I read an interesting column this last week by Sonia Horan about the myths of inclusion of transpeople in the LGB community. While she focuses on the highlight moment of betrayal by the LGB community with transpeople, she does present an excellent, in my view, perspective of what's wrong with the inclusion.
I'm not against the inclusion of transpeople in the LGB community, they've been there since the beginning in the late 1960's (and what many gay people quickly forget many of the folks at the Stonewall event were transpeople of the whole flavor) and they've been there throughout the history of the LGB issues, along with getting much support from members of the LGB community for the issues and causes of transpeople.
But the world of LGB and transpeople are fundamentally different by the very nature of the identity. Homosexuality, in its many flavors, is just another being, expression and behavior of human sexuality, as is heterosexuality. Gender identity, on the other hand, isn't about sexual identity, but gender identity. It's about how people see themselves and how the body reaffirms that identity or not.
Transpeople have a degree of mismatch between the mind and body, from the slight to the extreme, and that being expressed in the whole range of expression and behavior, including cross-dressers, female illusionists, androgynous, and transsexuals. They simply want to be and live as they see themselves. It's not hard to understand, but it's not about sex as many psychologists like to describe.
The last group has been a whole issue by itself as seen in the latest fight in and with the APA over gender identity in the DSM-V due out in 2012. People described as transsexuals, meaning gender identity, want to live fulltime, and some physically transistion, as the gender they are. This requires being obvious in public and being obvious for transphobia in the range of reactions, from violence and death (recent Angie Zapata case) through public humulitaion and to discrimination in employment, housing, health insurance, etc.
In addition the transgender community has the whole range of importance with issues. Those who identify as the other gender but life primarily as their birth gender, eg. cross-dressers, who want the freedom to express their alternative lifestyle in public without fear of retaliation and discrimination, often expressed as the "Bathroom issue" allowing men who dress as women use the public women's bathroom.
Transsexuals believe themselves to be the other gender and want everything it takes to live as that gender. Their issues are health insurance, employment rights and protections, legal documents, and so on. Male-to-female transsexuals simply want to be women, no less and everything more. To them their transistion is a means to an end and once completed, meaning surgeries and documents, they're not trans-anything, just women.
Homosexuals don't have to be obvious or public. They can simply dress as everyone else and no one will every know. Their gender identity isn't a conflict, they're as straight as the rest of the world. To them, it's about sexual attraction, something expressed in the privacy of their home, and only by choice in public at events.
This is where homosexuals have the advantage. They don't have problems near on par with transistioning transpeople. They don't want to change their sex. Few want to dress and go in public as the other gender. Few face the obviousness of simple standing in a public place being seen as different. They're free to be invisible.
This is where the worlds, issues and causes diverge and never meet, and where the two sides have different agendas. The LGB community doesn't have much need to be concerned with the same issues facing transpeople. It's not their experience, and this is where the transpeople have often been forgotten, usually intentionally by simply not including language in communications about LGB issues and causes.
In short, it was always easy for the LGB community to forget and only when the transcommunity raise their voices did they get inclusion in LGB issues and causes. But they always have to remind the LGB community of their existence even when their voices are ignored, such as in the ENDA bill in 2008 when gender identity and expression was removed by Representative Barney Frank, Congress' most openly gay member. He was supported by the HRC who jettisoned trans identity in support of the bill.
History has shown that when the transcommunity goes on their own they have more and better success in acceptance in every aspect of their lives, issues and causes. They succeed when they simply don't put LGB in their communications. And history has shown that they also get more success when they focus on the issues of in and pre-transistion and post-transistion transpeople.
The transcommunity has discovered they don't need the LGB community, and can use them when it's convenient or they have shared interests. Something they had done to them, except now being treated as the unwanted stepchild by the LGB community, they've found their own identity and voice. And they're building a choir, while facing the simple reality of their people.
But it comes with a catch. When a transperson transistions, meaning completing the medical surgeries and legal process to become their target gender, then don't identify as transsexuals anymore. They're simply men and women, just like everyone else. And to avoid all the problems and discrimination associated with the trans identity, they leave. The estimates are upwards of 90 percent and more.
This leaves the remaining 10% to fill the void. These are the ones who either out of fate, meaning their identity became a public issue due to their career, life, work or events, or out of choice. Few transpeople come out as trans out of choice and do to work in and for the community, most of them were visible and active in the community before and during their transistion. They simply continued the work.
But even that small group of activists have done more by themselves for transpeople without the LGB community than has been done with then over the last 3 decades. They discovered not only their individuality, but their community identity. And while some transgroups still align themselves with LGB groups for the larger issues and causes, they've also discovered more success by themselves.
And that's the point. Uniting despite difference is important, but uniting for your own uniqueness is more important. Shared needs, interests, experience and values bring its own unity. It's not a guarrantee of success, that takes dedication, discipline and vision, but it removes the divisiveness of differences.
This is where the T without the LGB will succeed. It could use the LGB's help but history now has shown it's not essential or necessary, and not even helpful at times. Stepping out of the shadow into your own light has its own rewards. Transpeople, working for their own identity, has seen and found that. And discovered it works.
And just maybe a few post-transistion people won't leave or will return to the community to help. There's always hope, especially when success is clearer and brighter standing equal and alone.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
When BS is just that
Yes, sometimes bullshit is just that, pure, simple, unadulterated bullshit. Ok, you're game for what? Well, I was reading about autogynephilia which some therapist use to describe transsexuals and why they want to transistion and become women, the imagination of being and having sex as a women. So what's the problem?
Well, a researcher at the Institue of Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, which is a think-tank for a bunch of quack psychologists who want to label people than treating them and labelling with their own terms which in reality is degrading and demeaning, did a study of 29 women at a hospital to find women have autogynphilia. Huh?
Autogynphilia is a term used to describe people, except they restrict it to women and transwomen, who imagine having sex as women. Like that's new or news? But a term restricted to women and transwomen?
This is because they focus their research on women and transwomen forgetting one simple fact of human nature. It's called masturbation. Everyone does it and everyone imagines themselves in both roles during their imaginary sex. That's human nature and human imagination.
But these folks decide to focus this label toward one class, transwomen, and now they're focusing on women, to compare them to transwomen and therefore put all women in the class of people. Except they forgot one thing. Even men imagine having sex as women. Studies at universities have shown at least 50% of the male respondents admited this and many of the rest fudged their answers.
What they're trying to do is establish the reason transwomen transistion is for sex, either as gay men wanting to be women for sex with men or as suffering autogynphilia and wanting to be and feel like women for sex with men. It's a self-fulfilling idea about people just enjoying sex, whether with someone or by themselves.
Now they want to add women too. And yet, they don't put this label on men or female-to-male transsexuals (transmen). What, men don't like to masturbate? Men don't wonder what it's like to be a woman during sex? Get real, men masturbate more often than women and every man wonders what sex is like as a woman.
This very small study is pure bullshit. But it's not just bullshit, it's sexism at its worst, to all women.
Well, a researcher at the Institue of Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, which is a think-tank for a bunch of quack psychologists who want to label people than treating them and labelling with their own terms which in reality is degrading and demeaning, did a study of 29 women at a hospital to find women have autogynphilia. Huh?
Autogynphilia is a term used to describe people, except they restrict it to women and transwomen, who imagine having sex as women. Like that's new or news? But a term restricted to women and transwomen?
This is because they focus their research on women and transwomen forgetting one simple fact of human nature. It's called masturbation. Everyone does it and everyone imagines themselves in both roles during their imaginary sex. That's human nature and human imagination.
But these folks decide to focus this label toward one class, transwomen, and now they're focusing on women, to compare them to transwomen and therefore put all women in the class of people. Except they forgot one thing. Even men imagine having sex as women. Studies at universities have shown at least 50% of the male respondents admited this and many of the rest fudged their answers.
What they're trying to do is establish the reason transwomen transistion is for sex, either as gay men wanting to be women for sex with men or as suffering autogynphilia and wanting to be and feel like women for sex with men. It's a self-fulfilling idea about people just enjoying sex, whether with someone or by themselves.
Now they want to add women too. And yet, they don't put this label on men or female-to-male transsexuals (transmen). What, men don't like to masturbate? Men don't wonder what it's like to be a woman during sex? Get real, men masturbate more often than women and every man wonders what sex is like as a woman.
This very small study is pure bullshit. But it's not just bullshit, it's sexism at its worst, to all women.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
It really isn't
Why does everyone make a big issue over Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS, also called Gender Reassgnment Surgery or GRS)? I've read too many descriptions, personal, scientific and medical about the importance of this sugery to the individual, and how much the person has to look into their heart, mind and soul to know this is the right answer for them. What don't they understand?
When someone wants to transistion to the other gender complete with the sex change to have the body match the mind, they've already gone down that road and there isn't anything left to discuss or ponder. It's innate and intuitive to them to be which requires the surgery. It's the old adage, "It's a no-brainer."
That's not hard to understand. But why does everyone want to stick a lot mental roadblocks and garbage in the way? Like they know what other people want, and they really know what transpeople want? How can they possibly really know? Like we know them and all their deepest inner thoughts and feelings about who they are?
This is one of the most tiring questions people in transistion frequently get, "So, why do you want the surgery?" Like to be a whole person that I know I am? There's nothing more to say except that. There are times when I hear this question I want to ask the other person (male because they're all those who ask the question), "So why do you want to keep your dick?"
I loved the response Jennifer Boylan gave to Oprah on her show when Oprah asked Jennifer, "So why do you want the surgery?" Jennifer responded to Oprah's question with, "What would you do if you were born with a penis?"
It's that simple folks, so get over your own fears, they're not those who want the surgery. We don't put mental roadblocks in your way of change, or ask you dumb questions about why you want to do something. So let these people get on with the life and accept them as they are.
Is that so hard to understand? LIke compassion, understanding, acceptance and peace with your fellow human beings? So don't make the judgement, expess the statement or ask the question. They've long left that at the station years, if not a lifetime, ago.
When someone wants to transistion to the other gender complete with the sex change to have the body match the mind, they've already gone down that road and there isn't anything left to discuss or ponder. It's innate and intuitive to them to be which requires the surgery. It's the old adage, "It's a no-brainer."
That's not hard to understand. But why does everyone want to stick a lot mental roadblocks and garbage in the way? Like they know what other people want, and they really know what transpeople want? How can they possibly really know? Like we know them and all their deepest inner thoughts and feelings about who they are?
This is one of the most tiring questions people in transistion frequently get, "So, why do you want the surgery?" Like to be a whole person that I know I am? There's nothing more to say except that. There are times when I hear this question I want to ask the other person (male because they're all those who ask the question), "So why do you want to keep your dick?"
I loved the response Jennifer Boylan gave to Oprah on her show when Oprah asked Jennifer, "So why do you want the surgery?" Jennifer responded to Oprah's question with, "What would you do if you were born with a penis?"
It's that simple folks, so get over your own fears, they're not those who want the surgery. We don't put mental roadblocks in your way of change, or ask you dumb questions about why you want to do something. So let these people get on with the life and accept them as they are.
Is that so hard to understand? LIke compassion, understanding, acceptance and peace with your fellow human beings? So don't make the judgement, expess the statement or ask the question. They've long left that at the station years, if not a lifetime, ago.
When something isn't
Yup, it's another conumdrum. And it's in the transgender community, like that's new or news, but really more in the medical community. I watched the recent eposide of "In the Life" about "Revising Gender" with Linda Hinton. It's an excellent nutshell description of the conumdrum minus one element, the health insurance companies.
The American Psychological Association (APA and not to be confused with the American Psychiatric Association, also APA) writes the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, DSM and often called the Diagnostic Standards Manual. It define all the mental health conditiions, disorders and diseases mental health experts can diagnose, and everything outside the DSM is consider normal or a nonpathological condition.
According to the medical community, anything described in the DSM is considered worthy of medical intervention and help and is usually covered by some type of health insurance or by a state or federal program. In short, you're considered mentally abnormal (their words not mine, just google "abnormal psychology") and should be treated, and that treatment should be partly, mostly or wholly paid by someone other than yourself.
In the DSM-IVTR (latest revision), Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is described along with treatment. But since GID was inlcuded in the DSM in 1980, shortly after homosexuality was removed, the APA has not pushed for insurance coverage, until this year (as short as it is so far), except they only "recommend" insurance coverage. And most health insurers have explicity exclusivity clauses in their coverage for GID treatment, specifically identify sex-change transistions.
Ok, but that's not the issue here. GID didn't exist before 1980 and to and for many people doesn't belong in the DSM in any form, manner or description. Yet the APA is currently revising the DSM for DSM-V to be released in 2012 to not only be more inclusive of GID but to expand and almost make it a pathology, meaning if you are diagnosed, you're one sick person.
Yet, while the APA lists treatment which "cures" GID, and along with the WPATH, has the complete procedures a patient goes through to become "normal", aka "cured", they still don't identity it sufficiently to require insurance coverage. Meaning you're sick but not sick enough.
Many in the transgender community argue that GID is a bogus condition which shouldn't be in the DSM, but is simply another expression of human being and covered under WPATH (formerly HBIGDA). The reality is that we're all transgender to some degree, just that most have characteristics of their birth sex so it's not an mental issue. Some, however, have more characteristics of the opposite sex to the point of wanting to be and live as one of the opposite sex.
That's not a crime, or a mental health condition, it's a problem with the body. The scienfitic evidence is starting to show GID is a neurobiological condition introduced in the fetus and reinforced in early life. But the APA fails or doesn't want to recognize those facts, and most important one which hits them in the face.
The APA is exercising their morality over the definition of "normal". GID isn't real but a group of white men imposing their opinions and morality on the rest of society and the few who want to be who they know they are. And imposing the DSM only excerbates their anxiety, fear and stress about themselves. The APA is creating a problem than solving one with their morality.
Because GID isn't. It isn't anything beyond being human. But that's only half the story.
If GID were removed from the DSM, as many want, then people lose the right for health insurance coverage, if it were covered. Since the APA doesn't require coverage, then everyone wanting to transistion faces the $25-50,000+ cost for it. So the person is left writing checks for something that will stigmatize them for life, having a mental health condition.
So the transgender community is stuck, and the APA knows this and does nothing, or very little (not to ignore the efforts of some in the APA to get change) to help beyond stigmatizing a class of people because of the APA's morality of "normal". If it's removed, as it should, then all bets (coverage) are off and the medical communtiy can simply forget it, like homosexuality.
Except people need help to get the therapy, drugs, and sugery to change from what they are to who they are, It's that simply. A simple solution to a personal issue. It's not rocket science but the APA refuses to see the light and the people for their own morality. In the end GID isn't but not being is worse than being, and being is worse having to live with the DSM which doesn't do much except tag them as abnormal.
And almost nowhere is GID covered by insurance. This is changing but only slowly and with employers than health insurance companies. The latter is like the APA, we don't like you and therefore won't help you, but don't forget those premiums to cover any sickness you have, except GID. One might get the idea there's a collusion between the APA and health insurance industry to impose their morality?
Ok, I've rambled around the issue, kinda like the In the Life show did because the issue is broad and deep, and historic and current. And the new DSM only looks to make matter worse for those with GID. What happened to the ethic, "First do no harm"? This seems to me that the APA should be doing. Looking a helping people (sorry to use their classification) GID. If you define them, shouldn't you be helping them?
So, to the APA where is your help? I don't want to hear your morality, I want to hear your help. That's the least you can do. The next is demand health insurance coverage. It's good science, good medicine and good humanity. Or did you forget that?
The American Psychological Association (APA and not to be confused with the American Psychiatric Association, also APA) writes the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, DSM and often called the Diagnostic Standards Manual. It define all the mental health conditiions, disorders and diseases mental health experts can diagnose, and everything outside the DSM is consider normal or a nonpathological condition.
According to the medical community, anything described in the DSM is considered worthy of medical intervention and help and is usually covered by some type of health insurance or by a state or federal program. In short, you're considered mentally abnormal (their words not mine, just google "abnormal psychology") and should be treated, and that treatment should be partly, mostly or wholly paid by someone other than yourself.
In the DSM-IVTR (latest revision), Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is described along with treatment. But since GID was inlcuded in the DSM in 1980, shortly after homosexuality was removed, the APA has not pushed for insurance coverage, until this year (as short as it is so far), except they only "recommend" insurance coverage. And most health insurers have explicity exclusivity clauses in their coverage for GID treatment, specifically identify sex-change transistions.
Ok, but that's not the issue here. GID didn't exist before 1980 and to and for many people doesn't belong in the DSM in any form, manner or description. Yet the APA is currently revising the DSM for DSM-V to be released in 2012 to not only be more inclusive of GID but to expand and almost make it a pathology, meaning if you are diagnosed, you're one sick person.
Yet, while the APA lists treatment which "cures" GID, and along with the WPATH, has the complete procedures a patient goes through to become "normal", aka "cured", they still don't identity it sufficiently to require insurance coverage. Meaning you're sick but not sick enough.
Many in the transgender community argue that GID is a bogus condition which shouldn't be in the DSM, but is simply another expression of human being and covered under WPATH (formerly HBIGDA). The reality is that we're all transgender to some degree, just that most have characteristics of their birth sex so it's not an mental issue. Some, however, have more characteristics of the opposite sex to the point of wanting to be and live as one of the opposite sex.
That's not a crime, or a mental health condition, it's a problem with the body. The scienfitic evidence is starting to show GID is a neurobiological condition introduced in the fetus and reinforced in early life. But the APA fails or doesn't want to recognize those facts, and most important one which hits them in the face.
The APA is exercising their morality over the definition of "normal". GID isn't real but a group of white men imposing their opinions and morality on the rest of society and the few who want to be who they know they are. And imposing the DSM only excerbates their anxiety, fear and stress about themselves. The APA is creating a problem than solving one with their morality.
Because GID isn't. It isn't anything beyond being human. But that's only half the story.
If GID were removed from the DSM, as many want, then people lose the right for health insurance coverage, if it were covered. Since the APA doesn't require coverage, then everyone wanting to transistion faces the $25-50,000+ cost for it. So the person is left writing checks for something that will stigmatize them for life, having a mental health condition.
So the transgender community is stuck, and the APA knows this and does nothing, or very little (not to ignore the efforts of some in the APA to get change) to help beyond stigmatizing a class of people because of the APA's morality of "normal". If it's removed, as it should, then all bets (coverage) are off and the medical communtiy can simply forget it, like homosexuality.
Except people need help to get the therapy, drugs, and sugery to change from what they are to who they are, It's that simply. A simple solution to a personal issue. It's not rocket science but the APA refuses to see the light and the people for their own morality. In the end GID isn't but not being is worse than being, and being is worse having to live with the DSM which doesn't do much except tag them as abnormal.
And almost nowhere is GID covered by insurance. This is changing but only slowly and with employers than health insurance companies. The latter is like the APA, we don't like you and therefore won't help you, but don't forget those premiums to cover any sickness you have, except GID. One might get the idea there's a collusion between the APA and health insurance industry to impose their morality?
Ok, I've rambled around the issue, kinda like the In the Life show did because the issue is broad and deep, and historic and current. And the new DSM only looks to make matter worse for those with GID. What happened to the ethic, "First do no harm"? This seems to me that the APA should be doing. Looking a helping people (sorry to use their classification) GID. If you define them, shouldn't you be helping them?
So, to the APA where is your help? I don't want to hear your morality, I want to hear your help. That's the least you can do. The next is demand health insurance coverage. It's good science, good medicine and good humanity. Or did you forget that?
Monday, April 6, 2009
The catch-22
I was reading a column by Amber Crowder about the catch-22 women in transistion face. And while I could have just as easily added my comments about the essay and the other comments, I decided to post my own column, because I find a lot of the younger women in transistion have and see it correctly.
Why they see it better is open to discussion, but I think it's simply they don't have the history of the transgender community to deal with. They can make their own clean, fresh start with their own perspective. And in many cases, like Amber and her column, they get it right. And that's why the community should be letting them be in leadership roles in the community than many of the pundits and curmudgeons who have been there for decades.
And what does she have right, beside that essay?
Easy, and it's what some of those adding comments miss. It's not about "classic" or "traditional" transsexual, it's about being and women in transistion want to be complete women. And that's means sex/gender reassignment surgery (SRS or GRS depends on your country). As much as those transgender women who don't have or don't want surgery make the case it's not necessary "to be a woman", it's about being a whole woman, complete with the body.
Every post-transistion, or legally recognized, woman will tell you that before their SRS they felt it wasn't about the surgery, and having a vagina, and that after the surgery, they will tell you, "It's all about the surgery." It's that simple. Nothing overwhelming or earth shaking, just their wholeness of being.
And it's not about what type of (trans)woman you are or what others think, it's about the full recognition in the law, since all states minus two, require it to amend birth certificates and change the rest of your documents, and it's about recognition with women. You have nothing to hide, ok maybe your history a little, but afterward you can just be and live in the world as a woman.
All of the pre-SRS or non-SRS transwomen can argue all they want about being, they don't and won't know the truth and reality of being the whole woman with mind and body. It's not an agrument against their living and being, that's ok if it fits their lifestyle. But it's not what the argument is about. It's about personal acceptance and recognition.
Amber is right about the the catch-22 of healthcare costs. While only a few insurance plans cover transistion costs and a few government and company plans cover the costs, most women in transistion have exclusions in their healthcare coverage if they have any healthcare plan. And that's the catch-22.
While the medical community defines Gender Identity Disorder a condition, down from a disorder, they don't require medical intervention let alone require the health insurance plans to cover treatment. It's all treatable with medical care, namely therapy, hormones, and surgeries, and the patient becomes whole. And only this year has the medical community changed its view to "recommend" coverage.
That's the real tragedy. A curable condition which isn't covered and isn't affordable by 90% of the patients with it. What other condition would we call that insane? What about their oath about first do no harm? What don't they understand denying coverage is the harm, and denying coverage is the cause of many suicides and deaths among those in transistion.
And the cure is easy. Remove the exclusions and add acceptance and inclusion. It's not rocket science and it's cheap. That's helping people. And Amber has it right.
Why they see it better is open to discussion, but I think it's simply they don't have the history of the transgender community to deal with. They can make their own clean, fresh start with their own perspective. And in many cases, like Amber and her column, they get it right. And that's why the community should be letting them be in leadership roles in the community than many of the pundits and curmudgeons who have been there for decades.
And what does she have right, beside that essay?
Easy, and it's what some of those adding comments miss. It's not about "classic" or "traditional" transsexual, it's about being and women in transistion want to be complete women. And that's means sex/gender reassignment surgery (SRS or GRS depends on your country). As much as those transgender women who don't have or don't want surgery make the case it's not necessary "to be a woman", it's about being a whole woman, complete with the body.
Every post-transistion, or legally recognized, woman will tell you that before their SRS they felt it wasn't about the surgery, and having a vagina, and that after the surgery, they will tell you, "It's all about the surgery." It's that simple. Nothing overwhelming or earth shaking, just their wholeness of being.
And it's not about what type of (trans)woman you are or what others think, it's about the full recognition in the law, since all states minus two, require it to amend birth certificates and change the rest of your documents, and it's about recognition with women. You have nothing to hide, ok maybe your history a little, but afterward you can just be and live in the world as a woman.
All of the pre-SRS or non-SRS transwomen can argue all they want about being, they don't and won't know the truth and reality of being the whole woman with mind and body. It's not an agrument against their living and being, that's ok if it fits their lifestyle. But it's not what the argument is about. It's about personal acceptance and recognition.
Amber is right about the the catch-22 of healthcare costs. While only a few insurance plans cover transistion costs and a few government and company plans cover the costs, most women in transistion have exclusions in their healthcare coverage if they have any healthcare plan. And that's the catch-22.
While the medical community defines Gender Identity Disorder a condition, down from a disorder, they don't require medical intervention let alone require the health insurance plans to cover treatment. It's all treatable with medical care, namely therapy, hormones, and surgeries, and the patient becomes whole. And only this year has the medical community changed its view to "recommend" coverage.
That's the real tragedy. A curable condition which isn't covered and isn't affordable by 90% of the patients with it. What other condition would we call that insane? What about their oath about first do no harm? What don't they understand denying coverage is the harm, and denying coverage is the cause of many suicides and deaths among those in transistion.
And the cure is easy. Remove the exclusions and add acceptance and inclusion. It's not rocket science and it's cheap. That's helping people. And Amber has it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
