Political demands at the level of biology itself
March 11, 2024 10:27 AM Subscribe
Andrea Long Chu, winner of the 2023 Pulitzer Prize in Criticism and recently interviewed on the new podcast The Critic and Her Publics, argues the moral case for letting trans kids change their bodies.
I am speaking here of a universal birthright: the freedom of sex. This freedom consists of two principal rights: the right to change one’s biological sex without appealing to gender and the right to assume a gender that is not determined by one’s sexual biology. One might exercise both of these rights toward a common goal — transition, for instance — but neither can be collapsed into the other...
What does this freedom look like in practice? Let anyone change their sex. Let anyone change their gender. Let anyone change their sex again. Let trans girls play sports, regardless of their sex status. If they excel, this means only that some girls are better at sports than others. Let people use the gender-segregated facilities of their choice; desegregate whenever possible. Do not out children to their parents. Do not force anyone to change their sex or their gender. Give everyone health care.
now that's freedom
I want to live in this world
posted by elkevelvet at 11:24 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
I want to live in this world
posted by elkevelvet at 11:24 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
This has a bit of an intro to inside baseball feel to it, and I've honestly never been sure how to solve the problem of needing clueless cis people's support so they don't kill us vs actually being able to talk about the way things are as trans people, especially, uh... trans people with more experience see them.
posted by tigrrrlily at 11:39 AM on March 11 [6 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 11:39 AM on March 11 [6 favorites]
Hey, can I please request that cis people with no expertise on this issue recognize that their opinions on this fascinating conundrum that conservatives have made sure we would all have to reckon with stand a good chance of being harmful to any trans people who are, I absolutely guarantee, following this thread.
So maybe refrain from expressing your personal discomfort with rights that trans people are busy fighting for, in order to save yet more kids from dying.
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:19 PM on March 11 [44 favorites]
So maybe refrain from expressing your personal discomfort with rights that trans people are busy fighting for, in order to save yet more kids from dying.
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:19 PM on March 11 [44 favorites]
This is why they are not allowed to drink, to vote, to get tattoos or to choose to have sex with adults.
They are, however, allowed to have bariatric surgery and breast augmentation surgery, which strike me as far more analogous.
posted by praemunire at 12:24 PM on March 11 [19 favorites]
They are, however, allowed to have bariatric surgery and breast augmentation surgery, which strike me as far more analogous.
posted by praemunire at 12:24 PM on March 11 [19 favorites]
Good job Andrea Long Chu IYAM.
In 2018, The Atlantic published a long cover story by the reporter Jesse Singal called “When Children Say They’re Trans,” focusing on the clinical disagreements over how to treat gender-questioning youth. The story provided a template for the coverage that would follow it. First, it took what was threatening to become a social issue, hence a question of rights, and turned it back into a medical issue, hence a question of evidence; it then quietly suggested that since the evidence was debatable, so were the rights.
and
Of particular note here is Singal, who has often accused trans activists of mounting an Orwellian campaign to discount “the relevance of biological sex.” It would be “profoundly unfair,” he wrote last year, if a “large male” like himself were to suddenly demand that others see him as a woman. (It did not occur to him that this is precisely why trans girls, who are well aware of their biology, are asking for puberty blockers: so that they do not grow up to look like Jesse Singal.)
Dang. That passage appears in the dictionary next to "the truth hurts".
But it should be clear by now that when members of the anti-trans movement argue that sex cannot change, what they really mean is that sex shouldn’t change except in accordance with social norms.
Despite the fact that I'm selecting passages here, I suggest reading the whole thing - it's not just reportage, it's an argument that is developed through the whole piece and so it's good to read selections in the context of the whole.
I'd say it's a really good piece! Extremely tempered and straightforward for ALC at least based on my reading of her work (I'm a fan - she's a real firecracker.)
posted by Frowner at 12:25 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
In 2018, The Atlantic published a long cover story by the reporter Jesse Singal called “When Children Say They’re Trans,” focusing on the clinical disagreements over how to treat gender-questioning youth. The story provided a template for the coverage that would follow it. First, it took what was threatening to become a social issue, hence a question of rights, and turned it back into a medical issue, hence a question of evidence; it then quietly suggested that since the evidence was debatable, so were the rights.
and
Of particular note here is Singal, who has often accused trans activists of mounting an Orwellian campaign to discount “the relevance of biological sex.” It would be “profoundly unfair,” he wrote last year, if a “large male” like himself were to suddenly demand that others see him as a woman. (It did not occur to him that this is precisely why trans girls, who are well aware of their biology, are asking for puberty blockers: so that they do not grow up to look like Jesse Singal.)
Dang. That passage appears in the dictionary next to "the truth hurts".
But it should be clear by now that when members of the anti-trans movement argue that sex cannot change, what they really mean is that sex shouldn’t change except in accordance with social norms.
Despite the fact that I'm selecting passages here, I suggest reading the whole thing - it's not just reportage, it's an argument that is developed through the whole piece and so it's good to read selections in the context of the whole.
I'd say it's a really good piece! Extremely tempered and straightforward for ALC at least based on my reading of her work (I'm a fan - she's a real firecracker.)
posted by Frowner at 12:25 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
But there is a crucial difference in failing to consent to something that no one is doing to you and failing to consent to something that someone is doing to youChild or adult, is a trans person taking their identity affirming medicine “something that someone is doing to you”?
Contest how our society views children. But I think there might be some unintentional strawmanning or false equivalence.
Though I was actually signing in to say how grateful I am for our community and how much I look forward to the conversation below, especially the voices of individuals who fit within the community the article describes. It’s not your job, but thanks for educating me.
posted by rubatan at 12:25 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
If a trans child is pre-adolescent, the *only* medical treatment they get is puberty blockers, as far as I know. The only other things are going by preferred name, pronouns,and dress/appearance, and at least a few check-ins a year.
So any hand-wringing about pre-adolescent kids is about those things, none of which are irreversible.
For a trans kid, adolescence isn't about doing nothing vs. doing something, but about choosing which transformative hormonal path your body is going to take. Or not being allowed to choose and then having to try to reverse or minimize changes later, if you can.
The hard thing for people who don't have trans kids to understand is that there is no risk-free option. Your kid might be one of the (very few) with regrets about transitioning later. Or your refusal to let them transition could harm them profoundly or even prompt them to suicide. Either way, you have no guarantees.
In which case, you should listen to the person most affected, your kid.
I really enjoyed this piece mostly because I don't get enough meaty feminist theory in my day, but it's definitely not aimed at the general public.
posted by emjaybee at 12:25 PM on March 11 [24 favorites]
So any hand-wringing about pre-adolescent kids is about those things, none of which are irreversible.
For a trans kid, adolescence isn't about doing nothing vs. doing something, but about choosing which transformative hormonal path your body is going to take. Or not being allowed to choose and then having to try to reverse or minimize changes later, if you can.
The hard thing for people who don't have trans kids to understand is that there is no risk-free option. Your kid might be one of the (very few) with regrets about transitioning later. Or your refusal to let them transition could harm them profoundly or even prompt them to suicide. Either way, you have no guarantees.
In which case, you should listen to the person most affected, your kid.
I really enjoyed this piece mostly because I don't get enough meaty feminist theory in my day, but it's definitely not aimed at the general public.
posted by emjaybee at 12:25 PM on March 11 [24 favorites]
oddman: But there is a crucial difference in failing to consent to something that no one is doing to you and failing to consent to something that someone is doing to you
I wish cis folks understood that hormonal transition is not a one-time procedure performed in a doctor's office. Transition is a slow, gradual, lifelong process that is opted into each time you take your next dose. It is very much something one does to themselves.
Nobody is fighting for the right to forcibly transition children against their wills. We're fighting for the right not to force trans children through puberty with the wrong hormones. We're fighting for the right not to forcibly detransition trans children who are already on the right hormones.
posted by sharktopus at 12:46 PM on March 11 [27 favorites]
I wish cis folks understood that hormonal transition is not a one-time procedure performed in a doctor's office. Transition is a slow, gradual, lifelong process that is opted into each time you take your next dose. It is very much something one does to themselves.
Nobody is fighting for the right to forcibly transition children against their wills. We're fighting for the right not to force trans children through puberty with the wrong hormones. We're fighting for the right not to forcibly detransition trans children who are already on the right hormones.
posted by sharktopus at 12:46 PM on March 11 [27 favorites]
This has a bit of an intro to inside baseball feel to it,
It is written for a general (aka not just trans) audience, but going deep on the philosophical divide between a gender-only view of transness and transition and a sex-and-gender view doesn't feel very intro to me. It is definitely inside baseball though, since it's in part Chu responding to Butler! I will be fascinated to see if they respond.
posted by feckless at 12:55 PM on March 11
It is written for a general (aka not just trans) audience, but going deep on the philosophical divide between a gender-only view of transness and transition and a sex-and-gender view doesn't feel very intro to me. It is definitely inside baseball though, since it's in part Chu responding to Butler! I will be fascinated to see if they respond.
posted by feckless at 12:55 PM on March 11
Yeah, my point was there is no such thing as an "intro to inside baseball", this seems to have been widely distributed when it's the equivalent of an academic paper.
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:58 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:58 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Honestly ballet might be a good metaphor - to mold the "right" body, especially for elite ballerinas, you have to start pre-puberty. And we let kids do that with far more pressure from the parents and far, far less chance of success. (And far more consequences in the way of joint malformation.)
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:13 PM on March 11 [18 favorites]
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:13 PM on March 11 [18 favorites]
I appreciate many things about this essay, include Chu's identification of TARLs as actually a more common, more impactful problem than TERFs:
posted by overglow at 1:34 PM on March 11 [24 favorites]
...the anti-trans liberal sees himself as a concerned citizen, not an ideologue. He is neither radical nor a feminist; he is not so much trans-exclusionary as he is broadly skeptical of all social-justice movements. He is a trans-agnostic reactionary liberal — a TARL. The TARL’s primary concern, to hear him tell it, lies in protecting free speech and civil society from the illiberal forces of the woke left, which, by forcing the orthodoxy of gender down the public’s throat and viciously attacking anyone who dares to ask questions, is trafficking in censorship, intimidation, and quasi-religious fanaticism. On trans people themselves, the TARL claims to take no position other than to voice his general empathy for anyone suffering from psychological distress or civil-rights violations.Why, TARLs are so common you might even find one in this very thread!
posted by overglow at 1:34 PM on March 11 [24 favorites]
Last time I heard about Andrea Long Chu, people were super mad at her for her NYT essay about how she was going to still be depressed despite transitioning. Being a critic is hard, man.i mean, it was a bit more than that: she wrote a nytimes essay that explicitly described her bottom surgery as a wound that would never heal, which is precisely the same rhetoric some of the viler anti-trans activists use when describing what they term is a "mutilation" of "depressed and crazy" men.
it's nice that in the article she flags how awful the nytimes is when it comes to trans topics, but she also completely elides the ammunition her essay provided to bigots; that her work as a rhetorical bomb thrower, while it can be illuminating, is often used as a lens for well-meaning liberals to speak over other trans women because she gets published. there's the whole bit about her book females, which is tricky to engage with because you're never sure if it's a bit or if she's seriously committed to the ultimate conclusions of her arguments.
when much of one's work is lauded and read and used by the majority to understand a minority, and more than a significant fraction of said minority look at it as problematic, incomplete, misleading, or alien, something is wrong. in my experience chu tends to be lauded by people not trans more than she is by trans people.
in the particular case of this article, i appreciate the arguments she's making and i tend to agree with them. i just think that she's definitely... problematic, and tends to elide her role in some of this and understates certain aspects.
for instance, in referring that infamous atlantic article, she describes it as highlighting conflict in trans care for youth, rather than fomenting it, which is more what happened.
posted by i used to be someone else at 2:12 PM on March 11 [8 favorites]
Trans people have no obligation to avoid providing ammunition to transphobes; 100% of the obligation is upon the transphobes. Nothing any trans person, nor indeed all trans people acting in concert, could ever do would ever have the impact of the choices each individual transphobe makes, continually, to do bigotry. They are ammunition makers, happily inventing new imaginary offenses to levy at us; we may as well live and express ourselves in whatever way we see fit without regard to whether or not it can be used against us.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:23 PM on March 11 [20 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:23 PM on March 11 [20 favorites]
in aside, one of the more interesting aspects about the acronym TARL (and their presence here in this thread, out there in the world, everywhere and everywhen transition care re: youth is brought up) is that "Tarl" as a name is one that appears as the protagonist of the gross, gender-essentialist BDSM world of Gor; i know that because one of my exes who is also trans once worked with someone named Tarl because he was related to the writer of the series.
that Tarl, like his namesake Tarl, and TARLs as a group, tend to place a lot more emphasis on the synonymousness of gender and sex and how things should be without ever really thinking about where those ideas come from.
posted by i used to be someone else at 2:24 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
that Tarl, like his namesake Tarl, and TARLs as a group, tend to place a lot more emphasis on the synonymousness of gender and sex and how things should be without ever really thinking about where those ideas come from.
posted by i used to be someone else at 2:24 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
I am trans and I laud her! Certainly not because I think everything she writes is correct, though. I like her work because so often we're pushed into this position of being ultra-nice and explainy and kind of abjected, and I think it's good for movements to have people who are really out there.
I feel like with a lot of queer and trans discourse, there are things that we kind of steer away from and paper over, and those get weaponized against us when transphobes and homophobes zero in on them. Like, okay, Andrea Long Chu got bottom surgery and is still depressed and has some kind of "wound that won't heal" thing going on. Okay, so she's kind of a weirdo! But inevitably, there will be trans women who are weird, who are awkward, who aren't nice. There will be trans women who are art weirdos who write weird provocateur New York stuff. My feeling is that when we pretend those women don't exist or tell them to keep quiet and keep it all inside baseball, we're putting ourselves in a weaker position politically.
I feel like what happens is that we put our best faces forward and are extremely nice and wholesome and explainy...and we get treated like we're dangerous freaks anyway. If you have some people on your side who really come out swinging, it changes the tenor of the discourse, puts you in a position that isn't just "I guess I'd better always massage everything so it's as mild and palatable as possible so that we look good".
I've been around activists and art weirdos for a godawful long time now, and I really do believe that having someone out front with a flamethrower from time to time is invigorating to the movement and makes us feel like we have control and can be active rather than reactive.
posted by Frowner at 2:25 PM on March 11 [26 favorites]
I feel like with a lot of queer and trans discourse, there are things that we kind of steer away from and paper over, and those get weaponized against us when transphobes and homophobes zero in on them. Like, okay, Andrea Long Chu got bottom surgery and is still depressed and has some kind of "wound that won't heal" thing going on. Okay, so she's kind of a weirdo! But inevitably, there will be trans women who are weird, who are awkward, who aren't nice. There will be trans women who are art weirdos who write weird provocateur New York stuff. My feeling is that when we pretend those women don't exist or tell them to keep quiet and keep it all inside baseball, we're putting ourselves in a weaker position politically.
I feel like what happens is that we put our best faces forward and are extremely nice and wholesome and explainy...and we get treated like we're dangerous freaks anyway. If you have some people on your side who really come out swinging, it changes the tenor of the discourse, puts you in a position that isn't just "I guess I'd better always massage everything so it's as mild and palatable as possible so that we look good".
I've been around activists and art weirdos for a godawful long time now, and I really do believe that having someone out front with a flamethrower from time to time is invigorating to the movement and makes us feel like we have control and can be active rather than reactive.
posted by Frowner at 2:25 PM on March 11 [26 favorites]
She just really reminds me of some of the queer art weirdos in New York in the eighties and nineties, and while some of them to be quite frank give me the icks, I'm glad they were there. We can't have a world without the icks, and I'd rather have them be our icks.
posted by Frowner at 2:29 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 2:29 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
Trans people have no obligation to avoid providing ammunition to transphobes; 100% of the obligation is upon the transphobes.i mean, i don't disagree, but when someone mischaracterizes in a newspaper that has a national platform that bottom surgery creates an open wound that will never heal (and giving the impression to cis people that's what vaginoplasty essentially is) and writes that everyone is female because to be female is to be fucked, i'm comfortable calling her a rhetorical bomb thrower and also view most of her output dimly.
I feel like with a lot of queer and trans discourse, there are things that we kind of steer away from and paper over, and those get weaponized against us when transphobes and homophobes zero in on them.again, i don't disagree that there should be weird representation too. i'm just trying to provide more context to why a bunch of us are less than enthused every time she writes something that gets published into the mainstream; indeed, i know she has her fans too, and i thought i made clear that they existed.
in any case, there's nothing wrong with agent provocateurs. i'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to write her molotovs. i think, by and large, this one is more on the good side than not, even if i have many quibbles. i do, however, want to make distinct that she does not and has not ever spoken for the majority of trans folk.
why am i trying to clarify that context, you may ask? because of people like one of our kind gentleposters above who repeated asinine rhetoric comparing trans healthcare to cigarettes and tattoos. there are so many TARLs and others who have such little interest or opportunity in familiarizing themselves with the lives of trans people that they'll mindlessly echo half-regurgitated talking points while imagining it to be reasonable and dispassionately thoughtful, and they will read or encounter one thing and assume that is how all of us are.
posted by i used to be someone else at 2:36 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
I don't like her calling her bottom surgery a wound that will never heal, but, whatever, it's her body. She gets to talk about her own experience all she wants, but generalizing it to all of us is wrong and hurtful
What I hated her NY Time editorial for was its closing paragraph:
posted by Tabitha Someday at 2:42 PM on March 11 [29 favorites]
What I hated her NY Time editorial for was its closing paragraph:
There are no good outcomes in transition. There are only people, begging to be taken seriously.I have had an amazing outcome from transition, and here she is saying there's no such thing. That is not okay.
posted by Tabitha Someday at 2:42 PM on March 11 [29 favorites]
Most of us do not consent to die, that doesn't make death by natural causes morally equivalent to murder or if you prefer a less dramatic analogy, generally speaking, none of us consent to either tripping over our own feet or to being tripped by someone, but the former has no moral dimension (at least not prima facie) while the latter certainly does.But there is a moral dimension to withholding lifesaving medication. You don't get to say that, since death is inevitable, it's not immoral to withhold insulin from a diabetic.
The tripping over our own feet part of the analogy offensively trivializes the issue.
posted by Tabitha Someday at 2:49 PM on March 11 [13 favorites]
I'm a trans person who is still depressed. But existing as a closeted trans person pretending to be a cis person is no longer one of the many, many things making me depressed, and I think that's pretty great.
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:01 PM on March 11 [26 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:01 PM on March 11 [26 favorites]
What I hated her NY Time editorial for was its closing paragraph:
There are no good outcomes in transition. There are only people, begging to be taken seriously.
I could be wrong, but I read that to be saying that it is wrong to gatekeep transition on the basis of whether someone else perceives it to be likely to create happiness or relieve pain (a "positive outcome"), as opposed to providing it to all who desire it. What you might call a desire-based, rather than a goal-based approach. But I understand why, especially in an article so weighted with sadness, it might be taken differently.
posted by praemunire at 3:04 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
There are no good outcomes in transition. There are only people, begging to be taken seriously.
I could be wrong, but I read that to be saying that it is wrong to gatekeep transition on the basis of whether someone else perceives it to be likely to create happiness or relieve pain (a "positive outcome"), as opposed to providing it to all who desire it. What you might call a desire-based, rather than a goal-based approach. But I understand why, especially in an article so weighted with sadness, it might be taken differently.
posted by praemunire at 3:04 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
I could be wrong, but I read that to be saying that it is wrong to gatekeep transition on the basis of whether someone else perceives it to be likely to create happiness or relieve pain (a "positive outcome"), as opposed to providing it to all who desire it. What you might call a desire-based, rather than a goal-based approach. But I understand why, especially in an article so weighted with sadness, it might be taken differently.I'd say that's the gist of the whole article, but that is in no way what that paragraph says. It does not say positive outcomes are unnecessary. It says that they do not exist.
It makes a very clear, very universal, and very wrong statement.
posted by Tabitha Someday at 3:11 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
very wrong statement
Do you think that she thinks that no one has a positive experience with transitioning? That no one is happier because of it? No one has a better life on the whole? Because that is so contrary to the reality that anyone who has any exposure to trans people (and is not utterly blinded by ideology) can see that it just seems...unlikely as a claim from a trans activist, even one who obviously does not feel that transitioning will make/is making her happy, as opposed to accessing a more authentic sadness. It seems more likely that she's saying there are no "outcomes," only "people." Maybe it would've been more decipherable if she'd used quotes around those words.
Even if I'm right about that, though, it would've been better for her to take more care to be understood there. I am definitely not saying you're willfully misreading, or negligently reading, her.
posted by praemunire at 3:42 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
Do you think that she thinks that no one has a positive experience with transitioning? That no one is happier because of it? No one has a better life on the whole? Because that is so contrary to the reality that anyone who has any exposure to trans people (and is not utterly blinded by ideology) can see that it just seems...unlikely as a claim from a trans activist, even one who obviously does not feel that transitioning will make/is making her happy, as opposed to accessing a more authentic sadness. It seems more likely that she's saying there are no "outcomes," only "people." Maybe it would've been more decipherable if she'd used quotes around those words.
Even if I'm right about that, though, it would've been better for her to take more care to be understood there. I am definitely not saying you're willfully misreading, or negligently reading, her.
posted by praemunire at 3:42 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I'd guess that NYMag published this article today because of the leak of hundreds of message files from an internal chat board of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) by "Environmental Progress, a think tank focused on energy and environmental policy and founded by Michael Shellenberger, a writer who has previously been critical of gender-affirming care and said he wants to shut down the World Professional Association for Transgender Health" which took place last week.
Here is an article in STAT harshly criticizing some of the conclusions that the think tank published about these files, and here is the extremely long and vituperative analysis of the files by reporter Mia Hughes as well as the files themselves ( I think), though I didn’t scroll far enough to see them. There is an "executive summary" of Hughes' analysis, but I didn’t read it.
posted by jamjam at 4:49 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
Here is an article in STAT harshly criticizing some of the conclusions that the think tank published about these files, and here is the extremely long and vituperative analysis of the files by reporter Mia Hughes as well as the files themselves ( I think), though I didn’t scroll far enough to see them. There is an "executive summary" of Hughes' analysis, but I didn’t read it.
posted by jamjam at 4:49 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
Do you think that she thinks that no one has a positive experience with transitioning?Based on that essay? Very possibly.
She also says
Buried under all of this, like a sober tuber, lies an assumption so sensible you’ll think me silly for digging it up. It’s this: People transition because they think it will make them feel better. The thing is, this is wrong.It's unclear which part she's saying is wrong. Is she saying that isn't the reason people transition, or that transition won't make them feel better? Either way, this is also wrong, as a categorical statement. I transitioned because I thought it would make me feel better. It made me feel better. I know many trans women with similar experience. If she meant that that isn't the only reason people transition, she should have said that.
Then there's this:
And yet as things stand today, there is still only one way to obtain hormones and surgery: to pretend that these treatments will make the pain go away.I haven't pretended anything. I never thought hormones and surgery would make all my pain go away, but they certainly alleviated a lot of it.
there are no "outcomes," only "people."That would have been a great conclusion. Even just leaving off the word positive would have worked. But that is not what she wrote, and, given how at every turn, her essay invalidates the positive experiences that trans women like me have and have had, and how she generalizes her misery in her transition to all of us, I can easily believe that she could believe the literal meaning of what she wrote.
posted by Tabitha Someday at 4:59 PM on March 11 [11 favorites]
Oh my god, WPATH doctors are upset that they don't have accurate enough data on which patients are trans, and which kind specifically. It's impeding their research.
This from a set of their documents leaked to a conservative think tank.
At the same time that PFLAG is busy finding out what happens when you keep lists of vulnerable people.
Yes, at some point I am likely to die somewhat earlier than I would otherwise because of a reluctance to interact with medical professionals. That much of the conclusion is true.
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:23 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
This from a set of their documents leaked to a conservative think tank.
At the same time that PFLAG is busy finding out what happens when you keep lists of vulnerable people.
Yes, at some point I am likely to die somewhat earlier than I would otherwise because of a reluctance to interact with medical professionals. That much of the conclusion is true.
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:23 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
The cost and effectiveness of surgery - which no matter how good, can never compare to simply having the thing - is likely also a thing that makes it difficult to be All Better.
I am generally very much on team "transition is not going to magically solve your problems" (just some of them, in all probability), but my experience of top surgery was 100% a switch flipping. Boom, problem solved and like it never existed. I have to stop myself minimizing that there was recovery involved when talking to others because it really was inconsequential to my experience.
posted by hoyland at 7:04 PM on March 11 [10 favorites]
I am generally very much on team "transition is not going to magically solve your problems" (just some of them, in all probability), but my experience of top surgery was 100% a switch flipping. Boom, problem solved and like it never existed. I have to stop myself minimizing that there was recovery involved when talking to others because it really was inconsequential to my experience.
posted by hoyland at 7:04 PM on March 11 [10 favorites]
There are parts of being trans that I could have done without, but it's the pre-transition angsting and the being a political football thing, not anything related to medical transition.
posted by hoyland at 7:06 PM on March 11 [8 favorites]
posted by hoyland at 7:06 PM on March 11 [8 favorites]
no matter how good, can never compare to simply having the thing
"the thing"? I have the thing. Oh, you must mean the real thing.
My "thing" is real, as far as I can tell. I mean, it's part of my body and it undeniably exists. As far as what it does for me, I have a better relationship with my genitals than do a LOT of cis women in the US, which is where I live. The kind of belittling categorical statement you made above falls apart right there.
My thing was artisanally crafted by a little old Asian man, according to my specifications.
Any issues I have with my body are NOT with the appearance or functionality of what's between my legs, or the fun my wife and I derive from it.
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:08 PM on March 11 [11 favorites]
"the thing"? I have the thing. Oh, you must mean the real thing.
My "thing" is real, as far as I can tell. I mean, it's part of my body and it undeniably exists. As far as what it does for me, I have a better relationship with my genitals than do a LOT of cis women in the US, which is where I live. The kind of belittling categorical statement you made above falls apart right there.
My thing was artisanally crafted by a little old Asian man, according to my specifications.
Any issues I have with my body are NOT with the appearance or functionality of what's between my legs, or the fun my wife and I derive from it.
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:08 PM on March 11 [11 favorites]
That last paragraph will be interpreted in the most anti-trans way by most cis people because that's the world we live in. Trans people hearing other trans people can hear the nuance but most cis people are going to go with their media-informed biases.
When I started socially transitioning, my depression faded to something pretty minor and manageable. When I started HRT, my body started to become my own in a way it never felt before. There was still a lot of mental work to do within that but mostly it was shedding my internalized transphobia/misogyny. When I had FFS last year, again, a leap forward in feeling better. When I had SRS last week, another leap forward into something radically new (and still unfolding as I heal).
The problem with that last paragraph is that it needs to be said more clearly and explicitly. There are incredible outcomes in transition, but she makes her experience sound universal. My biggest gripe with trans visibility is that the uniqueness of individual trans lives gets flattened into palatable stories for cis people.
Trans women, trans men, and trans enbies have different experiences. Within those groups, everyone has different experiences, depending on their upbringing, where and how they transition (transition does not have to be medical!), their mental health and access to care, their income and access to housing and resources.
This isn't special in the sense that cis people are the same that way in their own changes.
This is special in the sense that trans people create themselves, sometimes birth and parent themselves, sometimes alone, sometimes well supported, in cultures that are often determined to make that out to be insane or make that difficult to impossible.
posted by kokaku at 5:10 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
When I started socially transitioning, my depression faded to something pretty minor and manageable. When I started HRT, my body started to become my own in a way it never felt before. There was still a lot of mental work to do within that but mostly it was shedding my internalized transphobia/misogyny. When I had FFS last year, again, a leap forward in feeling better. When I had SRS last week, another leap forward into something radically new (and still unfolding as I heal).
The problem with that last paragraph is that it needs to be said more clearly and explicitly. There are incredible outcomes in transition, but she makes her experience sound universal. My biggest gripe with trans visibility is that the uniqueness of individual trans lives gets flattened into palatable stories for cis people.
Trans women, trans men, and trans enbies have different experiences. Within those groups, everyone has different experiences, depending on their upbringing, where and how they transition (transition does not have to be medical!), their mental health and access to care, their income and access to housing and resources.
This isn't special in the sense that cis people are the same that way in their own changes.
This is special in the sense that trans people create themselves, sometimes birth and parent themselves, sometimes alone, sometimes well supported, in cultures that are often determined to make that out to be insane or make that difficult to impossible.
posted by kokaku at 5:10 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
Mod note: Hi, this is a mod note to remind non-trans people to be careful with their words and to consider simply listening to the voices of our trans members. Comments that imply trans people are not real or look to point out gaps in arguments or linking to sources you haven't read aren't helpful at all, quite opposite.
Please just let trans people speak their truth and listen to what they have to say.
No comments have been removed at this time, but the comment linking to the Environmental Progress PDF has been edited to remove that link, as flag pointed ou how anti-trans it is.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:38 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Please just let trans people speak their truth and listen to what they have to say.
No comments have been removed at this time, but the comment linking to the Environmental Progress PDF has been edited to remove that link, as flag pointed ou how anti-trans it is.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:38 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
My "thing" is real...
...fun my wife and I derive from it.
Can confirm.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:32 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
...fun my wife and I derive from it.
Can confirm.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:32 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
I've been thinking a lot about this thread and how it's taken this turn of well-meaning cis people who likely consider themselves allies basically, I don't know, pitying trans people or thinking that being trans is a bad thing to have happen to you, whether they realise they're doing it or not. In many ways, it's the exact harm people foresaw when they objected to the infamous Andrea Long Chu piece. But, really, I can't emphasise enough how transitioning (writ large -- social, medical, coming out to yourself and no one else) is this immensely powerful act of self-love, the opportunity for which doesn't present itself all that often in our lives. I suspect it's this feeling of power, of self-love, that gets rolled up into "becoming the real you" or whatever trite nonsense is being fed to cis people in trans 101 at the moment, and that loses so much of the actual experience. I moved across the country "on a whim" (read: after a year of angsting about it) four months back and that's really the decision I've made most similar to transition (except that there had to be a point where my mind was made up, where backing out would have been a huge, expensive hassle, which, to be clear, isn't how medical transition works)--a decision that was about taking control of my life and doing what I thought was right for me, not just continuing to muddle through. There was a period where I told myself I'd only transition if the "situation became untenable", but I slowly realised it wasn't going to become untenable, I was just going to carry on being unhappy and then die, hopefully at a ripe old age. Sometimes, that's the best you can get from a situation, but not when it came to my gender.
posted by hoyland at 7:18 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
posted by hoyland at 7:18 AM on March 12 [12 favorites]
The cost and effectiveness of surgery - which no matter how good, can never compare to simply having the thing - is likely also a thing that makes it difficult to be All Better.lines like this are precisely why, praemunire, that tabitha, i, and others find chu's assertion about how "there are no good outcomes" and "a wound that will never heal" as so problematic. i thank corb for being largely supportive and agreeing that things should be better than they are now, and yet... the implication that any surgical interventions will only create an ersatz wish knockoff can easily be read into that line. not that i think corb means that, even on a subconscious level, but i know a good many self-professed "supportive" "allies" who do think that one gets a temu-level vag that will never compare to the real thing.
also, i'm glad the mods have a statesmanly, bidenesque level of "having our backs" given that the post containing the comparison of trans care to cigarettes and tattoos (a common talking point, like very common, like trash gear white border kind of common) is still up and being favorited by the usual suspects, many of whom have, in the past, been asked to step back from trans threads. as long as it's polite and reasonable-enough sounding, after all, and isn't explicitly hateful, it's good enough to pass.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:37 AM on March 12 [8 favorites]
After reading the article (yes my comment was responding to the thread), I now see I was commenting on the mention of a different editorial from the NYT.
The piece linked by this post however is fantastic. I do hope that the needs of various marginalized groups (whether it's trans people or people with varying disabilities or black people or immigrants) can show that the real rising tide that lifts all boats is helping those groups in ways that helps everyone, not some vague handwaving from conservatives that a good economy that funnels money almost entirely to the wealthy will trickle down to those in need.
posted by kokaku at 7:44 AM on March 12
The piece linked by this post however is fantastic. I do hope that the needs of various marginalized groups (whether it's trans people or people with varying disabilities or black people or immigrants) can show that the real rising tide that lifts all boats is helping those groups in ways that helps everyone, not some vague handwaving from conservatives that a good economy that funnels money almost entirely to the wealthy will trickle down to those in need.
posted by kokaku at 7:44 AM on March 12
people who say “better” and mean “All Better”
Wait, wait—is this a thing? Like, there are people who do this? Christ, it's no wonder we can't agree on politics; we can't even agree on what the bloody English language means.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:49 AM on March 12
Wait, wait—is this a thing? Like, there are people who do this? Christ, it's no wonder we can't agree on politics; we can't even agree on what the bloody English language means.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:49 AM on March 12
we can't even agree on what the bloody English language means.
of course not, it's why "what is a woman?" seems to be such an effective question amongst TARLs and TERFs and transphobes and Republicans and conservatives and bigots and the right wing and probably not an insignificant number of posters on this liberal sites like these
it's also why the lauded queerdo andrea long chu tried to answer it in her book females but decided to start it by explaining that everyone is female because to be female is to be fucked, so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:51 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
of course not, it's why "what is a woman?" seems to be such an effective question amongst TARLs and TERFs and transphobes and Republicans and conservatives and bigots and the right wing and probably not an insignificant number of posters on this liberal sites like these
it's also why the lauded queerdo andrea long chu tried to answer it in her book females but decided to start it by explaining that everyone is female because to be female is to be fucked, so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:51 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
not that i think corb means that, even on a subconscious level
I understand corb's comment to mean something like "goodness, seems like a lot of effort, bet people would rather they not need to". And, well, my reaction to thinking about bottom surgery (aka the topic I don't discuss on Metafilter) is, in fact, "kind of cool, but seems like effort" and when I started thinking that, that was how I knew I was a "no" on bottom surgery. But for others close to me, it's not even that the effort is "worth it"--they're weighing risk of potential complications and such against "that would be so awesome" and figuring if they can manage the undeniable logistical challenges, not whether they want to make the effort to do so. Sometimes they got to that place starting from a similar no to mine, but also from every other possible place.
posted by hoyland at 8:09 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
I understand corb's comment to mean something like "goodness, seems like a lot of effort, bet people would rather they not need to". And, well, my reaction to thinking about bottom surgery (aka the topic I don't discuss on Metafilter) is, in fact, "kind of cool, but seems like effort" and when I started thinking that, that was how I knew I was a "no" on bottom surgery. But for others close to me, it's not even that the effort is "worth it"--they're weighing risk of potential complications and such against "that would be so awesome" and figuring if they can manage the undeniable logistical challenges, not whether they want to make the effort to do so. Sometimes they got to that place starting from a similar no to mine, but also from every other possible place.
posted by hoyland at 8:09 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
They are, however, allowed to have bariatric surgery and breast augmentation surgery, which strike me as far more analogous.
Analogies aren't arguments, but note that under current law, those treatments do require parental consent.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:26 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Analogies aren't arguments, but note that under current law, those treatments do require parental consent.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:26 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Note that under current law, trans healthcare for teens also requires parental consent, as well as a whole multidisciplinary team in agreement, while being targeted for banning, with multiple clinics now being forced to shut down.
On the other hand, bariatric surgery and breast augmentations are not being targeted for the same restrictions or banning and the latter does not require the same level of scrutiny from a multidisciplinary team, and are more common by at least an order of magnitude if not more.
If we're going to be pedantic.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:33 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
On the other hand, bariatric surgery and breast augmentations are not being targeted for the same restrictions or banning and the latter does not require the same level of scrutiny from a multidisciplinary team, and are more common by at least an order of magnitude if not more.
If we're going to be pedantic.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:33 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
Metafilter: It's polite and reasonable-enough sounding, after all, and isn't explicitly hateful, it's good enough to pass.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:55 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:55 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Mr. Know-it-some... you're sounding a lot like "playing devils advocate" and "just asking questions". if you're not trans, i don't think that's so helpful here. if you want to learn, ask your questions.
posted by kokaku at 8:56 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
posted by kokaku at 8:56 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
On a more serious note, I've gone back and read the article, which is brilliant.
I also read the early comment by oddman, the well-intentioned but perhaps ill-chosen one by Corb, and now the latest by Mr. know-it-some, and now *my* blood is boiling.
Trans pride is real. I am proud of who I am, as proud of my trans chosen family as I am of my Jewish chosen family. We have power that cis people never will. Power that frightens you. Challenges you. We have the ability to fundamentally change who we are.
We are the fucking shapeshifters of your childhood stories.
Whether by stepping outside of gender, or by changing our bodies (and our minds - HRT does that, trust me), or simply by declaring who we are inside in ways you would not dare, we bring the utopia of The Culture to life. The urination thread? Oh, I could go in. Explain what it is like to experience it from both sides. My trans sisters who cannot do so could explain what it is like to defy your expections of how you pee. Many of my trans brothers could do the same. My nonbinary doctor could explain how they have saved more lives by HRT than any other procedure they do as a primary care doc.
I could tell you how I've seen girls look up to the six foot tall woman leading their Aikido class as an example , not a threat. How my fellow LARPing women see me in plate mail and think, "I could do that too." How men see tigrrrlily fly past them on her bike, lost in wonder or anger at this athletic woman challenging their patriarchy.
So, oddman: Trans children deserve to be who they are, before puberty causes them harm. And we will save them.
Corb: My bits and my wife's are better than if we'd been granted them like a birthright. We fought for them, and the are sexy and beautiful.
Mr. Know-it-some: See above with oddman. Think of women's healthcare and how girls are protected from their parents in that situation. Healthcare providers will protect our trans kids from abusive parents if they need to - and if they won't, then the trans community will.
Shapeshifters. Magicians. Superheroes. Fear us? We are the future.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 9:23 AM on March 12 [14 favorites]
I also read the early comment by oddman, the well-intentioned but perhaps ill-chosen one by Corb, and now the latest by Mr. know-it-some, and now *my* blood is boiling.
Trans pride is real. I am proud of who I am, as proud of my trans chosen family as I am of my Jewish chosen family. We have power that cis people never will. Power that frightens you. Challenges you. We have the ability to fundamentally change who we are.
We are the fucking shapeshifters of your childhood stories.
Whether by stepping outside of gender, or by changing our bodies (and our minds - HRT does that, trust me), or simply by declaring who we are inside in ways you would not dare, we bring the utopia of The Culture to life. The urination thread? Oh, I could go in. Explain what it is like to experience it from both sides. My trans sisters who cannot do so could explain what it is like to defy your expections of how you pee. Many of my trans brothers could do the same. My nonbinary doctor could explain how they have saved more lives by HRT than any other procedure they do as a primary care doc.
I could tell you how I've seen girls look up to the six foot tall woman leading their Aikido class as an example , not a threat. How my fellow LARPing women see me in plate mail and think, "I could do that too." How men see tigrrrlily fly past them on her bike, lost in wonder or anger at this athletic woman challenging their patriarchy.
So, oddman: Trans children deserve to be who they are, before puberty causes them harm. And we will save them.
Corb: My bits and my wife's are better than if we'd been granted them like a birthright. We fought for them, and the are sexy and beautiful.
Mr. Know-it-some: See above with oddman. Think of women's healthcare and how girls are protected from their parents in that situation. Healthcare providers will protect our trans kids from abusive parents if they need to - and if they won't, then the trans community will.
Shapeshifters. Magicians. Superheroes. Fear us? We are the future.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 9:23 AM on March 12 [14 favorites]
MeFite peeps, I'm gonna let myself out at this point. I tried, I really did. I stuck it out. I got in touch with the mods over the transphobia in my home, but they ghosted me. I'm not gonna bother with a Last MetaTalk Stand, as would be tradition. Hell, I just mentioned moderation, so there's your excuse if my flouncing offends you. You're not terrible, really you're not. But I can't be here anymore.
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:52 AM on March 12 [11 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:52 AM on March 12 [11 favorites]
Y'all should feel ashamed of how trans threads go on this site. Again and again and again.
posted by june_dodecahedron at 11:14 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
posted by june_dodecahedron at 11:14 AM on March 12 [9 favorites]
they're not. to them the ambient level of transphobia is 3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible.
but at least it's not like a youtube comment section so they can pat themselves on the back on how great this place is for trans people, so long as you ignore all those that have left and continue to do so
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:17 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
but at least it's not like a youtube comment section so they can pat themselves on the back on how great this place is for trans people, so long as you ignore all those that have left and continue to do so
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:17 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Mod note: A couple of comments deleted. As stated in the Community Guidelines and Microaggressions page, please speak for yourself, not others. And specifically: "Avoid questioning the value of gender-affirming health care, women's reproductive rights or any forms of oppression experienced by others."
posted by loup (staff) at 11:49 AM on March 12
posted by loup (staff) at 11:49 AM on March 12
So are you just going to disappear the comments, or actually fucking do something about it? At least one of the posters has a history of pulling this JAQ-off nonsense in many threads, but if you just keep deleting his shit instead of addressing the problem, he'll keep on doing it.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:58 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:58 AM on March 12 [5 favorites]
Mod note: So are you just going to disappear the comments, or actually fucking do something about it?
Not all moderation actions are publicly visible. Please refer to the Enforcement section of the Content Policy. I've also replied to you via MeFi Mail.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:06 PM on March 12
Not all moderation actions are publicly visible. Please refer to the Enforcement section of the Content Policy. I've also replied to you via MeFi Mail.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:06 PM on March 12
We will never be able to defend the rights of transgender kids until we understand them purely on their own terms: as full members of society who would like to change their sex. It does not matter where this desire comes from.
It seems like this is the heart of the argument in the linked article. Right now, as a cis woman, I have access to a number of "gender-affirming" medical treatments based almost exclusively on my desire to have them and ability to pay for them. E.g., I could choose to substantially augment my already substantial bosom. I don't have to demonstrate to anyone that doing so will improve my life to access such treatments. I don't even have to demonstrate that they won't harm my life (as going to like GGs or something actually probably would, at least professionally). Doctors will offer me such treatments even if it's very likely that the desires for them arise in the context of cultural oppression rather than anything actually being physically wrong with me. If I decide later it was a bad idea to get the treatment, that is not treated as a reflection on the treatments themselves. To avail myself of such treatments is considered an exercise in autonomy, not something that has to be explained on the basis of making my life better. Maybe it makes it better, maybe it makes it worse, but it's my choice. She seems to be advocating the same, largely-outcome-indifferent, theoretical approach in this linked article. To her, the alternative seems to be to treat being trans as a kind of "pathology," and any form of transition thus trapped in a bind in which it must be proven to improve, and maybe universally improve, the lives of transitioners, in order to be permitted by society as a "treatment" for that "pathology."
But there seems to be a political weakness to her approach, too, in that we generally do treat teenagers as having more limited autonomy than adults. I myself do not believe that this should somehow restrict gender-affirming care for trans kids, especially since social transition for kids is totally reversible and puberty blockers can be stopped, but as an intervention in the argument with the current loathsome "irreparable damage" crowd I'm not sure it actually addresses the issue (and thus helps win the public argument). In fact, I'd say public consensus is more likely to coalesce around "trans kids, like most trans people, benefit from the gender-affirming care they choose to seek" than "trans kids should have total bodily autonomy."
posted by praemunire at 12:06 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
It seems like this is the heart of the argument in the linked article. Right now, as a cis woman, I have access to a number of "gender-affirming" medical treatments based almost exclusively on my desire to have them and ability to pay for them. E.g., I could choose to substantially augment my already substantial bosom. I don't have to demonstrate to anyone that doing so will improve my life to access such treatments. I don't even have to demonstrate that they won't harm my life (as going to like GGs or something actually probably would, at least professionally). Doctors will offer me such treatments even if it's very likely that the desires for them arise in the context of cultural oppression rather than anything actually being physically wrong with me. If I decide later it was a bad idea to get the treatment, that is not treated as a reflection on the treatments themselves. To avail myself of such treatments is considered an exercise in autonomy, not something that has to be explained on the basis of making my life better. Maybe it makes it better, maybe it makes it worse, but it's my choice. She seems to be advocating the same, largely-outcome-indifferent, theoretical approach in this linked article. To her, the alternative seems to be to treat being trans as a kind of "pathology," and any form of transition thus trapped in a bind in which it must be proven to improve, and maybe universally improve, the lives of transitioners, in order to be permitted by society as a "treatment" for that "pathology."
But there seems to be a political weakness to her approach, too, in that we generally do treat teenagers as having more limited autonomy than adults. I myself do not believe that this should somehow restrict gender-affirming care for trans kids, especially since social transition for kids is totally reversible and puberty blockers can be stopped, but as an intervention in the argument with the current loathsome "irreparable damage" crowd I'm not sure it actually addresses the issue (and thus helps win the public argument). In fact, I'd say public consensus is more likely to coalesce around "trans kids, like most trans people, benefit from the gender-affirming care they choose to seek" than "trans kids should have total bodily autonomy."
posted by praemunire at 12:06 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
In fact, I'd say public consensus is more likely to coalesce around "trans kids, like most trans people, benefit from the gender-affirming care they choose to seek" than "trans kids should have total bodily autonomy."
Is anyone actually advocating the "totally body autonomy" position? I doubt Chu is. The "alternative" you imply is unachievable is the best case for the current fucking status quo.
posted by hoyland at 12:11 PM on March 12
Is anyone actually advocating the "totally body autonomy" position? I doubt Chu is. The "alternative" you imply is unachievable is the best case for the current fucking status quo.
posted by hoyland at 12:11 PM on March 12
To be clear: I dont mean to imply that trans body parts are any way inferior to cis body parts and deeply apologize if it was read in that way at all.
Upon further reflection and some research, I would like to apologize: my statement was also reflecting a demographic/age-related knowledge/impression gap. Because I am somewhat older, and also because many of my friends are veterans, I have a lot of vivid memories of friends desperately fundraising for years in order to be able to afford their surgeries, which cost tens of thousands of dollars. In their attempts to cut costs, they sometimes had to make tough choices about outcomes and sometimes had very lengthy recoveries. This fundraising frequently took so long that one friend died before she was able to raise enough money for the surgery that might well have helped her remain with us.
However, I am really happy to see that at least for civilians, this seems to have changed radically since that time. While the insurances I and many of my friends use (VA/Tricare) still does not cover gender reaffirming surgeries, it appears that this is very much not the case for outside healthcare providers. This list from the Trans Health Project shows a list of the insurances which cover gender reaffirming surgery and which procedures they cover. Many are fully funded; in my home state, even Medicaid covers gender reaffirming surgery, which was certainly not the case at that time.
I would like to thank folks for the pushback that helped me educate myself on the updates; we are not always aware of our blind spots.
posted by corb at 12:12 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Upon further reflection and some research, I would like to apologize: my statement was also reflecting a demographic/age-related knowledge/impression gap. Because I am somewhat older, and also because many of my friends are veterans, I have a lot of vivid memories of friends desperately fundraising for years in order to be able to afford their surgeries, which cost tens of thousands of dollars. In their attempts to cut costs, they sometimes had to make tough choices about outcomes and sometimes had very lengthy recoveries. This fundraising frequently took so long that one friend died before she was able to raise enough money for the surgery that might well have helped her remain with us.
However, I am really happy to see that at least for civilians, this seems to have changed radically since that time. While the insurances I and many of my friends use (VA/Tricare) still does not cover gender reaffirming surgeries, it appears that this is very much not the case for outside healthcare providers. This list from the Trans Health Project shows a list of the insurances which cover gender reaffirming surgery and which procedures they cover. Many are fully funded; in my home state, even Medicaid covers gender reaffirming surgery, which was certainly not the case at that time.
I would like to thank folks for the pushback that helped me educate myself on the updates; we are not always aware of our blind spots.
posted by corb at 12:12 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/teens/stds-birth-control-pregnancy/parental-consent-and-notification-laws
But hey, trans kids are craaaaazy.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 12:17 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
But hey, trans kids are craaaaazy.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 12:17 PM on March 12 [1 favorite]
corb: it has, unfortunately, not changed radically.
many insurance plans do not cover top & bottom surgeries, let alone things like hair removal/transplantation or other gender related care, and i would gently remind you that just because you do not see the fundraising appeals likely means that either you're not in the same circles or the social algorithms are not showing them to you.
additionally, just because the insurance company ostensibly covers the care does not mean that they will. i currently am finding myself in a protracted, nine-month long argument about some gender affirming care because one of the blue cross blue shields listed in your link "covers" it, except that because no medical provider in my state provides it i'm having to go through a kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare that may well mean that i've just paid a few grand out of pocket and puts me, like many in my income bracket, in financial precarity because that's just how life is in the greatest country on the earth with the greatest medical system in the world.
but hey, at least blue cross hasn't dragged me out to a quarry and done the deed with a butcher knife, right? (like a dog)
granted, i could just quit my job and join the ranks of those in poverty to gain access to medicaid; sacrifices must be made for the greater good, after all.
posted by i used to be someone else at 12:19 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
many insurance plans do not cover top & bottom surgeries, let alone things like hair removal/transplantation or other gender related care, and i would gently remind you that just because you do not see the fundraising appeals likely means that either you're not in the same circles or the social algorithms are not showing them to you.
additionally, just because the insurance company ostensibly covers the care does not mean that they will. i currently am finding myself in a protracted, nine-month long argument about some gender affirming care because one of the blue cross blue shields listed in your link "covers" it, except that because no medical provider in my state provides it i'm having to go through a kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare that may well mean that i've just paid a few grand out of pocket and puts me, like many in my income bracket, in financial precarity because that's just how life is in the greatest country on the earth with the greatest medical system in the world.
but hey, at least blue cross hasn't dragged me out to a quarry and done the deed with a butcher knife, right? (like a dog)
granted, i could just quit my job and join the ranks of those in poverty to gain access to medicaid; sacrifices must be made for the greater good, after all.
posted by i used to be someone else at 12:19 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
I doubt Chu is.
I could be wrong, but I think she is in this essay, or at least advocating a position much closer to that than how we tend to conceive of non-adults' autonomy today.
The "alternative" you imply is unachievable is the best case for the current fucking status quo.
I'm not entirely sure we're understanding each other, because I'm not getting what you're referring to. If you mean the "autonomy"-based approach to gender-affirming care I outlined in my first paragraph, I think that works at least as well, in terms of respecting people and getting them what they need, as an approach for trans adults as the "benefits"-based approach, and may well be preferable, in that it argues for eliminating nearly all gatekeeping and letting people do what they want with their bodies. I don't think it's unachievable at all. (It does have a collateral weakness, though, in that it is a lot easier, at least in the U.S., to argue for public subsidization of something that relieves a condition and confers benefits than on something that "merely" helps someone exercise their autonomy over their body.)
But a lot of her essay is about trans kids, and about the weird horrible fixation the current crop of transphobes profess to have on kids somehow allegedly getting harmed by going through transition, and I think an "autonomy"-based approach doesn't necessarily counter them effectively, just because we generally don't treat kids' bodily autonomy as equivalent to adults'.
posted by praemunire at 3:03 PM on March 12
I could be wrong, but I think she is in this essay, or at least advocating a position much closer to that than how we tend to conceive of non-adults' autonomy today.
The "alternative" you imply is unachievable is the best case for the current fucking status quo.
I'm not entirely sure we're understanding each other, because I'm not getting what you're referring to. If you mean the "autonomy"-based approach to gender-affirming care I outlined in my first paragraph, I think that works at least as well, in terms of respecting people and getting them what they need, as an approach for trans adults as the "benefits"-based approach, and may well be preferable, in that it argues for eliminating nearly all gatekeeping and letting people do what they want with their bodies. I don't think it's unachievable at all. (It does have a collateral weakness, though, in that it is a lot easier, at least in the U.S., to argue for public subsidization of something that relieves a condition and confers benefits than on something that "merely" helps someone exercise their autonomy over their body.)
But a lot of her essay is about trans kids, and about the weird horrible fixation the current crop of transphobes profess to have on kids somehow allegedly getting harmed by going through transition, and I think an "autonomy"-based approach doesn't necessarily counter them effectively, just because we generally don't treat kids' bodily autonomy as equivalent to adults'.
posted by praemunire at 3:03 PM on March 12
don't treat kids' bodily autonomy as equivalent to adults'.
Perhaps not now, but for the purposes of trans-related care, we must.
When a teenager goes into Planned Parenthood in New Jersey (and I suspect many states) to get a birth control implant, the parents are not notified and are kept out of the loop. To protect the child.
Same deal here.
I don't know how they handle HRT at Planned Parenthood (but they do handle it), but it would be ironic and discriminatory if they put an implant in a cis girl without parental notification, but wouldn't give a trans girl the meds she needs to put off puberty without telling her parents.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 3:12 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
Perhaps not now, but for the purposes of trans-related care, we must.
When a teenager goes into Planned Parenthood in New Jersey (and I suspect many states) to get a birth control implant, the parents are not notified and are kept out of the loop. To protect the child.
Same deal here.
I don't know how they handle HRT at Planned Parenthood (but they do handle it), but it would be ironic and discriminatory if they put an implant in a cis girl without parental notification, but wouldn't give a trans girl the meds she needs to put off puberty without telling her parents.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 3:12 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
praemunire, for a cis ally, i'd caution you that your argumentation is coming across as a kinder, more polite version of the same deleted argument that oddman had posited.
let's not be TARLish here.
posted by i used to be someone else at 3:32 PM on March 12 [2 favorites]
let's not be TARLish here.
posted by i used to be someone else at 3:32 PM on March 12 [2 favorites]
It's a Trap: How to Spot Anti-Trans Resources (Sam Wall for Scarleteen)
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:18 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:18 PM on March 12 [3 favorites]
Freddie deBoer... "And, yes, Chu is trans and I’m not. I don’t give a fuck. She’s wrong and I’m right."
🤔
posted by kokaku at 6:14 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
🤔
posted by kokaku at 6:14 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Freddie is not exactly the best source on this? Dude never met a subject he couldn't be wrong on.
posted by sagc at 6:14 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 6:14 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
If there ever was an argument that we need site-wide topic bans for certain users, this thread is it.
Or mods could actually do the work to understand dog whistles and track anti-trans participation on the site (there really are some usual suspects), and act on that knowledge, but apparently that's also a non-starter.
posted by sagc at 6:17 AM on March 13 [7 favorites]
Or mods could actually do the work to understand dog whistles and track anti-trans participation on the site (there really are some usual suspects), and act on that knowledge, but apparently that's also a non-starter.
posted by sagc at 6:17 AM on March 13 [7 favorites]
...And again we see this in the thread. Mods, my wife left Metafilter. She's been here through a lot of bad stuff, and this time she left. Know why? This. I thought I could handle the stress of reading what should be a trans-focused thread, and I'm starting to realize why I can't either.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:18 AM on March 13 [6 favorites]
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:18 AM on March 13 [6 favorites]
adds that ALC's perspective "is a terrible idea for trans people and their advocates." I think he is correct.
Apologies for not recognizing your username, but is there a particular reason why we should give weight to your thoughts on what's good for trans people?
posted by hoyland at 6:39 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Apologies for not recognizing your username, but is there a particular reason why we should give weight to your thoughts on what's good for trans people?
posted by hoyland at 6:39 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Comment linking to a Freddie deBeor essay link has been removed, due to their problematic thoughts and writings about trans issues. Comments responding to said link have been left up for some context.
PaulVario, refrain from commenting further in this thread or on trans issues on this site, as your comments are repeatedly being flagged by trans members are being problematic. Failure to do so will result in a ban.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:51 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
PaulVario, refrain from commenting further in this thread or on trans issues on this site, as your comments are repeatedly being flagged by trans members are being problematic. Failure to do so will result in a ban.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:51 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Wait, people think Freddie De Boer is problematic on this issue? The one 'contrarian' who is absolutely supportive of trans people and issues in his own writing, and who bans phobic commentary from others on his forum? Literally 90% of this thread is a criticism of ALC for being an shitposter elevated to the status of Serious Pundit!
posted by mittens at 7:06 AM on March 13
posted by mittens at 7:06 AM on March 13
Wait, people think Freddie De Boer is problematic on this issue?
Yes.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:14 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Yes.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 8:14 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
so the one with the substack, spelled freddie deboer might not himself be anti-trans but definitely has written for anti-trans, right-wing publications and is a contrarian, sneering jerk at times.
so the one with the twitter, spelled freddie de boer, is vehemently anti-trans.
so it should not a surprise that regardless of which freddie d is linked maybe it's not going to add much to the conversation.
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:57 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
so the one with the twitter, spelled freddie de boer, is vehemently anti-trans.
so it should not a surprise that regardless of which freddie d is linked maybe it's not going to add much to the conversation.
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:57 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
So, back to the actual article: Like a lot of people here, I found some really thought-provoking stuff, some of which I struggle with regularly. At its core, I think the article is reaching a conclusion about sex versus gender that I haven't seen discussed in this thread yet directly - and please, I'm really hoping that trans people are the ones whose responses are going to be in focus here:
What is biological sex? What is gender? Am I female now? Was I before? What do I put on those supposedly LGBTQ-friendly forms that ask about gender identity? About sex? (Gender assigned at birth? Biological sex?)
I don't think there's a consistent answer yet in the trans community, so I'm curious if we can or should get there.
For me, the increasing prevalence of 'biological sex' or 'sex assigned at birth' on medical forms is worrisome and frustrating. I feel that I *took care of* that and should be putting Female on everything. But I don't think there's a common consensus on it, and that worries me. By focusing on gender, we're leaving some things up in the air (and maybe that's the only way to make it all work).
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 7:03 PM on March 13 [2 favorites]
What is biological sex? What is gender? Am I female now? Was I before? What do I put on those supposedly LGBTQ-friendly forms that ask about gender identity? About sex? (Gender assigned at birth? Biological sex?)
I don't think there's a consistent answer yet in the trans community, so I'm curious if we can or should get there.
For me, the increasing prevalence of 'biological sex' or 'sex assigned at birth' on medical forms is worrisome and frustrating. I feel that I *took care of* that and should be putting Female on everything. But I don't think there's a common consensus on it, and that worries me. By focusing on gender, we're leaving some things up in the air (and maybe that's the only way to make it all work).
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 7:03 PM on March 13 [2 favorites]
There's exactly one place I'm aware of where "sex assigned at birth" is actually what is needed, and that's Selective Service (and that's "what was on the first birth certificate you were issued" which could technically be different, nor do they ask for a gender marker).* A form asking for "sex assigned at birth" is basically a sign of cluelessness from my perspective. Sometimes it's cis people thinking it's the "polite" way of asking if you're trans and they earnestly think they need that info (because they're being "inclusive", you see). But mostly it tells me I shouldn't trust them -- if they think that's information they're going to be able to act on in some way, that just means they're making wild assumptions. In my mind, "biological sex" is largely meaningless, at least at an individual level. Whatever definition you come up with, we can find a way it breaks down. At a population level, humans are fairly dyadic, but not perfectly so, so stop building systems assuming some perfect binary division.
*To be clear, Selective Service assumes the sex you were assigned at birth based on... something. (It's been a while since I've paid attention, but last I was aware, no one actually knows what it is--you can find someone who's successfully registered with an F on any of the obvious places, and also people whose attempt at registering failed. ) At any rate, you can find yourself in the position of needing to demonstrate you weren't required to register due to being afab.
posted by hoyland at 9:49 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
*To be clear, Selective Service assumes the sex you were assigned at birth based on... something. (It's been a while since I've paid attention, but last I was aware, no one actually knows what it is--you can find someone who's successfully registered with an F on any of the obvious places, and also people whose attempt at registering failed. ) At any rate, you can find yourself in the position of needing to demonstrate you weren't required to register due to being afab.
posted by hoyland at 9:49 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Flighthardware, such good questions.
I (a nonbinary person) recently encountered those supposedly LGBTQ forms when the business that employ me was bought by an American company.
Suddenly my employers, who up to now only asked me my name, ID number and contact details, want to know my gender identity and sex? Hell no. Not filling that out.
And so many forms asking "male/female" with sometimes an "other" or a "diverse" thrown in there too, and I'm not sure what they're actually asking?
This is particularly irritating when someone else is filling in a form on my behalf, and they don't check with me but just go with their assumptions. Shout out to the young fundraiser for Doctors Without Borders who did exactly that but accepted my correction without missing a beat.
I think a lot of cis people don't know what they don't know, and don't realise that trans people (like everyone else) don't all subscribe to a simple narrative that describes them eg not every trans person feels "trapped in the wrong body" and not every trans person believes that sex and gender identity are seperate.
I think that the article strikes at the heart of the question by acknowledging that it's about the autonomy of children, and about untangling trans identity from pathologising ideas about mental health.
I didn't choose to be nonbinary, but I found the idea that even if I did choose, that choice would be just as valid, liberating.
Suddenly I was no longer digging in my psyche for the nonexistent dial pointing at neither "man" or "woman", and I stopped feeling like an imposter every time I came out to someone.
So what if I possibly fooled myself into thinking I'm nonbinary? That doesn't make me any less nonbinary.
I'm 52 and I've long ago worked my way through dysphoria, so I'm unlikely to want surgery or hormonal transition. But that doesn't mean that, because I was forced to find other ways, my past pre-teen self would have been, somehow, wrong to choose a different path.
I went through hell during puberty without even being aware of it because there were no words for the experience at the time. If I was 11 years old right now, I have no idea what I would choose.
But I know that I would not be helped by the absolutely insane attention being paid to that question by everyone, trans and cis alike, all applying pressure for me to affirm their particular take on how biology /gender etc should "really" work. As if my choices were as an ambassador for [insert identity they want me to have] instead of as a private person who is figuring themself out and changing over time.
Not that the pressure is coming equally from trans and cis people, or is equally harmful, it obviously is not.
posted by Zumbador at 10:14 PM on March 13 [4 favorites]
I (a nonbinary person) recently encountered those supposedly LGBTQ forms when the business that employ me was bought by an American company.
Suddenly my employers, who up to now only asked me my name, ID number and contact details, want to know my gender identity and sex? Hell no. Not filling that out.
And so many forms asking "male/female" with sometimes an "other" or a "diverse" thrown in there too, and I'm not sure what they're actually asking?
This is particularly irritating when someone else is filling in a form on my behalf, and they don't check with me but just go with their assumptions. Shout out to the young fundraiser for Doctors Without Borders who did exactly that but accepted my correction without missing a beat.
I think a lot of cis people don't know what they don't know, and don't realise that trans people (like everyone else) don't all subscribe to a simple narrative that describes them eg not every trans person feels "trapped in the wrong body" and not every trans person believes that sex and gender identity are seperate.
I think that the article strikes at the heart of the question by acknowledging that it's about the autonomy of children, and about untangling trans identity from pathologising ideas about mental health.
I didn't choose to be nonbinary, but I found the idea that even if I did choose, that choice would be just as valid, liberating.
Suddenly I was no longer digging in my psyche for the nonexistent dial pointing at neither "man" or "woman", and I stopped feeling like an imposter every time I came out to someone.
So what if I possibly fooled myself into thinking I'm nonbinary? That doesn't make me any less nonbinary.
I'm 52 and I've long ago worked my way through dysphoria, so I'm unlikely to want surgery or hormonal transition. But that doesn't mean that, because I was forced to find other ways, my past pre-teen self would have been, somehow, wrong to choose a different path.
I went through hell during puberty without even being aware of it because there were no words for the experience at the time. If I was 11 years old right now, I have no idea what I would choose.
But I know that I would not be helped by the absolutely insane attention being paid to that question by everyone, trans and cis alike, all applying pressure for me to affirm their particular take on how biology /gender etc should "really" work. As if my choices were as an ambassador for [insert identity they want me to have] instead of as a private person who is figuring themself out and changing over time.
Not that the pressure is coming equally from trans and cis people, or is equally harmful, it obviously is not.
posted by Zumbador at 10:14 PM on March 13 [4 favorites]
Flight hardware, I think we lost something when we stopped calling it a "sex change".
It feels like these days there's more room for transphobes and idiots to say "oh sure you're a woman but that's just gender, your sex is still male".
posted by june_dodecahedron at 12:58 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
It feels like these days there's more room for transphobes and idiots to say "oh sure you're a woman but that's just gender, your sex is still male".
posted by june_dodecahedron at 12:58 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
The terms "assigned male at birth," "assigned female at birth" and "assigned gender/sex at birth" were invented within the intersex community to describe the very specific and traumatic experience of being an intersex person born with "ambiguous" or otherwise non-normative genitalia that were then, frequently without the parents' consent and certainly without the infant's consent, surgically altered to better conform to the expectations of the dyadic hegemony. I have witnessed great frustration and anger within that community over endosex trans people's appropriation and dilution of that terminology, and for this reason I discourage its use by those who are not intersex.
I, personally, do believe that there is value in having vocabulary which allows trans people to discuss our pre-transition selves while still maintaining a degree of objectivity and distance, and have seen "assumed female/male at birth," rather than "assigned," suggested as a compromise, but I do not know if any consensus exists among the intersex community regarding this phrasing, so I would recommend caution when using it.
Regarding paperwork, the only context (short of the very, very personal) in which one's natal biology is relevant is medical. Trans and intersex advocates have suggested that medical institutions replace questions regarding "assigned/assumed gender/sex" with an anatomical checklist. It may be relevant, for example, for a doctor to know that I was born with an appendix but no longer have one, and a checklist asking "Were you born with [organ]?" and "Do you still have [organ]?" would achieve this goal without raising awkward and irrelevant questions of identity.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:29 AM on March 14 [3 favorites]
I, personally, do believe that there is value in having vocabulary which allows trans people to discuss our pre-transition selves while still maintaining a degree of objectivity and distance, and have seen "assumed female/male at birth," rather than "assigned," suggested as a compromise, but I do not know if any consensus exists among the intersex community regarding this phrasing, so I would recommend caution when using it.
Regarding paperwork, the only context (short of the very, very personal) in which one's natal biology is relevant is medical. Trans and intersex advocates have suggested that medical institutions replace questions regarding "assigned/assumed gender/sex" with an anatomical checklist. It may be relevant, for example, for a doctor to know that I was born with an appendix but no longer have one, and a checklist asking "Were you born with [organ]?" and "Do you still have [organ]?" would achieve this goal without raising awkward and irrelevant questions of identity.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:29 AM on March 14 [3 favorites]
hoyland: demonstrate you weren't required to register due to being afab.
Yes, legally, it's important - very good point. Morally? I really, really don't think trans women should be required to be registered if cis women aren't. Mind you, I think the whole draft thing is morally bankrupt, but that's me the pacifist talking.
Faint of Butt: natal biology is relevant is medical
I think you bring up some really important situations I hadn't considered. I do, despite me not being terribly happy about it, have a prostate.
That said, I'm still not going to disclose on a medical form. I'll tell my doctor directly if I need to - and HRT makes it so it's rarely relevant.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:12 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Yes, legally, it's important - very good point. Morally? I really, really don't think trans women should be required to be registered if cis women aren't. Mind you, I think the whole draft thing is morally bankrupt, but that's me the pacifist talking.
Faint of Butt: natal biology is relevant is medical
I think you bring up some really important situations I hadn't considered. I do, despite me not being terribly happy about it, have a prostate.
That said, I'm still not going to disclose on a medical form. I'll tell my doctor directly if I need to - and HRT makes it so it's rarely relevant.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:12 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
The terms "assigned male at birth," "assigned female at birth" and "assigned gender/sex at birth" were invented within the intersex community ... I have witnessed great frustration and anger within that community over endosex trans people's appropriation and dilution of that terminology, and for this reason I discourage its use by those who are not intersex.
That's a TERF psyop to play "let's you and them have a fight" between intersex and trans people and to try and get transphobic intersex people (who can define themselves as valid, with a "real" medical condition, as opposed to and in competition for medical resources and social capital with "fake" trans people) on side with organized transphobes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:29 PM on March 15 [5 favorites]
That's a TERF psyop to play "let's you and them have a fight" between intersex and trans people and to try and get transphobic intersex people (who can define themselves as valid, with a "real" medical condition, as opposed to and in competition for medical resources and social capital with "fake" trans people) on side with organized transphobes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:29 PM on March 15 [5 favorites]
Pope Guilty, a similar tactic is to say that nonbinary people shouldn't call themselves "NB" because that's an acronym black people use for people who aren't black (non black)
Weirdly, I've only ever seen white people make this statement, although I'm sure there are black people who also do.
posted by Zumbador at 9:36 PM on March 15
Weirdly, I've only ever seen white people make this statement, although I'm sure there are black people who also do.
posted by Zumbador at 9:36 PM on March 15
Probably at least a decade ago, there was some discussion around "coercively assigned X at birth" having been appropriated from intersex spaces, but the term never really caught on in that form in the first place.
Yes, legally, it's important - very good point. Morally? I really, really don't think trans women should be required to be registered if cis women aren't. Mind you, I think the whole draft thing is morally bankrupt, but that's me the pacifist talking.
It is interesting, though, that the one place it matters is directly tied to the power of the state and its ability to coerce. I don't really have a fully formed thought here -- one could argue that basically all gender markers are about institutional power and that's certainly not wrong, but it stands out that Selective Service is the "unchangeable" one (for everyone in the US; some people can change everything else) and the one that jobs and financial aid are held hostage to.
posted by hoyland at 10:05 PM on March 15 [2 favorites]
Yes, legally, it's important - very good point. Morally? I really, really don't think trans women should be required to be registered if cis women aren't. Mind you, I think the whole draft thing is morally bankrupt, but that's me the pacifist talking.
It is interesting, though, that the one place it matters is directly tied to the power of the state and its ability to coerce. I don't really have a fully formed thought here -- one could argue that basically all gender markers are about institutional power and that's certainly not wrong, but it stands out that Selective Service is the "unchangeable" one (for everyone in the US; some people can change everything else) and the one that jobs and financial aid are held hostage to.
posted by hoyland at 10:05 PM on March 15 [2 favorites]
(For cis people who might be wondering: there's a thing called a Status Information Letter that states you were not required to register. People who immigrated to the US after age 26 are the main group who might need it.)
posted by hoyland at 10:09 PM on March 15
posted by hoyland at 10:09 PM on March 15
« Older Hangboarding pays off. | "We're at the end of a vast, multi-faceted con of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Going To Maine at 11:20 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]