[Jormengand]

Does cis society generally respect trans people's opinions about trans stuff though?

You speak as though "Cis society" is one big group. Some cis people respect trans people's opinions because some cis people are not jerks. I respect cis people's opinions because I am not a jerk. Disrespecting the opinion of someone who is trying to help people just because they are in the same arbitrary category as some other people you don't like is what we in the business call "Prejudice", and it's not on.

In general, allies speaking over the oppressed group is much much bigger danger than the oppressed group not listening to allies.

In specific, however, the latter is happening and the former is not.

Please show how this is what is happening here.

You would, to be clear, like me to prove that the entire crux of the issue is actually taking place? Please refer to precisely every post you have made to Asta recently as proof. And several others you have made non-recently.

EDIT: Oh, and all those posts you made discouraging me from defending myself against criticism of minority gender identities, because you didn't want to hear about how anyone else was oppressed.

[Philemonite]

{ scrubbed }

[SowZ]

Everywhere is the right place to think and have an opinion, and to state it especially when that opinion is actually likely to be helpful. You don't get to say "You're an ally, therefore shut up and let us poor oppressed people dictate when you're allowed to speak and why." And using the fact that Asta is an ally is pretty much tantamount to using the fact that he's cishet. You aren't being, dare I say it, intellectually honest. And any community in which you get to dictate who's allowed to discuss what, when, why, and what opinions you are allowed to have, is not one I want to be part of. I'm honestly sick to choking of this "You must be this trans to ride, but no transer than this" attitude that I see in these threads - Asta's not allowed to have opinions because he's an ally, I'm not allowed to defend myself from criticism because I'm 3trans5u... can people stop silencing anyone who disagrees with them wherever they be found, and take a damn moment to listen?

And I'm calling bull. No way do you actually believe this. Someone would have to be a complete ******* to think it should be acceptable for a Neo-Nazi to come into a support group for holocaust survivors and spew his hate. And you know what? He shouldn't be encouraged. He shouldn't be engaged in debate. He should be thrown out, by the police if necessary, and charged with trespassing if he didn't leave when asked.

[SiuiS]

You speak as though "Cis society" is one big group. Some cis people respect trans people's opinions because some cis people are not jerks. I respect cis people's opinions because I am not a jerk. Disrespecting the opinion of someone who is trying to help people just because they are in the same arbitrary category as some other people you don't like is what we in the business call "Prejudice", and it's not on.

This is actually a very good point and goes into the differences between generic and (I believe) anthropological -isms. Racism on the person scale is any bigotry or bias based on race. On the person scale, racism against whites exists in America (for example).

On the societal level however, racism against whites in America does not exist. It is not systematized. Systematized racism is racism so ingrained in the rules and mechanisms of how a society functions that it will often occur despite good and non-racist people.

Transsexuals and homosexuals and basically all non-accepted nonheterosexuals face systematized societal prejudice. They will face bigotry because non-caring neutral systems are built to oppress them, even accidentally. See the issue with a trans person's "real" sex. See the issues with "you'll grow out of it/meet someone" for asexuals. See "just choose to be happy" for depression. Cissexual society considers itself 'normal' society, and it's rules are written in away that is accidentally hostile to noncis folks just out of ignorance.


Also: no one disrespected anyone else's opinion based on their category. That did not happen. Please stop propagating that misinformation.

[Heliomance]

Oh, ye gods. Asta, SiuiS, could you guys please just set each other to ignore? Nothing good ever happens when you two start arguing.

Like I have never heard any trans person use "DIE CIS SCUM" without being sarcastic, yet I have heard 'allies' use that phrase to repeatedly silence trans people who have criticised them.

I have. There were people defending it vehemently in the main thread, back when it first appeared. FOr the record, I'm on the "it's bloody stupid" side of the debate.

[SiuiS]

Can you guys not do this? It doesn't help anyone and the possible result is thread lock.

I thought we were smoothly transitioned into reasoned discussion myself, but I will stop if you prefer? I do not believe that people being engaged and passionate about the topic discussed is necessarily bad. We've had mods do similar. Only if it gets overly personal and or derogatory is there an issue.

Talking this stuff out is the point of the questions/discussion thread, yes?

I have. There were people defending it vehemently in the main thread, back when it first appeared. FOr the record, I'm on the "it's bloody stupid" side of the debate.

Indeed. I believe the defense was "it's not literal, it's a vehicle to make people think" and the counter was that it summarily fails to do that and simply polarizes the field.

It's important not to generalize this stuff, to flatten it out. It's important to avoid absolutes like no one and everyone. There is always nuance, and we must always take it into account.

[Jormengand]

And I'm calling bull. No way do you actually believe this. Someone would have to be a complete ******* to think it should be acceptable for a Neo-Nazi to come into a support group for holocaust survivors and spew his hate. And you know what? He shouldn't be encouraged. He shouldn't be engaged in debate. He should be thrown out, by the police if necessary, and charged with trespassing if he didn't leave when asked.

In Julian Baggini's book, The Duck that Won the Lottery and 99 Other Bad Arguments, he warns against the Straw Man fallacy, whereby an argument is reduced to nonsense by changing the actual value of the argument, or taking it to its illogical extreme. If you think that allies who are trying to help you are in any way logically equivalent to Nazis, you are under a very grave misapprehension.

[SiuiS]

In Julian Baggini's book, The Duck that Won the Lottery and 99 Other Bad Arguments, he warns against the Straw Man fallacy, whereby an argument is reduced to nonsense by changing the actual value of the argument, or taking it to its illogical extreme. If you think that allies who are trying to help you are in any way logically equivalent to Nazis, you are under a very grave misapprehension.

That's a fair copp.

Should I assume you have me set to ignore and should this stop asking you questions?

[Delusion]

In specific, however, the latter is happening and the former is not.

I do see people in this thread suggesting the former is a jolly good idea though.

[Jormengand]

That's a fair copp.

Should I assume you have me set to ignore and should this stop asking you questions?

No, sorry, I'm trying to respond to too many people at once, which might be why I thought it was you telling Asta that he shouldn't be talking about trans issues in trans spaces when it was someone else. Sorry.

I don't use ignore settings on principle. I'd rather someone said something I didn't want to hear to my face, and so if I actually come across something I don't want to hear, I want to hear it. If that makes any sense.

[Philemonite]

I thought we were smoothly transitioned into reasoned discussion myself, but I will stop if you prefer? I do not believe that people being engaged and passionate about the topic discussed is necessarily bad. We've had mods do similar. Only if it gets overly personal and or derogatory is there an issue.

Talking this stuff out is the point of the questions/discussion thread, yes?

It might if there was only two of you and you came to an agreement, but since half of the thread is joining in in a very aggressive way I don't see it getting reasonable anytime soon.
Maybe if everyone tried starting with "I believe..." or "It is my opinion..."?

[Jormengand]

I do see people in this thread suggesting the former is a jolly good idea though.

Well, if you're referring to the specific instance of one ally saying something that implied he knew better on one specific trans issue (a medical one at that, which I'm not surprised that a cis person should know better than a trans person on - I get confused the moment that you start mentioning the different hormones), then yes, and that's perfectly reasonable: sometimes trans people don't know everything about being trans, and a cis person happens to be better informed, and that's okay, and the cis person should feel free to correct misinformation about factual statements.

[Heliomance]

In general, allies speaking over the oppressed group is much much bigger danger than the oppressed group not listening to allies. The reason allies should not speak over the members of oppressed group about the groups oppression should be obvious. That way lay organisations like Autism speaks and diagnoses like Autogynephilia. That way lie tone policing.

A note: I identified as autogynephilic for a while.

[Coidzor]

Or did you ever wonder why "Die cis scum" ever was a stereotype of trans people in the first place?

I don't think that ever made its way to stereotype level.

It's been a quite handy example of something stupid to say that ought not to be said if one wants to have any kind of discussion, though, since as soon as it comes up, you know that nothing meaningful will be said for at least a page, if not several pages, due to the combination of its chilling effect on discussion itself and other factors.

Edit: Of course, as we see here, just bringing it up at all has its own chilling effect and, well, worse effects. So probably best to just leave that phrase dead and buried unless it actually needs to be discussed for some reason.