If a woman has breast cancer, does a Christian person tell her to accept her fate as God's will and not seek medical treatment to live? If a woman can't conceive a child, does a Christian person tell her to accept her fate as God's will and not seek medical proceedures to have a baby?
If a person has a mental condition, does a Christian tell them to accept their fate as God's will and not seek professional help to feel better and have a good life?
If a person is depressed and even suicidal, does a Christian tell them to accept their fate as God's will and not seek help to get better and put suicide aside?
If a person become unemployed, does a Christian tell them to accept their fate as God's will and not seek new employemen, seek training to learn a new job, or explore their own talents and skills and pursue a new career?
If a person is born with a crippling disease or condition, does a Christian tell them to accept their fate as God's will and not seek to overcome their physical liabilities and become the person they want to be?
If a person is born with a physical abnormality, does a Christian tell them to accept their fate as God's will and not seek medical help to find a treatment if not a cure to become normal?
If a person is succombs to a rare disease, does a Christian tell them to accept their fate as God's will and not seek the best medical treatment to extend their life if not overcome the disease to live a long life?
So why does a Christian person tell a transperson, who has a physical condition treatable with medical help, tell them to accept their fate as God's will and not seek medical help to become the person they know they are and have a good life?
Why does a Christian tell them to accept their birth sex, even when their gender is different, as fate and God's will and then call them sick with a mental condition and not the wrong physical condition it is?
Why does a Christian tell them God can heal them to be normal with the birth sex when they have no idea if that is true?
Why does a Christian tell them their gender is not what you know you are but what they think your are?
So why does a Christian decide what God thinks? Why does Christian get to tell you what your fate is in God's eyes? Why does a Christian get to decide anything for you in the name of God?
Doesn't God what transpeople to be happy too? Is that between you and your God? Not them and their God?
Monday, September 24, 2012
Stereotype
If a transwoman before and during her transition isn't interested in makeup, dressing up and shopping, meaning presenting as a stereotypical woman and all things expected of woman, can she still be approved for sex reassignment surgery to be what she's wanted all her life, a complete and whole woman?
And even if she is reasonably to easily passable (that age old criteria) and she has no interest for the things woman are expected to be, can she still be called female and a woman? If women have butch dykes, adult tomboys, and even transitioning transmen who keep their vagina, why can't she just be herself too?
Why do transwomen have to be the imagination of women in the minds of medical professionals than the reality of them? It's her life isn't it? Why do therapist and physician get to decide if she's "woman enough", to be approved for surgery despite the diagnosis and treatment?
If she knows what is expected of women when it matters and in public, who cares who she is in private? If she passes as a woman, is accepted as a woman and is legally female, who cares?
The answer is obvious but tell that to the medical community.
And even if she is reasonably to easily passable (that age old criteria) and she has no interest for the things woman are expected to be, can she still be called female and a woman? If women have butch dykes, adult tomboys, and even transitioning transmen who keep their vagina, why can't she just be herself too?
Why do transwomen have to be the imagination of women in the minds of medical professionals than the reality of them? It's her life isn't it? Why do therapist and physician get to decide if she's "woman enough", to be approved for surgery despite the diagnosis and treatment?
If she knows what is expected of women when it matters and in public, who cares who she is in private? If she passes as a woman, is accepted as a woman and is legally female, who cares?
The answer is obvious but tell that to the medical community.
Friday, September 21, 2012
When
When all the imagination and hope won't change what you see in the mirror to who you know you are and know what you want to be. The reality of your reflection won't make the pain and hate go away. The truth of your body won't heal the deep mental and emotional wounds.
Nothing changes what you see in your eyes, only in your mind and in your heart, to know what isn't there isn't seen. The obvious isn't and the hidden isn't either. It depends on that very imagination and hope. It's all you have.
Nothing changes what you see in your eyes, only in your mind and in your heart, to know what isn't there isn't seen. The obvious isn't and the hidden isn't either. It depends on that very imagination and hope. It's all you have.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Do Not Argue with Them
One rule I keep in mind on trans issues. Do not argue with anyone in the transcommunity about trans issues, especially activists, advocates, and those who like to express their opinion or argue with anyone on the issues. You won't win.
This is why I have this blog on trans issues, because I can say what I think or feel and then decide if any of the comments, which I rarely get anyway, are fit to keep. I can simply choose not to allow the post or delete the post completely (eBlogger has a delete and remove choices).
The reason I stopped arguing is that I tend to look at the larger picture of the trans community in the world, relative to where it fits in the larger discussion. A case in point is the case of the inmate in the Massachusetts prison on a life sentence being granted sex reassignment surgery at state expense.
I, as well as many in and out of the trans community, disagree with the judge's ruling, even though the inmate qualifies under the standards of care for the surgery, because he brutally killed his wife and the surgery is not life-threatening, one of the standards for healthcare for inmates.
But the louder voices are arguing the principle of the issue, the person qualifies and therefore should get the surgery, even though few of the rest of the transwomen who do qualify for the surgery get theirs paid by health insurance, employer or other public or taxpayer programs.
They argue that isn't the issue when it is the larger issue, about appropriate use of taxpayers' money for prisoners, especially those serving life sentences. The point being, no one budges on the their view, so discussion and debate are irrelevant. Intransigence is.
Another case is the always present issue of public bathrooms. Granted almost everyone agrees transwomen should have the right to use the women's restroom in public places and other public-use places (malls, stores, restaurants, etc.). And they fight when a transwomen is denied, rejected and especially arrested for trying.
Even when cross-dressers use them and the obvious or questionable passing transwoman (case in point) uses the women's restroom and unpleasant events happens, and the inevitable lawsuits follow. While the anti-use extremist argue wrongly about "men in dresses" being the dangers (they're not, people just want to do their business and leave), sometimes transwomen don't help make the case for the right.
But you can't argue that with activists and advocates. They believe it's a transwoman's right even if they're cross-dressers presenting as women or she's not overtly passable and raises questions if not concerns from women using the restroom. They believe other people, other women, have to understand and accept.
For me, it's the really big, fuzzy gray area. I'm not in full agreement about cross-dressers being allowed to choose the restroom unless it's pre-arranged to ensure they don't cause problems, and rarely does, only when it's obvious and not planned and agreed.
I say this because in- or post-transition women have enough issues and don't need to be confused with the other groups under the transgender umbrella or confused by the perception of people about who they are, meaning not often seen as women but as transvestites or cross-dressers.
I believe transwomen have rights when and where it's legal, but that alone doesn't remove the likelihood of problem where there are plenty of in-transition and some post-transition women who don't readily pass and only add to the problem with the issue.
Anyway, my point is arguing with trans activists or advocates is like sitting in a room full of people talking and no one listening let alone hearing anyone else. No one wins and the best choice is to get up and leave, and then live your own life as you see it.
I won't argue the positive things achieved by trans activists and advocates, but I will argue all too often they take and talk about themselves too seriously and too important, thinking they're a "voice" for transpeople. They're not.
This becomes worse when other transgender activists and advocates, the rest under the transgender umbrella, love to argue for inclusion and argue for the rights of all transgender people, using their own definitions and views for others who didn't choose them and don't want to belong to their view.
It's why the vast majority of transwomen disappear into society once they transition, for the same reasons I don't get involved, to put distance between themselve, their past and the trans community. Back of the napkin estimates put 80-90% of post-transition women don't recognize or aren't involved with the transcommunity.
It's the same with transitioning women. Their goal is to get through their transition and on with their life. Their focus is their life and career, to become legally female with the least number and severity of problems, so being active in the transcommunity and vocal on the issues isn't on their priority list.
They don't want the problems as most are publically quiet or stealth as possible and don't want to go back under the umbrella. Who does? And have to listen to the crowd under it? To be ignored? To be told who or what you are?
Yeah, it's the obvious answer. And me? I'll just keep my voice here thank you.
This is why I have this blog on trans issues, because I can say what I think or feel and then decide if any of the comments, which I rarely get anyway, are fit to keep. I can simply choose not to allow the post or delete the post completely (eBlogger has a delete and remove choices).
The reason I stopped arguing is that I tend to look at the larger picture of the trans community in the world, relative to where it fits in the larger discussion. A case in point is the case of the inmate in the Massachusetts prison on a life sentence being granted sex reassignment surgery at state expense.
I, as well as many in and out of the trans community, disagree with the judge's ruling, even though the inmate qualifies under the standards of care for the surgery, because he brutally killed his wife and the surgery is not life-threatening, one of the standards for healthcare for inmates.
But the louder voices are arguing the principle of the issue, the person qualifies and therefore should get the surgery, even though few of the rest of the transwomen who do qualify for the surgery get theirs paid by health insurance, employer or other public or taxpayer programs.
They argue that isn't the issue when it is the larger issue, about appropriate use of taxpayers' money for prisoners, especially those serving life sentences. The point being, no one budges on the their view, so discussion and debate are irrelevant. Intransigence is.
Another case is the always present issue of public bathrooms. Granted almost everyone agrees transwomen should have the right to use the women's restroom in public places and other public-use places (malls, stores, restaurants, etc.). And they fight when a transwomen is denied, rejected and especially arrested for trying.
Even when cross-dressers use them and the obvious or questionable passing transwoman (case in point) uses the women's restroom and unpleasant events happens, and the inevitable lawsuits follow. While the anti-use extremist argue wrongly about "men in dresses" being the dangers (they're not, people just want to do their business and leave), sometimes transwomen don't help make the case for the right.
But you can't argue that with activists and advocates. They believe it's a transwoman's right even if they're cross-dressers presenting as women or she's not overtly passable and raises questions if not concerns from women using the restroom. They believe other people, other women, have to understand and accept.
For me, it's the really big, fuzzy gray area. I'm not in full agreement about cross-dressers being allowed to choose the restroom unless it's pre-arranged to ensure they don't cause problems, and rarely does, only when it's obvious and not planned and agreed.
I say this because in- or post-transition women have enough issues and don't need to be confused with the other groups under the transgender umbrella or confused by the perception of people about who they are, meaning not often seen as women but as transvestites or cross-dressers.
I believe transwomen have rights when and where it's legal, but that alone doesn't remove the likelihood of problem where there are plenty of in-transition and some post-transition women who don't readily pass and only add to the problem with the issue.
Anyway, my point is arguing with trans activists or advocates is like sitting in a room full of people talking and no one listening let alone hearing anyone else. No one wins and the best choice is to get up and leave, and then live your own life as you see it.
I won't argue the positive things achieved by trans activists and advocates, but I will argue all too often they take and talk about themselves too seriously and too important, thinking they're a "voice" for transpeople. They're not.
This becomes worse when other transgender activists and advocates, the rest under the transgender umbrella, love to argue for inclusion and argue for the rights of all transgender people, using their own definitions and views for others who didn't choose them and don't want to belong to their view.
It's why the vast majority of transwomen disappear into society once they transition, for the same reasons I don't get involved, to put distance between themselve, their past and the trans community. Back of the napkin estimates put 80-90% of post-transition women don't recognize or aren't involved with the transcommunity.
It's the same with transitioning women. Their goal is to get through their transition and on with their life. Their focus is their life and career, to become legally female with the least number and severity of problems, so being active in the transcommunity and vocal on the issues isn't on their priority list.
They don't want the problems as most are publically quiet or stealth as possible and don't want to go back under the umbrella. Who does? And have to listen to the crowd under it? To be ignored? To be told who or what you are?
Yeah, it's the obvious answer. And me? I'll just keep my voice here thank you.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Why
Why is it that the (trans)woman knows who she is and wants to be, but the therapist has to learn, and the therapist is the one who gets to decide who she is and wants to be?
Why is that a normal person who knows she's normal except for a issues about her body, but the therapist gets to decide she has abnormal condition and gets to decide what treatment is best for the patient?
Why is it that past their transition, 99+% of (trans)women are happy with themselves, but the therapist is the one who decides if she gets there?
Why is that genetic men and women can have any type of surgery on their genitals without therapy to question their decision, but someone who wants surgery to change the sex of their genitals can't without therapy which questions and then decides if their decision is right?
Why is the therapist the one who gets to decide the life of a normal woman to get surgery for fix an abnormal physical condition?
Why is the necessary therapy with a transition really an excercise in morality about sex and gender than real, medical help to resolve the (trans)woman's problem with her body?
Why is the control of a transition by therapists an excercise in morality than a treatment to help?
Why does a therapist get to decide if the (trans)woman is woman enough?
If they require this for (trans)women, why don't they require is for genetic women to prove they're really women enough?
Why is that a normal person who knows she's normal except for a issues about her body, but the therapist gets to decide she has abnormal condition and gets to decide what treatment is best for the patient?
Why is it that past their transition, 99+% of (trans)women are happy with themselves, but the therapist is the one who decides if she gets there?
Why is that genetic men and women can have any type of surgery on their genitals without therapy to question their decision, but someone who wants surgery to change the sex of their genitals can't without therapy which questions and then decides if their decision is right?
Why is the therapist the one who gets to decide the life of a normal woman to get surgery for fix an abnormal physical condition?
Why is the necessary therapy with a transition really an excercise in morality about sex and gender than real, medical help to resolve the (trans)woman's problem with her body?
Why is the control of a transition by therapists an excercise in morality than a treatment to help?
Why does a therapist get to decide if the (trans)woman is woman enough?
If they require this for (trans)women, why don't they require is for genetic women to prove they're really women enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
